Military Review

They called me "Eaglet" in the detachment, the enemies called Eagle

299
They called me "Eaglet" in the detachment, the enemies called Eagle



The average air pressure at sea level is 760 mmHg. Art.
The average air pressure at the height of 11 000 meters is much lower - 170 mm Hg. Art.
The aircraft should have the most lightweight design.
The ship, on the contrary, must be strong and heavy to withstand the blows of the sea.

To form an air cushion, an ekranoplane needs to accelerate to 200 and more than km / h - only then the multi-ton monster broke away from the surface and soared gracefully a few meters above the crests of the waves.

In other words:

Water is denser than air 770 times. To gain take-off speed and overcome the resistance force of the aquatic environment, the 300-ton ekranoplane “Lun”, whose float body had a draft of almost 3 meter, required thrust 1 million Newtons.



Extreme performance was achieved by installing eight turbojet power plants, similar to the engines of the Airbus IL-86.

The monstrous appearance of a ground-effect vehicle (EKP) “Lun” with a string of engines sticking out from the front, a body-float and a giant tail tail gave a cumulative effect of increasing the air resistance force during the flight. All the tales about the "high" fuel efficiency of the RPC and the shutdown of some of the engines after entering the screen mode of flight are nothing more than tales for impressionable inhabitants. The length of the flight "Lunya" was only 2000 km - several times less than that of any transport aircraft or bomber-missile
Air Force of those years.

At the same time, the payload of the RPC was smaller than that of any aircraft of similar size.


Is there a great resistance to this "Gusedinorog"?


What did you think? Nature does not tolerate a joke.

The creators of ekranoplanes tried to break all the basic laws aviationbut life quickly put everything in its place. It was not possible to deceive the Earth’s atmosphere: the positive effect of the “screen effect” was completely leveled by the greater force of air resistance at sea level. As a result, the sleek, streamlined IL-86 flew rapidly through rarefied atmospheric layers at a speed of 900 km / h, and the eight-engine Lun barely dragged along the surface, struggling to overcome the resistance of dense air.

Instead of the fabulous "firebird", it turned out to be just a degraded version of a seaplane with castrated LTH and a short range.

At the same time, the field of application of WIG was limited to open sea spaces - unlike airplanes, which, in principle, are indifferent to the relief under the wing (Ural, Siberia, Himalayas ... we fly to any point of the globe).

It does not make sense to compare the “Lun”, like any ekranoplan, with a ship - the ECP is deprived of the main advantage of the sea transport - its carrying capacity. The payload of even the largest and most sophisticated ekranoplans designed by R. Alekseev was insignificant against the background of conventional bulk carriers and container ships.


Sea vessels are what they are! Strong!

In addition, ships are the cheapest form of transport. Most customers prefer to wait an extra couple of weeks, but save millions. And for the delivery of urgent goods there is always a plane.

Against the background of EKP transport aviation, it looked like a bicycle on the background of a Gazel minibus - the Orlyonok transport-combat ground-wing vehicle (EK) took aboard 3-4 times less cargo than the An-22 Antey. Moreover, the elderly "Antey" was in 1,5 times faster than the "Eaglet" and had a greater flight range in 2.

Everything is as usual. An ekranoplan proved to be a useless plane and a bad ship.

The idea of ​​using an EKP as a strike rocket carrier looked equally dubious: the Lun was four times slower than the Tu-22M and, of course, had a smaller combat radius in 2.

The only argument of the ECP supporters is the low flight altitude, which allegedly impedes their detection by the enemy. This would be true only in the absence of long-range radar detection aircraft and aircraft radar with a mapping mode and a search for targets on the background of the surface (radar synthesis of aperture). In reality, any “Hokai”, “Sentry” or A-50 will see a “gusedeinorog” for many hundreds of kilometers with all the ensuing consequences.
The second point is target designation. Unlike a Tu-22M flying at a high altitude, the “Gusedeunorog” does not see anything beyond its nose.


Jet flying boat weapons) Martin P6M Seamaster, 1955 year. According to some reports, it was also tested in the WIG mode. Having received the first results, the Yankees abandoned the project.

The significantly higher speed of the RPC compared to the missile cruiser is a useless argument. The cruiser, in contrast to the “Gusedinorog”, possesses a powerful complex of defensive weapons (S-300F, etc.), which makes it a much more serious opponent than the ECP.
Slow, blind, with a small radius of action, without defensive means, but at the same time terribly expensive (what are eight TRDs!) And gluttonous nedosamolet - that’s what the Wunderwaffers were trying to arm the Russian Navy with. R.E. Alekseeva.

Another fun project is a sea rescue EKP based on the Lun missile carrier. I wonder how, then, did this grief-rescuer plan to search for the shipwrecked? With an altitude of 5 meters, at a speed of 300-400-500 km / h - the crew of ECP will simply not see the rafts and people in life jackets swinging on the waves.

Here you need a specialized helicopter - with a radar, a heat finder and powerful searchlights, patrolling a couple of hundred meters above the water and methodically examining tens of kilometers of the sea surface.

And this is another masterpiece, the beloved brainchild of Rostislav Alekseev. Gigantic WIG (also known as the "Caspian Monster").



Having seen this miracle of technology, the military were speechless. "Monster" was set in motion by TEN engines RD-7, taken from a Tu-22 bomber! It is known that only for a set of take-off speed of the CM a lot of 30 tons of kerosene were required.

At the same time, its carrying capacity was not as great as it might seem - 200 ... 240 tons - only 1,5 ... 1,8 times more than that of heavy transport aircraft - C-5 "Galaxy" (the same age as KM) or An-124 "Ruslan ". At the same time, the planes were many times superior to the giant ECP in speed, flight range and economy. And, of course, they could fly over both land and sea — the relief under the wing did not matter to them.


Landing IL-76 on a glacier in Antarctica

It is absolutely pointless to compare CM with sea transport - ocean liner container ship exceeds CM with a load capacity more than 100 times.

It is a pity that such a wonderful designer, who had previously created a series of legendary ships on hydrofoils (“Comet”, etc.), suddenly became carried away with the unrealizable dream of the fabulous “Guseedinorog”. All further creations of Rostislav Alekseev and his colleagues cause, at a minimum, bewilderment. CM, "Orlyonok", "Lun" ...
A-90 "Eaglet" ... The world's first serial transport and combat ground-effect vehicle, released in the amount of four flight-capable samples.

Exactly 20 years ago, in the fall of 1993, at the 11th Caspian base flotilla The Russian Navy held the last ekranoplan flight “Orlyonok” - the flight took place in the presence of many foreign guests from the Pentagon, NASA and American aircraft manufacturing companies, including working group of engineers led by aviconstructor Burt Rutan.

20 years have passed, but no serious work in this direction has been noted - neither here nor abroad. Obviously, the Orlyonok was not particularly impressed by the Yankees with its capabilities ...

The only development within the framework of this subject - the super-heavy EKP Boeing Pelican ULTRA 2700 ton take-off weight was initially unfeasible and unviable project. Work on the "Pelican" was completely curtailed in 2006 year.

So, transport and combat ekranoplan "Eaglet". He was able to carry up to 20 tons of payload on board - the RPC cargo compartment was designed for an 2 armored personnel carrier or an 200 landing force man. The cargo was delivered to a distance of 1500 km with a cruising speed of 400 km / h.



The new ekranoplan looked swiftly and gracefully - instead of the usual “garland” of engines, only one turboprop NK-12 from the Tu-95 bomber. Really this time Rostislav Alekseev managed to make a miracle by building a fast and economical vehicle that uses a “screen effect” when driving?

So, so ... let's carefully examine this miracle of technology. But what is it sticking out in the nose of the economical single-engine "Eaglet"? There is still a couple of engines - turbojet NK-8 from the Tu-154 airliner.
BUT! Not bad for a humble wig?



For comparison, having a similar carrying capacity, the An-12 aircraft has a range of 3600 km (with a load of 20 tons) at a cruising speed of 550 ... 600 km / h. At the same time, the power of all four of its AI-20 engines (4 x 4250 hp in takeoff mode) is less than the power of one TVD NK-12 in the tail end of the ground effect vehicle.

Trying to find at least one advantage in the Orlyonok compared to an ordinary plane, they often cite as an example the case when one of the machines at high speed “grazed” the stern surface of the water. A powerful blow snatched the entire tail section along with the powerplant marching. Nevertheless, the pilots managed to bring the crippled RPC to the shore using nasal jet engines.

The above “virtue”, on the contrary, is a disadvantage. To understand the meaning of what happened, just ask one question - how did the tail section touch the water? The answer is simple - a ground-effect vehicle is flying just a few meters above the surface. An erroneous movement of the elevator, a sudden decrease in engine thrust, a too high wave, or a sharp gust of side wind — the pilots have no chance to react and correct the error. Unlike a plane flying at a considerable height and usually having a few dozen “holy seconds” in stock to correct the situation.

It is noteworthy that in the 1980 year, under completely similar circumstances, when hitting the water, the Caspian Monster crashed to smithereens.

Three engines and total 20 tons of payload. Flight range 1500 km. Limited scope. Problems of maneuverability and too much turning radius - how to lower the wing console, if water is splashing in 5 meters below?

No, the Eaglet "Eaglet" is completely unsuitable for use in peacetime - neither military nor commercial customers will agree to fly twice as slowly (and only over the sea), while paying for a ticket in 2 times the price compared with the aircraft.

The only more or less adequate scope for the "Eaglet" is a lightning landing of amphibious assault forces at a short range - for example, transferring several battalions of marines from Novorossiysk to Turkish Trabzon. Or land a landing party on the island of Hokkaido (the ECP range will not be enough further).

At first glance, the ground effect vehicle shows some advantages compared with the classic amphibious means:

1. Speed! "Orlyonok" is able to reach the Turkish coast in an hour.

2. The possibility of landing on unequipped coast (gently sloping beach).

3. An EKP is somewhat more resistant to combat damage (although is there a difference? An air-to-air rocket hit will equally destroy any EKP and transport IL-76).

4. The “Eaglet”, unlike the landing ships, is immune from minefields (as well as any aircraft technician).

It would seem a good deal.

However, with a little more detailed study of the situation, an obvious conclusion arises: landing on Turkey or on Hokkaido with the help of the Orlyonok is a cheap profanation.

It's not so much the general illogicality of such an event (attack on a NATO country? Third World War?)
The problem is much more serious - the “Eaglet” is too small carrying capacity - only 20 tons. This is not enough to raise even one main battle tank. Moreover, the tank will require more than one ...

Small troops, deprived of the support of heavy armored vehicles, will be immediately destroyed and thrown into the sea. There is no reason to doubt it - we already had one joker who promised to take Grozny with an airborne regiment.

When conducting amphibious landings, one cannot do without hovercraft - for comparison, the small landing ship "Bison" is able to take on board three main combat tank total mass of 150 tons and up to 140 marines.



Smaller, compared to EKP, speed (100 + km / h) is compensated for by a greater payload and the presence of defensive armament - AK-630 automatic anti-aircraft batteries and MANPADS. For fire support on board there are two systems MLRS caliber 140 mm.

As for the covert outburst of the advanced reconnaissance and sabotage detachment, the ECP is not the case here at all. Such tasks are much more effectively solved by military transport aviation, helicopters and convertible planes - an advantage in speed + the possibility of landing in the depth of the enemy’s territory.
"Orlyonok" again left without work. It is not suitable for carrying out amphibious operations - its carrying capacity is totally inadequate.

Epilogue

Regardless of our reasoning, история issued its fair verdict to the ECP and their creators. The ships moving on the border of two environments and trying to break the canons of aerodynamics turned out to be a dead-end branch of technology. Despite all the enthusiasm of designer R.E. Alekseeva and the “golden era” of the Soviet Union, the development of new FPC has almost stopped. For 20 years of work on the creation of machines that use the screen effect while driving, Rostislav Evgenievich managed to build only a couple of actual samples in full size - CM and Orlyonok. After the tragic death of Alekseev in 1980, his followers gave birth to three more flying Eaglet and the new WIG-carrier Lun.


An-74 on the ice base "Barneo", the North Pole area



Those who believe that the Arctic is as smooth as a skating rink, and the wig - the ideal vehicle for the development of the Arctic are greatly mistaken. ECP rips its belly on the first oncoming hummock.

And this is at a time when any ideas received the broadest support at the state level, the USSR did not spare funds for the development of the military-industrial complex!

A dreary ballad about the imperfection of technology in the assembly of EKP and the absence of suitable materials can impress only junior students of humanitarian specialties. “Colleagues” of Rostislav Alekseev - aircraft designer M.L. Milyu and N.I. Ten years were enough for Kamov to “unwind” and switch to the mass production of his wonderful cars - thousands of helicopters dispersed around the world. Without complaints about the imperfection of technology and the lack of suitable power plants.

It's not about power plants. And not in the machinations of opponents R. Alekseev, who wanted to destroy the ingenious designer.

The ekranoplan was unable to demonstrate any convincing advantage, compared with conventional aircraft. Airplane - speed. Helicopter - the possibility of hovering in the air and taking off from limited sites. But what can an ekranoplan? Deteriorated version of the seaplane, capable of flying only over the open sea.

Even in prosperous Soviet times, Alekseev found no military or civilian customers for ekranoplans. The sailors, barely recognizing such monsters and appreciating the prospect of maintenance and repair of ten jet engines in the front-line units (when operating in marine conditions: humidity, salt deposits), completely abandoned their plans to purchase the Unusable Goose. Moreover, no distinct advantages, they did not have - some drawbacks.

But even more surprisingly, the idea of ​​ekranoplanostroeniya adult violent color in modern Russia. Our compatriots like ECP - and nothing can be done about it: the voice of reason is powerless before blind love.

Perhaps nostalgia for the glorious times of the USSR is to blame. The huge roaring monster that flies over the sea, raising clouds of foam and spray, is probably the best interpretation of the feelings of the Russians who yearn for the great achievements of our past.





Postscript

28 of October of this year "Military Review" published an article by a certain Oleg Kaptsov, "They called me" Eaglet "in the detachment, the enemies called it the Eagle."

The author's theses themselves are a rare nonsense arising from Kaptsov’s ignorance of many historical and technical aspects of the domestic ekranoplanostroeniya. In addition, Kaptsov sucked the "facts" about the last (!) Flight of the Eaglet in 1993 that had no place to be.

But I do not know.

Kaptsov did not forget to sign his opus, however, without asking permission and even without specifying the source, he illegally published my author's photos, “borrowed” by him from the network media “Lenta.ru,”.


Oleg Kaptsov brings his sincere apologies to journalist, historian and photographer Dmitry Grinyuk for accidentally getting three of his author's pictures into the photo series of the article “They called me“ Orlyonok ”in the detachment, the enemies called Eagle”


If D. Grinyuk, after reading this material, any constructive arguments have appeared ("rare nonsense" is not), the author (O. Kaptsov) will be happy to see them in the comments to the article or in personal correspondence.

Also, it is interesting to find out what exactly you had in mind when indignant about the facts about the last flight of the Eaglet in 1993? Similar facts can be found at the link indicated in your letter.

Sincerely, Oleg Kaptsov.
Author:
Photos used:
Dmitry Grinyuk, http://lenta.ru/photo/2013/10/23/orlenok/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#0
299 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 28 October 2013 09: 23
    +2
    Isn't it that bad?
    1. avt
      avt 28 October 2013 10: 11
      +6
      Quote: Rinat 1
      Isn't it that bad?

      Yes. As with aircraft carriers.
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 28 October 2013 11: 54
        +2
        Quote: avt
        Yes. As with aircraft carriers

        The author of the article claims that the development of ekranoplanes is a waste of money. Useless lesson. Who claims similar about aircraft carriers and where?
        1. avt
          avt 28 October 2013 14: 07
          +4
          Quote: Hedgehog
          Who claims similar about aircraft carriers and where?

          It seems that you have read the author's articles for the first time, look on the site and see who and where asserts, "like" and what Oleg has to do with this, he completely subscribes to his opinion.
        2. Delta
          Delta 28 October 2013 14: 38
          +2
          Quote: Hedgehog
          The author of the article claims that the development of ekranoplanes is a waste of money. Useless lesson. Who claims similar about aircraft carriers and where?


          the same author claims in his numerous articles
      2. varov14
        varov14 1 November 2013 19: 05
        0
        I also liked it, but I'm a pragmatist, I need anti-gravity while in the box.
    2. Argon
      Argon 28 October 2013 10: 46
      13
      I have never read a more incompetent article on this site, I would like to recommend the author, at least consult with engineers before publishing such comparisons of "warm with heavy". By the way, I note that the ekranoplan \ years is able to break away from the surface even at a speed of 0 km \ h, but the exit to the "screen" occurs at a certain speed, but this is only one of the modes of operation of the apparatus (albeit the main one), its peculiarity is that control of the vertical speed is not necessary, only control. not what, sorry.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 28 October 2013 11: 08
        +2
        I agree. The author is a committed ignoramus, and besides, it's simple.
      2. Professor
        Professor 28 October 2013 11: 09
        +2
        Quote: Argon
        By the way, I will note that the ekranoplan \ years is able to break away from the surface even at a speed of 0 km \ h, but the exit to the "screen" occurs at a certain speed, but this is only one of the modes of movement of the apparatus (albeit the main one), its feature is that control vertical speed is not needed, only control

        And how does this happen? You already enlighten pliz.
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 28 October 2013 11: 38
          +4
          Oh, you, and also the professor - “Wingardium Leviosa”, even children know that.
          1. Professor
            Professor 28 October 2013 11: 40
            +1
            Quote: chunga-changa
            Oh, you, and also the professor - “Wingardium Leviosa”, even children know that.

            When I was a child, we flew mainly through kicks of older comrades. wassat
      3. Parabelum
        Parabelum 28 October 2013 11: 09
        +4
        Quote: Argon
        By the way, I note that the ekranoplane \ years is able to tear off the surface even at a speed of 0km \ h,

        Is it like vertical takeoff? You somehow separate these concepts of "lifting off the surface" and "going to the screen". I am certainly not an expert in the field of ekranoplanes, but it seems to me that "going to the screen" without "taking off from the surface" is impossible, especially from 0 km / h.
      4. de_monSher
        de_monSher 28 October 2013 13: 32
        +2
        ekranoplan \ yo able to break away from the surface even at a speed of 0km \ h


        Wow ... wow ... well, well, well - enlighten us, how it's done... *)
      5. Col.
        Col. 28 October 2013 14: 25
        +7
        Quote: Argon
        I’ve never read a more competent article on this site,


        In general, Oleg sometimes engages in thankless and useless work in his articles - he tries to compare the incomparable. It is not clear why? It’s stupid, say, to argue that it’s better - a fork or a spoon. There are many criteria for evaluating models of armaments and military equipment for a variety of parameters, which are indicated in tactical and technical task to develop them. It is clear that none of us have read the TTZ on ekranoplans. Therefore, to reason and draw conclusions can be infinite. One thing is clear: ekranoplans were designed and built not in vain, for special tasks that no one would have solved them more effectively. Sorry, but minus the article.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 45
          +2
          Well, he compared by many criteria, everywhere feil. And what was being built, not even a noticeable series was built; there is no progress abroad, which, as it were, clearly characterizes the degree of need for the apparatus. The amount of rubles and dollars thrown into the wind goes to many options. It’s enough to recall the tiltrotors of which the only serial V-22 has been sawed for 30 years, and in fact a poor small transport plane, albeit with a vertical landing, is bought at the price of a fighter.
          1. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 17: 53
            +3
            Convertoplanes are still not so hopeless. The concept will be revised and improved. It's like Leonardo Da Vinci's "tank" - there is an idea, with the implementation of the problem laughing
            The plane and the helicopter will sooner or later merge together, and this is happening now (yes, the same F-35B-VTOL aircraft, but from the same opera example) Is it unprofitable? Slow plane \ expensive, uneconomical helicopter? But you can't combine it right away. The task is too difficult. And yet the trend is evident. Remember the same F-111, how many "experts" shouted that a tactical bomber and a fighter are different machines, and to combine them in one corps is stupidity. The plane was scolded, citing more specialized and therefore efficient machines as an example. And what do we see today? All modern aircraft of the 4+ \ 4 ++ generation continue to be called fighters rather by tradition. Because these are both scouts and tactical bombers, and not "ersatz" at all, but very even specialists who use the whole range of high-precision weapons, capable of performing mapping tasks, electronic warfare, and so on. Remember the same F-15A, and compare with the F-15SE.
            As for ekranoplanes, I am sure that the idea will find a niche for itself, but in their current form these machines are really unprofitable (at least economically), and in terms of the country's defense, they are not very useful. Unfortunately, I see this point of view not only in this article, and, in fairness, I will note that I have never met a worthy refutation. To those who write, they say, "the author is not in the subject," the question is, what is the refutation? what arguments will you have in favor of ekranoplanes?
            1. Santa Fe
              28 October 2013 18: 41
              0
              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              ... To those who write, they say "the author is not in the subject," the question is, what is the refutation? what arguments will you have in favor of ekranoplanes?

              This is the whole problem.
            2. Avenger711
              Avenger711 28 October 2013 19: 51
              +1
              Intelligent fighter bombers do not exist; there are fighter jets on which bombs are hung for lack of something better. There are many reasons and the complexity of electronics is far from the main one.
              F-111 bomber clean. Like a fighter flipped completely.
              1. SkiF_RnD
                SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 21: 53
                +1
                The fact that the F-111 failed, I probably know without you, with all due respect, did you read my post? Because that's what I wrote about. Why are you correcting me? I didn’t say that the F-111 is a successful project. The fact that I put him in a row with Osprey and ekranoplanes should have been suggestive, no?
                As for fighter-bombers, can I elaborate more?
                What was wrong with Rafale, Eurofighter, Grippen, F-16, F-18, indicated in the first post of the F-15SE?
                Here you have both anti-ship missiles and missiles with PRGSN against air defense systems, "Mavericks", which means that you can even "slap" the tank, or open the bunker. And gliding bombs with a range of 60 km and guidance according to NAVSTAR. And cruise missiles "air-to-ground" with a range of up to 250 (Storm Shadow), and even 500 km (TAURUS).
                This is a serial technique. The weapons to it, too, are not experimental, and not 15 were produced.
                And all these are fighters, they are bombers.
                Do not take it to heart, I do not want to hurt anyone, but still you are probably one of those who put a minus, right? fellow
                So what do you say, there are no fighter-bombers? (full-fledged, of course, "effective", and not for lack of a better)
              2. Col.
                Col. 29 October 2013 09: 46
                0
                Quote: Avenger711
                F-111 bomber clean. Like a fighter flipped completely.


                Wrong. According to the American classification, the F-111 is a tactical fighter (in our classification, a fighter-bomber). Their classification is very simple: B - bomber; FB - fighter-bomber (or tactical fighter-based bomber); F - tactical fighter, air defense fighter; A - attack aircraft; R - scout, etc.
                1. Santa Fe
                  29 October 2013 19: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Colonel
                  According to the American classification of F-111

                  We have previously discussed this issue.
                  Classification is a vague thing, and often (for many reasons: secrecy, organizational issues, etc.) does not reflect the reality

                  prime example - F-117
                  or the fact that A-10 attack aircraft are armed with fighter wings (Fighter Air Wing)

                  The F-111 is a "pocket" strategic bomber. I am very happy that this monster has been removed from service. He was really dangerous. "Twelve tons is a dangerous cargo, and we are flying to bomb the Union"
        2. varov14
          varov14 1 November 2013 19: 31
          0
          From a technical point of view, the ekranoplan is certainly cool, from the economic point of view, it's already strained, and from the military point of view - imagine a "flock" of unmanned aerial vehicles flying closer to the water, but at a higher speed, and armed with missiles, but made using invisible technology, they will bring fear more.
      6. Walker1975
        Walker1975 28 October 2013 14: 36
        +2
        Quote: Argon
        By the way, I will note that the ekranoplan \ years is able to break away from the surface even at a speed of 0 km \ h, but the exit to the "screen" occurs at a certain speed, but this is only one of the modes of movement of the apparatus (albeit the main one), its feature is that control vertical speed is not needed, only control.


        And due to what will the separation occur at a speed of 0 km / h?

        And what speed is needed to exit the screen and how to achieve it?
      7. Avenger711
        Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 39
        +3
        I did not have to read more incompetent nonsense. How damn it is possible to get lift at 0 km / h? Attach a helicopter screw?
        1. SPACE
          SPACE 28 October 2013 22: 16
          +3
          Quote: Avenger711
          How damn it is possible to get lift at 0 km / h? Attach a helicopter screw?

          Quote: Walker1975
          And due to what will the separation occur at a speed of 0 km / h?

          Quote: de_monSher
          Wow ... wow ... well, well, well - enlighten us how this is done ... *)

          Quote: Professor
          And how does this happen? You already enlighten pliz.

          Quote: chunga-changa
          Oh, you, and also the professor - “Wingardium Leviosa”, even children know that.

          8 powerful engines blow the wing from above with a high flow rate creating rarefaction and lift, part of the flow from the engines goes under the wing, creating a dynamic air cushion. (A similar principle is laid down in the new AN-70 cargo plane, screws blow the wing from above). But since the engines are on the ECP, they move it, we can talk about the lifting force at minimum speed. This explains the need for so many engines to start moving on water and by land, by the way, when accelerating to the speed of a stable screen, 6 engines are turned off. Rostislav Alekseev GENIUS, and his cars were ahead of time and comparing them with airplanes and ships is stupid, the main advantages of the WIG 1. The speed is greater than the ship. 2. The carrying capacity is higher than that of an airplane. And in the version of the landing Eaglet and shock Lun, the hunter for strategic nuclear submarines and AUGs are very, very promising!
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The average air pressure at sea level is 760 mmHg. Art.
          The average air pressure at an altitude of 11 000 meters is much lower - 170 mm Hg. st

          How much different pressure and resistance, so different will be the lifting force.
          1. Santa Fe
            28 October 2013 23: 14
            0
            Quote: SPACE
            ) But since the engines are on the ECP, they move it, we can talk about the lifting force at minimum speed.

            At a speed of 0 km / h, they will not be able to tear the ECP from the surface. even empty



            he will crawl over the surface, overcoming the huge resistance of water
            Quote: SPACE
            Rostislav Alekseev GENIUS

            Who argues with this))
            But Kamov and Miles are petty crooks and crooks. Even though they collected 20 cars each, and Alekseev 000 in 2 years. That is OK. The main thing is he is a genius.
            Quote: SPACE
            This explains the need for so many engines to start moving on water

            Ktozh is to blame. Themselves asked for
            Nature doesn't like jokes
            Quote: SPACE
            when accelerating to a steady screen speed, 6 engines turn off

            And they will serve as a cool ballast and air brake. As well as the ship's anchor with which Alekseev equipped his "masterpieces"

            ps / in reality, at full load, the engines NEVER shut down - because the ECP has such a meager range - 1500 ... 2000 km. 3-4 times less than that of an aircraft of similar size and carrying capacity
            Quote: SPACE
            1. The speed is greater than the ship.

            Ships have nothing to do with it. Their carrying capacity is incommensurable with ECP
            Quote: SPACE
            2. The carrying capacity is higher than that of an airplane

            LESS THAN A HELOGICAL Aircraft. That's the catch
            Quote: SPACE
            How much different pressure and resistance, so different will be the lifting force.

            Higher aircraft lift due to higher flight speed
            As a result, the plane flies a greater distance in the same time and saves fuel once again wink
            1. SPACE
              SPACE 28 October 2013 23: 56
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              he will crawl over the surface, overcoming the huge resistance of water

              Why does the roof wind rise at zero speed? What can drag 300 tons through the soil? 8 thrust engines on 13 tons each. laughing Ships do not creep at all, and planes too.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              But Kamov and Miles are petty crooks and crooks. Despite the fact that 20 000 machines were assembled

              They were not discussed, they are also geniuses in their fields.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And they will serve as a cool ballast and air brake. As well as the ship's anchor with which Alekseev equipped his "masterpieces"

              The aircraft also has engines that reduce aerodynamics, as well as excess wings laughing
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              ps / in reality, at full load, the engines NEVER shut down - because the ECP has such a meager range - 1500 ... 2000 km. 3-4 times less than that of an aircraft of similar size and carrying capacity

              How many years has the aircraft developed? And Alekseev raised the 500 ton unit for how much? And on the first try. This is such an evolution!
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Ships have nothing to do with it. Their carrying capacity is incommensurable with ECP

              Yes, but the speed is higher.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              LESS THAN an airplane of a similar size. That's the catch

              Here you are wrong the lifting capacity is higher. These are not my words of R. Alekseev.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The aircraft’s lift is higher due to its higher flight speed. As a result, the aircraft flies a greater distance and saves fuel once again.

              10000 still need to climb and fall painfully.
              1. Santa Fe
                29 October 2013 00: 09
                +1
                Quote: SPACE
                can it pull 300 tons through the soil?

                You can ride on the runway
                Quote: SPACE
                The aircraft also has engines that reduce aerodynamics, as well as excess wings

                Firstly, it flies in discharged layers
                Secondly, he has 2 times less engines
                S aerodynamic surfaces are the same - take a look at the wings and tail of the moon

                Quote: SPACE
                How many years has the aircraft developed?

                Less than 10 years. In World War I there were already aces who shot down 87 enemy aircraft (Richthofen)

                Neither the lack of nanotechnology, nor problems with motors could prevent their development - on aircraft was in steady demand from military and civilian customers. They demonized speed advantage over any vehicle their era
                Quote: SPACE
                Yes, but the speed is higher.

                What does it matter when the carrying capacity differs 100 or more times
                ECR is nothing like a ship, except that it has learned to stay on the water
                Quote: SPACE
                Here you are wrong the lifting capacity is higher. These are not my words of R. Alekseev.

                Take a look at the examples:

                Carrying capacity of Orlenak = An-12 (despite the fact that the Eaglet is 2 times heavier)
                KM - ~ 1,8 times higher than its peer S-5, but AT WHAT PRICE

                The S-5 has an absolute advantage in speed, economy, flight range, cost and time-consuming maintenance and areas of application - it can fly over any terrain
                Quote: SPACE
                10000 still need to climb

                Then he plans down to idle. H = h
                Quote: SPACE
                and it hurts to fall.

                No more pain than with ECP at a speed of 500 km / h
      8. lelikas
        lelikas 28 October 2013 19: 22
        +1
        Quote: Argon
        I no longer read the more competent article on this site.

        Everything can be fixed - do not read before dinner - http://topwar.ru/21233-ekranoplan-morskoe-oruzhie-xxi-veka.html#comment-id-72333
        6.
      9. vjhbc
        vjhbc 29 October 2013 00: 54
        +2
        that is, you think that for the sake of the new you can not reckon with the costs, even if it’s a state, you just transfer it to yourself, it’s the same as someone who came up with something for transporting people and goods by land, it goes slower than the bus or the truck carries less than the bus or a truck and eats diesel fuel as if 2 trains at the same time travels only on rails and can only be serviced at airports and this person says I'm a genius, I came up with this, our authorities agreed and implement it everywhere, just pay for the tickets as if you are flying on a concorde
        Quote: Argon
        I have never read a more incompetent article on this site, I would like to recommend the author, at least consult with engineers before publishing such comparisons of "warm with heavy". By the way, I note that the ekranoplan \ years is able to break away from the surface even at a speed of 0 km \ h, but the exit to the "screen" occurs at a certain speed, but this is only one of the modes of operation of the apparatus (albeit the main one), its peculiarity is that control of the vertical speed is not necessary, only control. not what, sorry.
    3. Col.
      Col. 28 October 2013 11: 40
      +2
      Quote: Rinat 1
      Isn't it that bad?


      This time it turned out badly with the author. Oleg began to understand ships relatively well, but with respect to ekranoplanes he showed himself to be an amateur. I have not read such an unprofessional article about them.
      1. Rus86
        Rus86 29 October 2013 05: 22
        0
        I venture to run into criticism, but do you, as a specialist in the field under discussion, draw such conclusions? I'm talking about professional or non-professional suitability
    4. Civil
      Civil 28 October 2013 12: 43
      +1
      Well, now it will start .... once a year "ekranos ra h" appears on any forum :-)
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 28 October 2013 12: 56
        +1
        This, in my opinion, is already 4 or 5 .. uh ... discussion.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 28 October 2013 14: 31
          0
          In my opinion more) As soon as an article about ekranoplanes comes out, one comment is enough))))
    5. lelikas
      lelikas 28 October 2013 18: 32
      -1
      Why for the second time the same thing ???
  2. common man
    common man 28 October 2013 09: 33
    +1
    Author: "To gain takeoff speed and overcome the resistance of the water environment, the 300-ton Lun ekranoplan, whose float hull had a draft of almost 3 meters, required a thrust of 1 million Newtons."
    And how do seaplanes take off without these "monstrous" garlands of engines?
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 28 October 2013 09: 55
      +2
      Compare the size of the wings (lift) of the seaplane and the ekranoplan.
    2. ramsi
      ramsi 28 October 2013 10: 03
      +1
      they are lighter and the high wing begins to work earlier. In general, it’s strange, one could try hydrofoils that can be retracted like a chassis to enter the planing mode
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 28 October 2013 10: 57
        0
        So it’s like they used redans and hydro skiing
    3. Alex_T
      Alex_T 28 October 2013 10: 45
      0
      Quote: man in the street
      ... And how do seaplanes take off without these "monstrous" garlands of engines?

      Probably because the seaplane has a wing of a larger area (with better lifting force) and a correspondingly lower required speed for separation from the surface. Also, the wing of the seaplane is located above the water and therefore begins to work on the rise immediately with the start of speed gain.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 28 October 2013 11: 03
        +9
        Gentlemen, teach aerodynamics. Desirable all and not selectively. The aerodynamic quality of the ekranoplan wing is higher than that of any seaplane. The thick profile and dynamic support provide much higher efficiency in take-off modes than ... (Of course, this is true for "take-off modes" At altitude and with an increase in speed, the lift of such a wing begins to fall and drag increases sharply ...) "hydro-skis" took off ekranoplanes much easier and with a much lower value of horizontal thrust than it seems ... (Starting engines are needed there not so much for horizontal thrust as for creating a dynamic air cushion in the acceleration mode and providing "air lubrication")
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 28 October 2013 11: 20
          -2
          And with us gentlemen in the seventeenth, thank God was shot, not everyone is true, but you? About aerodynamics. Powerful efficiency and dynamic support are excellent. Explain to the ignoramuses, from the point of view of aerodynamics, why a seaplane for takeoff, in spite of the low efficiency, has enough lifting power, and the EPC needs to create a dynamic air cushion. Maybe because the applied scheme is not very successful?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 28 October 2013 12: 14
            +8
            Because the ekranoplan does not fly from the point of view of aircraft aerodynamics. Of course, I can now give you a lecture on what lift is, how it is created on the wing and how it depends on the profile, angle of attack, velocity head. And what is a "dynamic air cushion" and how many types of ships are using it (by the way, the famous Bora too) but why do I need it? Now, if you wish, you can find almost any textbooks on the network - even from those that were given to us by secretaries against signature. And about the "gentlemen-comrades" - then I personally do not care what the person is called - the main thing is that he knows and can ... And then for some reason you have the word "comrade" strongly gives Sharikov.
            1. chunga-changa
              chunga-changa 28 October 2013 15: 52
              -5
              It’s you Bulgakov reread here and gives it to you.
              Without going into the jungle of secret science outstanding in the theory of ECP, I will add that it is a complete analogue of another Russian prodigy. With the same effect. Tanks themselves are beautiful and useful, but this particular scheme, technically and theoretically interesting, in practice, is on the verge of idiocy.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 28 October 2013 17: 15
                +3
                So will you teach aerodynamics? Or do you already know everything? So why are not your "ingenious inventions" visible here? Here I see that no matter what "destroyers of the foundations" and "unrecognized geniuses" - one invented a "super-bullet", but at the same time why are you trying to cheat Kalashnikov ... Then another "specialist" is trying to rise on the "great coffins" ... This, alas, is not Bulgakov - this is our "dog's reality" ...
                1. rolik
                  rolik 28 October 2013 17: 59
                  +4
                  Quote: Taoist
                  So will you teach aerodynamics?

                  Yes, he will not learn not aerodynamics, nor sopromat. Why does he need this, he is already completely smart. Unfortunately, these are completely smart managers now at every turn. Yeltsin's overgrowth has sprouted, we are reaping the fruits.
                  1. chunga-changa
                    chunga-changa 28 October 2013 19: 10
                    -1
                    I taught the water course of theoretical aerodynamics in 1986, the strength of materials in 1988, for a long time, I don’t remember much, but that’s not the point. Theoretical aerodynamics has little application to the ECP, so don't fool me. You like ekranoplanes, just tell me - like it, it looks fucking awesome. But why try to pass off a broken corkscrew as a multitool I don't understand. Of course, you know better about your "dog reality", but personally, I live in a normal world with normal people, and all these claims of yours to social drama seem to me not clever posturing.
                    1. Taoist
                      Taoist 28 October 2013 20: 29
                      +2
                      Quote: chunga-changa
                      Theoretical aerodynamics for EPC has a weak application


                      Know comment. What can be added here. The people are tormented, they think, they are building pipes, test pools ... And here once the laws of physics were canceled by royal decree.
                      Naive question, have you built anything in your life yourself? At least at the level of the current model? I'm talking about the reality of a dog, because I write that the Internet will endure everything. It is possible and Alekseev (the deceased will not bite) casually pour mud for "self-affirmation" - do not care that he actually created a whole new design school. All this is disgusting
                      1. rolik
                        rolik 29 October 2013 00: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Have you ever built a naive question yourself?

                        This is unlikely)))) Rather, the guy is more involved in making KP))))) And the more the better (this is not a typo).
                        Or maybe they deigned to master alternative physics ??? Well, for example, the physics of bipolar dark matter particles in vortex cyclones of nucleoid space. Toda is already too much for us, we understand everything to the ground, somehow closer))))
                        What a high calmness !!))) (ento I'm talking about clever posturing) I'm immensely surprised however))))
                      2. chunga-changa
                        chunga-changa 30 October 2013 00: 06
                        0
                        About once every three to four years since 1994, I drive the delivery of finished objects into operation, and you? Since aplomb replaces your competence, I think that this is really a naive question and nothing ever goes further than the current model.
                      3. vlrosch
                        vlrosch 26 November 2013 16: 06
                        0
                        So for 20 years nothing swims and does not fly.
      2. unclevad
        unclevad 28 October 2013 13: 06
        0
        Support is needed to quickly bring the device into the "screen" mode. Have you noticed the take-off run of the seaplanes? The "screen" mode was encountered when the TU-144 was tested because of the shape and size of the wing. Then the pilots had to forcibly fill up the plane, tk. he planned along the runway.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 49
          +1
          A seaplane, as a rule, has an almost infinite runway compared to ground vehicles, so in the era of screw they even set speed records, wings were small, landing speed was high.
    4. vjhbc
      vjhbc 29 October 2013 19: 30
      -1
      tell me, you yourself would agree to fly on an ekranoplane at a distance of 1500 km and pay as much as if you were on a concord from Paris to New York and at the same time spend 3 hours on this and that and even if in one case you overcome 1500 km and in another 5829 km
      Quote: Taoist
      Gentlemen teach aerodynamics. It is desirable that all and not selectively. The aerodynamic quality of the winged wing is higher than that of any seaplane.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 29 October 2013 21: 25
        +3
        Do not break rubbish after the author of a topic. Ekranoplan DO NOT PLANE. And if, for example, I needed to get from Moscow to Paris, then I would fly by plane ... but if I would need to deliver MTLB from some Oymyakon to some camp outside 1000km on the banks of the great Lena River ... then from alternatives I would only be a helicopter - which would not fly there with a load, and if it would fly it would cost the same amount as Concord and all the others would nervously smoke aside.
        There is no need to engage in "pulling an owl on the globe" trying to compare things that, in principle, cannot be compared. Or do you, too, the laurels of the troll do not give rest?
        1. Santa Fe
          29 October 2013 21: 33
          -1
          Quote: Taoist
          Oymyakon deliver MTLB to some camp for 1000km on the coast of the great Lena River

          ABOUT! The geographer has appeared!

          How can the ECP be able to fly over the Verkhoyansk Range?)))
  • Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 28 October 2013 11: 07
    +3
    The whole problem of ekranoplanes is the use of ship technology. If you build an ekranoplan using aviation technology and consider it an aircraft (rather than a ship), then a comparison will be appropriate (and it will not be in favor of the aircraft in everything).
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 14: 18
      +1
      Quote: Zerstorer
      If you build an ekranoplane using aviation technology

      you can say goodbye to the idea of ​​operating in a 6-point storm
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 28 October 2013 16: 50
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        you can say goodbye to the idea of ​​operating in a 6-point storm

        Well, seaplanes, too, cannot be operated in a 6-point storm, and you once compared with the A-40 seaplane. Either set equal conditions or do not compare)
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 16: 54
          -1
          Quote: Zerstorer
          Well, seaplanes, too, in a 6-point storm can not be exploited

          And no need
        2. rolik
          rolik 28 October 2013 18: 04
          +1
          Quote: Zerstorer
          Well, seaplanes also cannot be exploited in a 6-point storm,

          Seaplanes are not allowed, seaworthiness Lunya was 5-6 points.
          1. Santa Fe
            28 October 2013 18: 43
            0
            Quote: rolik
            The moon was 5-6 points.

            In
            Due to its sturdy and therefore heavier construction, Lun carried 2 times less payload than an aircraft of similar size
            1. rolik
              rolik 29 October 2013 00: 36
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              - Lun carried 2 times less payload than a plane of similar size

              A bit wrong.
              The effect of the screen is connected with the fact that disturbances (pressure increase) from the wing reach the ground (water), are reflected and have time to reach the wing. Thus, the pressure rise under the wing is large. The propagation speed of the pressure wave is, of course, equal to the speed of sound. Accordingly, the manifestation of the ground effect begins with h <(lxV) / 2v where l is the wing width (wing chord), V is the speed of sound, h is the flight height, v is the flight speed.
              The larger the wing SAH, the lower the flight speed and altitude - the higher the screen effect. For example, the maximum flight range of the Oriole ekspolota at a height of 0,8 m is 1150 km, and at a height of 0,3 meters with the same load - already 1480 km .Traditionally, at flight speeds near the ground, it is customary to consider half the wing chord as the height of the screen. This gives a height of the order of a meter. But for sufficiently large ekranoplanes, the flight height "on the screen" can reach 10 or more meters. By the way, the main difference and advantage of ekranoplanes over airplanes is a great aerodynamic quality. For Orioles, it equals 25. (something similar to it - An-2 - has a quality of only 10, for An-124 Ruslan - 18), for larger ekranoplanes it should be even larger
              And once again I ask you to carefully look at the moon. What aircraft of similar dimensions will be able to carry 6 launchers with Mosquito missiles in them, and other equipment located on this ekranoplan.
              1. Santa Fe
                29 October 2013 00: 44
                0
                Quote: rolik
                What aircraft of similar dimensions will be able to drag 6 launchers with Mosquito missiles in them.

                Boeing-747
                1. rolik
                  rolik 29 October 2013 13: 19
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Boeing-747

                  If you make an ekranoplan of this size, then it entot Boeing with the shuttle will drag))))
                  1. Magellan
                    Magellan 29 October 2013 13: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: rolik
                    If you make an ekranoplan of such sizes

                    yes they are twins in size
                    The 747th is even slightly smaller than the missile carrier Lun

                    Lun:
                    length - 74 meters
                    wing area - 550 sq. meter
                    Max. taken weight - 380 tons

                    Boeing 747:
                    length - 70 meters
                    wing area - 541 square meters meter
                    Max. take-off weight - 400 tons

                    The payload of an airplane is always higher than that of an ekranoplan of similar size
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 51
      -1
      Legally, everything below the EMNIP 30 meters above the water is a ship. If you build an ekranoplan with a strength like that of an airplane, then it will be smashed to smithereens.
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 28 October 2013 16: 51
        0
        I did not talk about the strength of the aircraft. I talked about the odds. margin of safety and materials used.
      2. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 28 October 2013 18: 00
        0
        Even tomahawks?
    3. rolik
      rolik 28 October 2013 18: 01
      +3
      Quote: Zerstorer
      then the comparison will be appropriate

      He is not a ship or an airplane, that makes all the difference. And carefully look at the photo of "Lunya", which was noticed on its ridge. He has 6 PU Mosquito on his back. Find a ship with a speed of 500 km, and a fast plane with such a payload. By the way, the ekranoplan surpasses the plane in terms of efficiency. WIGs surpass hovercraft and hydrofoils in speed, combat and lifting characteristics. for ekranoplans, the type of surface that creates the screen effect is not important - they can move over a frozen water surface, a snowy plain, over off-road, etc .; as a result, they can move along "straight" routes, they do not need ground infrastructure: bridges, roads, etc. Engine failure is often not so dangerous for large ekranoplanes due to the fact that they have several engines, divided into a launch and cruise group , and a malfunction of the engine of the cruising group can be compensated by starting one of the engines of the launch group.
      1. Santa Fe
        28 October 2013 18: 50
        0
        Quote: rolik
        Find a ship with a speed of 500 km, and a high-speed aircraft with such a payload.

        An-22 "Antey"
        payload - 60 ... 80 tons

        An-124 "Ruslan"
        payload - 140+ tons

        An-225 "Dream"
        payload of 200+ tons (although this has already turned out to be excessive. the victory of technology over common sense)

        It makes no sense to compare any destroyer with the Lune - the destroyer carries dozens of times more weapons, and thanks to a powerful defensive complex (SAM, ZRAK) it is much more dangerous than any ekranoplan. You can’t just fly up to him, and you won’t shoot out of the gun
        Quote: rolik
        By the way, in terms of efficiency, the ekranoplan is superior to aircraft.

        Evidence. With numbers

        All Alekseevsky EKPs had a range of 1500 ... 2000 km - 3-4 times less than aircraft of similar size and carrying capacity (which, however, is not surprising - a dozen jet engines are impressive)
        Quote: rolik
        over the frozen water surface

        Yes?

        Well forward
        1. rolik
          rolik 29 October 2013 13: 41
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Well forward

          I have already given the digits of the height of the screen. so this heap of snow Lun or KM will not even notice. Lun has a screen height of 2 to 12 meters.
          Further KM, empty weight - 240 tons., Maximum take-off weight - 544 tons, Lun rest mass 243 tons - take-off 380 tons, while Lun launched Moskit on the fly. Who of those on the site saw how Antei, Ruslan and Mriya launched rockets (besides thermal traps) ??? Well, compare the payload coefficient for heavyweights and ekranoplanes of the same dimension.
          1. vjhbc
            vjhbc 29 October 2013 19: 18
            0
            Weapon Kits B-52H [12]
            Nuclear Normal High Precision
            20 ALCM (12 ext) 51 CBU-52 (27 int, 18 ext) 18 JDAM (12 ext)
            12 SRAM [ext] 51 CBU-58 (27 int, 18 ext) 30 WCMD (16 ext)
            12 ACM [ext] 51 CBU-71 (27 int, 18 ext) 8 AGM-84 Harpoon
            2 B53 [int] 30 CBU 87 (6 int, 18 ext) 20 AGM-86C CALCM
            8 B61 Mod11 (300 kT) [int] 30 CBU 89 (6 int, 18 ext) 8 AGM-142 Popeye [3 ext]
            8 B83 (1,2 MT) [int] 30 CBU 97 (6 int, 18 ext) 18 AGM-154 JSOW (12 ext)
            51 M117 (340 kg) 12 AGM-158 JASSM [ext]
            18 MK20 (ext)
            51 MK36
            8 MK41
            12 MK52
            8 MK55
            8 MK56
            51 MK59
            8 MK60 (CAPTOR)
            51 Mk62
            8 Mk64
            8 Mk65
            51 Mk82 (227 kg)
            18 Mk84 (907 kg) (ext)
            Quote: rolik
            Who of those on the site saw how Antei, Ruslan and Mriya launched rockets (besides thermal traps) ??? Well, compare the payload coefficient for heavyweights and ekranoplanes of the same dimension.
          2. Santa Fe
            29 October 2013 20: 07
            0
            Quote: rolik
            I have already given the digits of the height of the screen. so this heap of snow Lun or KM will not even notice.

            In the Arctic, EKP will not travel even a kilometer, without breaking up your belly about hummock


            Quote: rolik
            Lun has a screen height of 2 to 12 meters.

            You lied

            Flight altitude on the screen for EKP "Lun" - from 1 to 5 meters
            Quote: rolik
            Compare the payload coefficient for heavyweights and ekranoplanes of the same dimension.

            The plane will be higher
            Quote: rolik
            Have any of the people on the site seen how Antei, Ruslan and Mriya launched rockets (besides thermal traps)?

            The fact that a 30-ton Su-30MKI is capable of lifting and launching from 1 to 3 Bramos anti-ship missiles does not say anything? The mass of each supersonic Brahmos is 3 tons!
  • ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 28 October 2013 09: 34
    0
    WIG can only be used in places where there is no ice or other surface obstacles and besides they are very difficult to manage
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 28 October 2013 11: 09
      15
      The ekranoplanes are easier to fly than conventional airplanes. Because their stability is ensured automatically by changing the dynamics of backwater. Moreover, on some winged planes there are no elevators at all ... They are controlled in the same way as an ordinary boat - with engine thrust and rudder. Teach materiel pliz. All known accidents occurred mainly because ekranoplans tried to control them as airplanes - which, in principle, they are not. The ekranoplan is a vessel with a dynamic air cushion ... And this is no different in principle from the same Bison ... Only the Bison is static - and its energy efficiency is an order of magnitude lower. And one more thing - With the growth of the size of a conventional SVP, its weight return decreases. And with the growth of SVP sizes with dynamic maintenance, its weight efficiency increases.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 52
        -2
        He touched the water and "we will be pulled out from under the rubble."
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 28 October 2013 17: 22
          +5
          That he would "touch the water" in cruise mode is a very long time and you have to try very hard ... but they foolishly say what they just don't break ...
  • kotvov
    kotvov 28 October 2013 09: 41
    +1
    I don’t think that everything is clear, no matter what the flaws are, don’t forget that the ekranoplans did not require airfields. And I think this is still a big plus.
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 14: 22
      +1
      Quote: kotvov
      ekranoplanes did not require airfields. but I think this is still a big plus.

      Yes of course. Routine maintenance of 10 jet engines was carried out in the open sea .. or right on the beach

      To operate the ECP, you need a giant dry dock and all the relevant infrastructure
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 28 October 2013 17: 02
        0
        It all depends on the class of the ekranoplan and its dimension. The most rational option is as seaplanes: service on the ground without a dock (enough rolling gear). The only thing I agree with you is that the ekranoplan transport is not today, but tomorrow. As a transport platform, according to all calculations, they prove their worth, but they do not fit into the existing world transport system. Too much infrastructure costs.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 17: 09
          -1
          Quote: Zerstorer
          The only thing I agree with you is that ekranoplan transport is not today, but tomorrow

          What are the advantages EPC promises to have over aviation (even if for the future)?
          1. Zerstorer
            Zerstorer 29 October 2013 13: 20
            +1
            Many times higher aerodynamic quality (even if the speed is 1.5 times lower), even with a slightly higher specific fuel consumption, the Breguet range of the ekranoplan with the same fuel supply will be greater.
            So your method of bringing analogies, at least, cannot be considered evidence, because it is not correct (comparison of hot with red when transporting various goods at different distances). Bring the calculations to prove your point. I don’t see the calculations. If a schoolboy wrote such articles, I would not say anything.
  • Rus86
    Rus86 28 October 2013 09: 49
    +2
    polar points of view are very interesting and informative. As a rule, current one-sided arguments and pluses come across.
  • woland05
    woland05 28 October 2013 09: 51
    +4
    Evil takes when you read. Such power has * gone ...
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 15: 05
      0
      Quote: woland05
      Evil takes when you read

      So not in vain
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 28 October 2013 09: 55
    19
    Well, let's continue the argument.
    If the author considers (and always tends to) that the 8 engines Lunya and 10 KM are many, for such a low load capacity. And compares these machines with the Bison ... I do not think that the author does not know how many engines this Bison has. I will answer - 7 !! Four lifting and three marching. And somehow there are no problems with their maintenance. Given that they work in much worse conditions - water dust, sand, small stones.
    Bison load capacity up to 150 tons. Whereas KM raises more 200 !!
    Armament: on the CM it was quite possible to stick the marine version of the TOP and forget about the aircraft. A-22 and AK-630 are also easily stuck.
    After reading the article, I remain in my opinion. The ekranoplans have not yet said their last word. Aircraft developed over 100 years before they received the profitability of civilian airliners and the powerful armament of military vehicles. Ships and, in general, 1000 years ... But they received great development only in the last 200 years. So what do you want from ekranoplanes, whose history does not count even 50 years ?????
    1. Yura
      Yura 28 October 2013 11: 16
      +8
      Quote: Wedmak
      Well, let's continue the argument.

      I’ll support you, few people take into account such a thing as a deterrence factor. With the range of 3600 km voiced in the article. the radius of control of the water area from the ekranoplan base is about 1000 km, and with each hour of its flight it increases by the range of its weapons. Is this not an argument? Regarding cost-effectiveness, I would like to ask here, and someone did calculations of efficiency using a system analysis based on the application concept, that is, in conjunction with everything else, here I want to say that a potential aggressor will not threaten us with a finger arriving on our shores on one ship and therefore everything that is necessary and accessible will be involved. Our hypothetical opponent is not very confident about what and how to oppose such an opponent, so sometimes only his presence can be crucial. And if we proceed from the fact that the ekranoplan, and even more so a group of at least two three, with the appropriate weapons and air support, would be an excellent counterweight to any AUG. And here it would be worth calculating the cost-effectiveness of their application.
      1. AVV
        AVV 28 October 2013 12: 14
        +1
        A pair of such ekranoplanes on the Black Sea will block the Turkish Strait, and NATO ships at hour X will not be able to enter the Black Sea freely because will be destroyed by the missile weapons of the latter, and an anti-aircraft missile system like s-300, s-400 will generally increase the combat potential of ekranoplanes! Not everything is as bad as hell !!!
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2013 13: 03
          +3
          and the anti-aircraft missile system like c-300, c-400 will generally increase the combat potential of ekranoplanes

          Where are you going to put it? The S-300/400 missiles are launched vertically, whether the EKP will be able to withstand a mortar launch afloat ... another question. But "small" air defense systems to provide cover from the air would be a very interesting solution.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 55
          -2
          The strait is blocked by an outline of mines tightly, or by a group of Tu-22M3, which will blow it all to hell even when the ECP crawls to the place.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 16
            +5
            EKP can splash down in the bay "around the corner" and lie there for days, controlling the strait. Several of these berths, periodically changed, will ensure the blind blocking of any straits with the destruction of any ships, including submarines.
            1. Santa Fe
              28 October 2013 17: 21
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              EKP can splash down in the bay "around the corner" and lie there for days, controlling the strait

              1. Who will provide the central bank?
              2. how about the rapid detection of the ECP by the enemy with its subsequent destruction (there is nothing to even snap at)
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 29
                +3
                In some ways, you are right, what happened under Alekseev was the first implementation of large EPCs in iron. It is clear that these were clumsy, slow-moving monsters. And in terms of aerodynamics is not very, and the EPR is large.
                But who said that the future ECP should be toothless? Can:
                1. Insert retractable radar.
                2. SAM of small radius.
                3. Retractable Gas.
                4. Pieces 4 RCC.

                Say not fit such a set?
                1. Santa Fe
                  28 October 2013 17: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Say not fit such a set?

                  And what's the use?

                  Will a lot of radar see from the surface?
                  SAM ... multichannel Dagger (module -42 tons) with a specialized detection radar NLC "Pokat" and fire control systems. And it's not a fact that it will line up against a massive attack

                  Gus ...
                  here is the humble AN / SQS-53. Not so powerful, but considered one of the compact telescoping sonar
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 53
                    +1
                    Will a lot of radar see from the surface?

                    Enough to control straits, ports, coastal zone, bays.
                    And that’s not the fact that it will build against a massive attack

                    Against a massive attack, even C-300 will not stand. Stupidly missiles are not enough.
                    here is the humble AN / SQS-53. Not so powerful, but considered one of the compact telescoping sonar

                    A powerful and not needed. Small enough for control within a radius of 10 km. It’s just no longer necessary, it’s enough to direct the ships, to attack the submarine you need a special anti-submarine ECP with a towed antenna.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      28 October 2013 18: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Enough to control straits, ports, coastal zone, bays.

                      RG = 3,6 x square root of H.
                      Substitute antenna installation height in meters
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Against a massive attack, even the S-300 will not stand.

                      It depends on what is considered massive
                      Where the destroyer is repelled, the ECP is guaranteed to die. Wrong options for him - thousands of tons of displacement are spent on ships for weapons and SLAs, nowhere to get them from the ECP
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Small enough for control within a radius of 10 km

                      SQS-53 is just for control within a radius of 10 km (active mode)
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Submarines need a special anti-submarine ECP with a towed antenna.

                      Well, you will hear at a speed of 300-400 km / h?))))
                      1. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 28 October 2013 21: 24
                        0
                        Eck you lowered the EPC. And the visibility is small and the rockets will not be beaten off, and we will not hear anything.
                        Are there antenna posts on the destroyer above ???
                        Why compare the ECP with the destroyer in terms of power of the SAM system? Not at all the displacement, payload, speed for comparison. A dozen light missiles and an 10 plane will think about whether to attack. The same SAM, they can repel the attack of the RCC. Together with the speed of EPC, it will be a very difficult target.
                        Well you hear at a speed of 300-400 km / h?

                        But did I say that he will drag this antenna at a speed of 300 km / h? At this speed, a magnetometer is well suited, as on the IL-38. And you can tow in the planing mode (again, it depends on the design of the EPC).
                      2. Santa Fe
                        28 October 2013 23: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        Eka you lowered the EPC

                        I have been exposing this ekranoplanny scam for about 2 years.
                        When I first thought, what for an economical vehicle there are already 8 engines from the IL-86. Further more interesting things were revealed.
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        Are there antenna posts on the destroyer above ???

                        There are many of them - general detection, NLC detection, target illumination
                        Together, they weigh many tens of tons and lay hundreds of tons of ballast to compensate for their negative effects on stability along the keel.

                        With EPC, this topic will not work - otherwise 30 engines will not have enough power)))
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        Why compare the ECP with the destroyer in terms of power of the SAM system?

                        Then that the enemy aviation is not asleep. And he won’t ask - destroyer, frigate or ECP
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        Not at all the displacement, payload

                        These are personal problems of EPC
                        You’re trying to set him up against AUG))
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 October 2013 13: 01
      +3
      and someone did calculations of efficiency using system analysis, based on the concept of application, that is, in conjunction with everything else

      Unfortunately, no one has created the concept of using EPC. Yes, there was a landing, but this is the first thing that comes to mind. The device is unique in its own way, and the tasks must be unique.
      1. Yura
        Yura 28 October 2013 19: 15
        +3
        Quote: Wedmak
        Yes, there was a landing, but this is the first thing that comes to mind.

        “Ekranoplan Lun, being a high-speed transport and launch platform for the supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles ZM80 of the Moskit complex, developed by the ICB Raduga with the power of an airborne salvo — 6 container-type launchers — is comparable to and exceeds the salvo missile salvo, not only in speed movement is 10 times, but also has superiority in maneuverability and stealth. It is also important that the cost of construction and operation of the WIG wing is much less. For its own protection, the Wing wing Lun must be equipped with the Tor anti-aircraft missile system (SAM), which has modifications: Tor-M1, Tor-M2. They are designed to destroy air targets that are not recognized by the "friend or foe" system, at a range of up to 12 km and an altitude of up to 6 km. " ........................ Attack warship is another area of ​​application. ..................... The quote was taken from an article by Pyotr Khomutovsky, here is the link http://vpk.name/news/93670_morskoi_kompleks_dalnei_nadvodnoi_passivnoi_radiotehn


        icheskoi_razvedki_i_gidroakusticheskogo_protivodeistviya_na_baze_ekranoplanov.ht


        ml
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 19: 44
          0
          Quote: Jura
          6 container launchers - comparable to a salvo of a missile cruiser

          It's a lie
          Any, even the smallest warship is many times superior to EPC in armament and fire control systems
          Quote: Jura
          not only in movement speed 10 times

          What does it matter if the ECP is completely devoid of defensive weapons

          For supersonic jet aircraft - what a ship, what EPC - equally static objects
          Quote: Jura
          For its own protection, the Wing wing must be equipped with the Tor anti-aircraft missile system (SAM), which has modifications: Tor-M1, Tor-M2.

          Pathetic attempts to revive a stillborn

          By the way, this "cruiser" is a Malvey missile ship (boat), project 1234
          Six launchers of anti-ship missiles. + Wasp and anti-aircraft artillery
          Displacement approx. 700 tons
          Massively built since 1967
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 28 October 2013 21: 31
            +3
            Any, even the smallest warship is many times superior to EPC in armament and fire control systems

            Mosquito fleet? Many times - you are bent. In addition, the speed of this boat is low, and you need to go out to intercept in advance. At the risk of being discovered. ECP with its speed can strike and quickly go to the base, avoiding the return volley. And this boat is a kamikaze.
            For supersonic jet aircraft - what a ship, what EPC - equally static objects

            Nevertheless, the chances of the EPC to leave alive from the attack are still higher.
            1. Santa Fe
              28 October 2013 23: 28
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              In addition, the speed of this boat is low, and you need to go out to intercept in advance

              He has his own tasks. OVR. Border service, duty - he has a range of 4000 miles at an economic speed of 12 knots.

              Those who tried to solve strategic problems with the "mosquito fleet" -. At 5 points it was already no, the propeller was showing out of the water, the engines stalled
              Quote: Wedmak
              ECP at its speed, can strike

              To do this, he needs to crawl to enemy ships for 20 km

              Sentry sees such objects at a distance of> 400 km
              Quote: Wedmak
              Nevertheless, the chances of the EPC to leave alive from the attack are still higher.

              Hardly. Given the complete lack of defensive assets.
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2013 21: 29
          0
          Ekranoplan Lun, being a high-speed transport and launch platform for supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles ЗМ80 of the Moskit complex

          I know that. But they didn’t accept him, and I think that it was only a demonstrator of opportunities. Would put today's Clabs on it, ennoble the corps, reduce the EPR, that would be a shock EPC.
  • Tatanka Yotanka
    Tatanka Yotanka 28 October 2013 12: 14
    +4
    Quote: Wedmak
    I will answer - 7 !! Four lifting and three marching.

    strange in all sources 5
    The ship’s power plant consists of five GTD-8000 gas turbine engines, two of which the G35’s M2-10 aggregate drive a lifting system consisting of four axial blowers HO-35, the other three main gas turbine gas turbine’s, the GGTA M1-98, provide movement with variable pitch propellers AB-XNUMX.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 October 2013 13: 06
      0
      Yes, the engines are really 5, not so put it. But 4 of the lifting supercharger (that is, you must first lift this colossus above the surface, and then move !!!), their mechanisms (also weigh heavily), plus 3 of marching.
      1. Tatanka Yotanka
        Tatanka Yotanka 28 October 2013 13: 55
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        that is, you must first raise this colossus above the surface, and then move !!! ), their mechanisms (they also weigh heavily), plus 3 marching.

        and this colossus 555 tons versus 380 tons raises power 4 times less, if you convert 50000 to 192000 in a horse, the efficiency per ton of weight is 5 times and this without the help of lifting forces and aerodynamics
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 32
          0
          But the speed of this colossus is much less. KVP for missiles is a very convenient target. And about mines - even the Germans in WWII came up with acoustic mines. And as I heard the KVP, the 5 km is heard.
  • Santa Fe
    28 October 2013 15: 04
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    I do not think that the author does not know how many engines of this Bison. I will answer - 7 !!

    Five. At the same time compare their power. And working conditions
    Quote: Wedmak
    Bison lifting capacity up to 150 tons.

    + four cubicles for 140 people landing
    + integrated weapons complex

    The payload of the Bison is equal to KM and surpasses the "Lun" by the head
    Quote: Wedmak
    Armament: on the KM it was quite possible to stick the marine version of the TOP

    On the Bison you can
    On KM - no.
    Quote: Wedmak
    Aircraft developed over 100 years before they received the profitability of civilian airliners and powerful weapons of military vehicles.

    In any of the selected time periods, Aviation had the advantage of speed over ANY transport (except space rocket, of course)
    Quote: Wedmak
    Ships and generally 1000 years ... But they received great development only in the last 200 le

    But what about the Argonauts, the Roman galleys, the fleet of King Darius, the Phoenician merchants, the Venetian merchants, the caravels of Pinta, Santa Maria and Nina (Columbus), Magellan, the Chinese dzhonki ...

    People have learned to effectively overcome water barriers since antiquity.
    Quote: Wedmak
    So what do you want from ekranoplanes, whose history does not count even 50 years?

    That fans of ECP called at least one clear advantage of ECP compared to aviation ... or at least the prospect of such an advantage
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 35
      +1
      The payload of the Bison is equal to KM and surpasses the "Lun" by the head

      I wouldn’t compare Lun with anything. Bison landing, Lun purely shock. Moreover, Lun did not work out very well in my opinion.

      Armament: on the KM it was quite possible to stick the marine version of the TOP
      On the Bison you can
      On KM - no.

      Why not?

      But what about the Argonauts, the Roman galleys, the fleet of King Darius, the Phoenician merchants, the Venetian merchants, the caravels of Pinta, Santa Maria and Nina (Columbus), Magellan, the Chinese dzhonki ...

      Well, let's not take into account very fragile little ships ...

      That fans of ECP called at least one clear advantage of ECP compared to aviation ... or at least the prospect of such an advantage

      I don’t quite understand why you are comparing ECP with aviation or with sea vessels. ECP is neither a plane nor a ship. There are opportunities for it that aviation does not have, which ships do not. Yes, it is inferior in speed to aircraft and inferior in cargo capacity to ships. But what kind of plane can get into it .., having passed part of the way over the water, part over the ice, part over the land? Which ship or plane can quickly deliver cargo to the island without a berth and GDP? Helicopter? And what if the island (or other destination) is 1500 km?
      1. Santa Fe
        28 October 2013 17: 47
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Bison landing, Lun purely shock

        What's the difference. It's about USEFUL loading
        Quote: Wedmak
        Why not?

        Not enough space
        Quote: Wedmak
        Well, let's not take into account very fragile little ships ...

        To match the level of technical development of each era
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 59
          0
          What's the difference. It's about USEFUL loading

          How is it - what's the difference ???? The truck and passenger car are also cars. The same 4 wheels and ICE. And the payload is different.
          Not enough space

          And in my opinion it’s quite enough. It is only necessary to make a built-in air defense system.
          1. Santa Fe
            28 October 2013 19: 02
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            How is it - what's the difference ???? The truck and passenger car are also cars. The same 4 wheels and ICE. And the payload is different.

            Well, we’re talking about cars of the same weight category
            ZIL with Kung
            or ZIL with the installation of MLRS "Grad"

            the load on the chassis is the same, the engine is the same - the rest is beyond the scope of the issue under discussion
            Quote: Wedmak
            And in my opinion it’s quite enough. It is only necessary to make a built-in air defense system.

            Antenna post and all that))

            In short, starting with the bow of the superstructure:
            - fire control radar ZR95 (SAM "Dagger")
            - detection radar of the NLC "Podkat" with a narrowly directed search beam and a high data update rate
            - general detection radar "Fregat"
            - in the stern is still one post PЗР95
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 28 October 2013 21: 36
              +1
              Well, there will be radars of detection lower by a couple of meters (at Lun the antenna post was in the tail, quite high), this is more than compensated by the speed of movement. ECP will be able to explore the area much faster than a frigate.
              1. Santa Fe
                28 October 2013 23: 30
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                The moon antenna post was in the tail, rather high), this is more than compensated by the speed of movement

                I etvetil about this a little higher.
                The installation of such antennas was offset by hundreds of tons of ballast
                Quote: Wedmak
                ECP will be able to explore the area much faster than a frigate.

                But much slower than an airplane
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 53
    -1
    How much heavier KM "Zubr" and technologically more complex?
    1. Tatanka Yotanka
      Tatanka Yotanka 28 October 2013 17: 03
      0
      Quote: Avenger711
      and technologically more complicated?

      immeasurably harder, hovercraft and a piece of plywood will travel
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 28 October 2013 10: 01
    0
    Not so unambiguous deadlock. As long as the scheme — the flying wing — has not been tested alive, there is a higher payload in theory. And the power problem during takeoff can be solved by taking off from land. There are airfields such as Saksky (Novofyodorovka). Although then it will not be possible to take off from the water. In principle, there will still be a narrowly specialized thing with a bunch of conventions.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 28 October 2013 10: 13
      -1
      I also think one big wing, only elongated in length. In the end, he has only two or three flight modes, and in addition to lift and very medium controllability, there are only requirements for seaworthiness
  • Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 28 October 2013 10: 12
    +2
    The Soviet Union could afford such technical experiments (these projects were purely experimental), and we, in modern Russia, the best we can do is laugh at unpromising projects.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 28 October 2013 11: 17
      +1
      Take away. The eaglet was adopted.
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 28 October 2013 11: 22
      0
      Now we do not have money breakthroughs for all sorts of different things, now money is only with difficulty and only for the most necessary, and they steal it.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 28 October 2013 10: 14
    0
    A seaplane does not need so many engines for one reason, it has a wing area several times larger. And by the way, the seaplane's efficiency is also significantly lower than usual.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 28 October 2013 11: 11
      +2
      Who told you such nonsense? and what do you mean by efficiency?
  • avt
    avt 28 October 2013 10: 14
    +3
    Quote: chunga-changa
    Not so unambiguous deadlock.

    A dead end, a dead end. And they led him into the enemy of the people Alekseev and the Italian spy Bartini.bully
  • ran nearby
    ran nearby 28 October 2013 10: 24
    +2
    The article clearly gives away the custom-made era of Uncle Joe. Usually, after such articles, the design bureau was closed, and the general designers and their closest assistants were sent to cut the forest with a fret saw with a motor.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 57
      -1
      No one sent the forest to anyone, but they didn’t really give the loot.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 28 October 2013 10: 25
    +2
    Oleg, you are, as always, in pursuit of "a sensation." Undoubtedly, with the current fuel prices, ekranoplanes are not profitable. But let's remember when they were created, this time when in the USA cars with a volume of less than 3 liters. were not created when gasoline was worth a penny and no one really thought about fuel efficiency in economic terms.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 28 October 2013 10: 52
    16
    > 20 years have passed, but no serious work has been noted in this direction - neither here nor abroad. Obviously, "Eaglet" did not particularly impress the Yankees with their capabilities ...


    http://topwar.ru/35114-proekt-sverhtyazhelogo-samoleta-ekranoplana-boeing-pelica
    n-ultra-ssha.html

    The author apparently does not know how to use the search. And she knows aerodynamics at the high school level, reducing everything to the density of media and frontal resistance. He also apparently did not hear about the absorption and interference of radio waves in water dust. Devices with a dynamic air cushion (which include ekranoplanes) were created, are being created and continue to improve. And the merit of Alekseev for the first time in the world who solved the issue of dynamic stability of full-size machines of this class is undeniable.
  • nikcris
    nikcris 28 October 2013 10: 53
    +8
    Some kind of not impressive arguments from the author. With the same success, tanks can be criticized - plowing is impossible, unprofitable, the helicopter takes out a missile twice as long as the tank can counter the distance. Down with the tanks !!!
    I think that this was done not for the ocean, but specifically for the theater of the Caspian. If someone forgot, then in the sixties and seventies, Iran has never been to us.
    PS And who needs fuel efficiency in a war?
    PS2 B-52 identity 8 motors. Serve somehow ...
    1. Delta
      Delta 28 October 2013 14: 49
      +5
      Quote: nikcris
      With the same success, tanks can be criticized - plowing is impossible, unprofitable, the helicopter takes out a missile twice as long as the tank can counter the distance. Down with the tanks !!!


      I think this will be the topic for the next article by Kaptsov))))
    2. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 15: 21
      -3
      Quote: nikcris
      PS And who needs fuel efficiency in a war?

      In war, you need speed and the greatest possible combat radius.
      The ecr has none of this

      Or do you think that the flight range has nothing to do with fuel efficiency?
      Quote: nikcris
      PS2 B-52 identity 8 motors. Serve somehow ...

      1. Outdated technology in the early 1950s. Then it was impossible otherwise
      2. B-52 motors do not face the harmful effects of the marine environment (humidity, salt deposition)
      3. Service B-52 occurs at a prepared air base, with all necessary infrastructure
      4. Finally, the B-52 has outstanding performance characteristics, range and monstrous combat load.

      ETOGES is not an ekranoplan, which does not need an airdrome)))) Tom will carry out THAT right on the beach ...
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 15: 58
      -2
      In the Caspian Sea, the fleet has not been needed for a long time, everything is blocked by aviation, and in order to do some more unique work, this is an excuse for a jury case.
      1. Col.
        Col. 28 October 2013 16: 23
        +3
        Quote: Avenger711
        In the Caspian, the fleet has not been needed for a long time, everything is blocked by aviation,


        The fact that the ekranoplans were tested in the Caspian does not mean that they were intended for this theater. For example, we had a special center for testing submarines on Lake Issyk-Kul.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 19
          +2
          us, for example, there was a special center for testing submarines on Lake Issyk-Kul.

          Not submarines, but torpedoes.
          1. Col.
            Col. 29 October 2013 09: 17
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            Not submarines, but torpedoes.


            In 1986, during the exams for admission to the Military Aviation Administration, I lived in the same room as the head of the training ground in Issyk-Kul. Infa - from him. We tested COMPLEXES of weapons, including, of course, the boats themselves.
    4. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 16: 03
      +1
      8 Motors in the B-52 is a huge problem, by the way. But the B-52 at least justified it with the meaning of its existence. The tank is now the most protected vehicle on the battlefield and, if possible, fighting ground targets, surpasses everything else, unlike a helicopter with a meager survivability and a meager time spent over the battlefield with a very small and expensive back-fire set, which is characteristic, serious helicopter forces in the world have only USA and Russia.

      Fuel efficiency in a war is critical, because it is immediately allocated resources, and it is necessary to survive even before the war.
    5. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 29 October 2013 14: 31
      -1
      The tank is indispensable. It has no direct analogues capable of performing the same task. And the helicopter, of course, is no analogue to the tank. Plow, by the way, why not? laughing

      And ekranoplan? Irreplaceable? Why it is impossible to equip RCC seaplanes? And in general, here you have a whole family of machines on a single base, I don’t want a system.

      - anti-ship (lurking not far from the same Bosphorus, no worse than an ekranoplan, and a guard, but - you can climb higher, launch anti-ship missiles from a much greater distance, due to the greater detection range, many times better combat maneuverability - because the EKP has a very tight turn, quickly , "like an airplane", you won't be able to turn around);

      -search and rescue (unlike EPCs, they are really good, because when searching in the open sea, again you need to fly not 30 meters above the water, but much higher, otherwise you will not see anything);

      -fire (in contrast to ECP, can, having collected water directly in flight, reach the area of ​​natural disaster and begin to extinguish, see Be-200);

      landing (and why not?)

      -DRLO and U (maybe they are not needed, but it's not so simple, even if there are tasks for the EPC, then there will be a seaplane fellow and it is at least possible to use them as "flying radars", unlike EKP)

      Among other things, they can land on ordinary airfields, fly over land, at high altitude. Like ECPs, they do not require an airfield, land on water, they DO NOT need 100500 engines for take-off / flight (which is at least a huge saving when buying), their disadvantages in terms of efficiency before EPCs are similar to a bike (and, apparently, they are), carrying capacity, with similar dimensions, is quite competitive against the ekranoplanes payload.
      Seaplanes have a whole wagon of advantages over EPC. But even they have not received mass distribution today.
      So prove to me now the opposite, otherwise the "poor things, seaplanes" are relegated to the background, they demand immediate production, because what a benefit !!!! sad
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 October 2013 16: 34
        -1
        Why it is impossible to equip RCC seaplanes?

        How do you imagine this? RCC pendant under the wings? It sits on the water, the first high wave will blow them or damage them.
        many times the best combat maneuverability - after all, the EKP has a very tight turn, it will not turn out quickly, "like an airplane");

        Loaded RCC seaplane has not the best performance characteristics. The same pregnant cow.
        after all, when searching in the open sea, you again need to fly not 30 meters above the water, but much higher, otherwise you will not see anything

        Ekskrolet to help you.
        unlike ECP, they can, having collected water directly in flight, reach the area of ​​natural disaster and begin to extinguish, see Be-200

        What makes you think that it is impossible to put a water intake system similar to the Be-200 on the ECP?
        Seaplanes have a whole wagon of advantages over EPC.

        The same song, only in profile.
        1. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD 29 October 2013 17: 47
          0
          How do you imagine this? RCC pendant under the wings? It sits on the water, the first high wave will blow them or damage them.


          That is, placing RCC on top of the fuselage is an exclusive advantage of EPC? laughing laughing laughing Okay. In general, it is possible under a good inclination towards the movement, right in the fuselage, after all, now there are good missiles of small dimensions, no one asks to put any "Volcanoes".

          Loaded RCC seaplane has not the best performance characteristics. The same pregnant cow.


          Yah. You think so? smile Of course, the seaplane will be able to lay pretty steep turns with anti-ship missiles on board. This is not a task beyond the possibilities. Wing in flight above the water will try to quickly turn around and break off its wings on the water, and it’s not at all a load.

          Ekskrolet to help you.


          We’re talking about ekranoplans. winked

          What makes you think that it is impossible to put a water intake system similar to the Be-200 on the ECP?


          What will the ECP do when it draws water? Will stew the ocean?

          The same song, only in profile.


          Seaplanes are like that aircraft. And then ECP? After reading my post, you could notice at least two tasks (search and rescue operation and fires) that the EPC is basically unable to perform efficiently. Not to mention the seaplanes fly. They can perform tasks in any region, wherever there is enough fuel from the shore / floating base. This is their fundamental difference, the ability to climb to a height.
          Just in case, I’ll clarify one important detail - I’m talking specifically about ekranoplans. Related modes of transport is not for me (this is about ekranoletov). And it’s not so simple there, I'm sure. Just not familiar with them.
          If I am too harsh in response, please excuse me. It’s just annoying that instead of constructive counterarguments, why are these rattles so good, they simply post their minuses.
          1. Santa Fe
            29 October 2013 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: SkiF_RnD
            What makes you think that it is impossible to put a water intake system similar to the Be-200 on the ECP?

            What will the ECP do when it draws water? Will stew the ocean?

            laughing
  • FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 28 October 2013 11: 00
    +8
    small ekranoplans fly themselves calmly and do not worry about all these issues
    1. FunkschNNX
      FunkschNNX 28 October 2013 11: 04
      +1
      and still handsome
      1. FunkschNNX
        FunkschNNX 28 October 2013 11: 04
        +1
        another one on the screen
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 16: 04
      -2
      Like sports cars at a price, like a good home and fuel efficiency like a space rocket. They simply have insignificant by the standards of mass production, but demand.
      1. FunkschNNX
        FunkschNNX 29 October 2013 00: 35
        -1
        The fact that in the photo the engine is generally piston, about 320 horses, consumption in cruising mode is 32 kg (at a cruising speed of 150-170 km / h it will be 20 liters per hundred), there is enough fuel on board for 450 km, traction 225 kg for each VISH. Price 380 EUR. And all this with 4 passengers. Not bad, right?
        1. Santa Fe
          29 October 2013 00: 52
          +1
          Quote: Фкенщь13
          Not bad, right?

          Poorly

          Cessna-172

          Engine power - 160 HP
          Payload weight - 370 kg
          Fuel reserve 211 liters
          Cruising speed in horizontal flight - 193 km / h
          Range - 1300 km

          Cessna-1972 was created 60 years ago. To date, 100+ aircraft have been built, the most common light-engine aircraft in the world.
          1. FunkschNNX
            FunkschNNX 29 October 2013 09: 03
            -1
            Well, again, will we compare warm to soft?
            The Panther promises even more outstanding performance, but these are AIRCRAFT. "Osprey" is also a very bad plane and a very mediocre helicopter, but it flies, so much so that in general they are going to refuse some types of helicopters.

            And it’s never 100+, but 000-2 times less (and then if you consider all the modifications together); and consumption is quite comparable :-)
            1. Magellan
              Magellan 29 October 2013 10: 15
              +1
              Quote: Фкенщь13
              And never 100+

              Vika says 43 pieces in 000 versions

              In any case, this is a lot. The most massive aircraft in the history of aviation
              Quote: Фкенщь13
              and consumption is quite comparable

              Considering that Cessna has a 60-year-old engine, and Ivolga has an engine from the latest BMW model ...
              figures are not at all in favor of an ekranoplan

              Plus other disadvantages: lower speed, limited scope
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 28 October 2013 11: 01
    11
    Very very zakazuhoy. In general, I am wary of people who think that they are a little smarter than such designers as Alekseev. Remember how many squeals about the MiG-31's uselessness there were and the arguments are the same a lot of fuel, expensive, and the most damning argument for our mentality "Americans are such fools machines do not build. " For the Il-2, they generally said that Ilyushin and a cheeky professor, and how then it turned out, "they are needed like bread like air" That's interesting how from a distance of 500 km with "Basalts" in some island terrain at a speed of 500 km / h along a hard-to-cut three-way because of what - such a fool pops up a toe, and according to AUG how quickly the guys will understand that they have problems.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 16: 09
      -2
      The answer is given in the article, AWACS planes will see everything much further, but the issue of hitting targets with missiles, even for monsters like Peter the Great, is extremely relevant, since illumination is needed and the cruiser has nothing but a helicopter. Therefore, tell tales about "killers of aircraft carriers" to small children, physics and radio horizons have not yet been canceled.
      1. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 2 November 2013 15: 42
        0
        We pass further! Listen, why do AWACS? Which AWACS? This is an ekranoplan! He has no AWAC at anything ...
        He, you know, will hide in the insular area and ... Hmm.

        In the event that Russia adopts anti-ship ekranoplanes, the United States, of course, will adopt ways to combat them. Reconnaissance from the air, detection of EKP patrolling or standing on the surface of the water, maintaining a certain distance from large ships to any obstacles (the same slopes) that can serve as a cover until the carrier-based aircraft reconnaissance there. Etc. It is possible to develop the thought further, but the ECP would not become any "wunderwaffe". Detecting and destroying them will be within the scope of the existing US Navy forces. And then - a new branch of the arms race, new money spent. And the advantages are not visible. EKP with RCC are not needed.
  • aviator65
    aviator65 28 October 2013 11: 03
    +4
    The ekranoplan designers have repeatedly mentioned the possibility of their machines to switch to the airplane flight mode, that is, at an altitude significantly exceeding the "screen" one. At least in relation to "Eaglet" this statement sounded quite specific. Even the possibility of transporting it to the An-225 Mriya with an air launch from it was considered (rescue option). Therefore, it seems to me that the statement about their ability to fly only over the open sea is somewhat controversial. Again, following the logic of the author of the article, hovercraft should have shared the fate of ekranoplanes. They, of course, have a slightly higher carrying capacity, but at the same time they are inferior in speed, and are approximately equal in other qualities.
    The development of this direction is most likely slowed down by the fact that ECPs are not only at the junction of two elements, but also at the junction of at least two departments: the fleet and aviation. Hence the conflicting requirements for these devices, difficulties in organizing production and operation. In short, they decided that it was easier to get rid of this hemorrhoids.
    1. Was mammoth
      Was mammoth 28 October 2013 11: 18
      +2
      Quote: aviator65
      The development of this direction is most likely slowed down by the fact that ECPs are not only at the junction of two elements, but also at the junction of at least two departments: the fleet and aviation. Hence the conflicting requirements for these devices, difficulties in organizing production and operation. In short, they decided that it was easier to get rid of this hemorrhoids.

      A couple of years ago I saw a film about the creation of these devices and the fate of the chief designer. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name. Your assumptions are correct. Ruined for this reason. Although there were other reasons, also not technical.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 28 October 2013 21: 38
        +1
        Quote: There was a mammoth
        A couple of years ago I saw a film about the creation of these devices and the fate of the chief designer. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name.

        "Burnt Wings"
    2. Vasia kruger
      Vasia kruger 28 October 2013 12: 02
      0
      Quote: aviator65
      The development of this direction is most likely slowed down by the fact that ECPs are not only at the junction of two elements, but also at the junction of at least two departments: the fleet and aviation. Hence the conflicting requirements for these devices, difficulties in organizing production and operation. In short, they decided that it was easier to get rid of this hemorrhoids.


      Actually only for this reason, this direction in technology does not develop, and for the same reason there were difficulties even under Khrushchev.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 16: 11
      0
      According to the logic of the author of the article, "Bison" is landing a very decent assault force. That is, it does its main job.
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 28 October 2013 11: 04
    +3
    Like the problem of the article and expert opinion! hi
    Currently, one of the promising areas for the development of technology is the development of transport systems based on new physical principles.
    Today there is an unprecedented rise in the global ekranoplanostroeniya. Actively working in the direction of creating ekranoplanes for various purposes Australia, Germany, Iran, China, Singapore, the United States of America, South Korea and several other countries.
    The ekranoplan has unique properties, combining great speed, like an airplane, great payload due to the use of the screen effect and the ability of an autonomous ship like a sailing ship. It has lower fuel consumption than aircraft and ship (s), high safety for the crew and passengers, because in the event of a malfunction of the materiel, the ekranoplan has the opportunity to land on a water (other flat) surface, which in these cases can be considered as a constantly present airfield. The range of use of the device in the country is almost unlimited, and the application does not require the creation of a complex and costly infrastructure.
    To develop this innovative type of vehicle, the Ekranoplan Association was formed, which unites organizations involved in the creation of ekranoplan designs and the necessary special airborne equipment, engines, new construction materials, including under government contracts.
    Research carried out by members of the Ekranoplan Association together with research organizations of the country showed that ekranoplans can be widely used in the implementation of national projects, in various sectors of the economy, used on rivers, lakes, sea areas, especially in the regions of Siberia and the Far East, to ensure the fulfillment of multifaceted tasks in the development of minerals on the continental shelf of the marginal seas, especially in the Arctic, in the elimination of the consequences of natural and man-made disasters.
    When developing promising ekranoplan projects, the Ekranoplan Association takes into account the experience gained over the years and modern innovative achievements of science and technology. In terms of their characteristics and operational qualities, the ratio of the "efficiency-cost" indicator, our ekranoplanes significantly exceed the existing foreign models.

    http://ekranoplani.ru/
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 16: 47
      -3
      Quote: mhpv
      http://ekranoplani.ru/

      WIG site.ru is lying
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 28 October 2013 19: 26
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        WIG site.ru is lying

        Exactly with the same probability as Oleg Kaptsov.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 19: 51
          -1
          Quote: bot.su
          Exactly with the same probability as Oleg Kaptsov.

          Kaptsov gave specific figures and comparisons
          The article from the sayka ekranoplny.ru - blah blah blah
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 29 October 2013 00: 21
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Kaptsov gave specific figures and comparisons

            Kaptsov is lying:
            without defensive means

            The eaglet had a twin Utyos-M installation. Lun - two twin gun mounts;

            underestimates
            Moreover, the scope of ekranoplanes was limited only to open sea spaces - unlike airplanes, which, in principle, care about the relief under the wing (the Urals, Siberia, the Himalayas ... we fly anywhere in the world

            The relief is indifferent, but for takeoff and landing a runway is required, at least unpaved. Any smooth surface — water, ice, including with cracks, a beach, a tundra — is suitable for take-off and landing of an ekranolet;

            using cheap demagogy tries to belittle the value of objective difficulties
            A wistful ballad about the imperfection of technology in the assembly of electronic components and the absence of suitable materials can impress only students of the undergraduate courses in the humanities.

            Meanwhile, the use of weak alloys has been identified and partially eliminated.

            In addition, Oleg Kaptsov denies ekranoplanes the possibility of modernization. Scary hummocks, although the use of modern
            Radar with the mode of mapping and search for targets on the background of the surface
            on ekranoplans, it will allow them to simply avoid meeting him, skirting or flying these obstacles.

            In general, Kaptsov’s next article is blah blah blah, based on the only postulate that Oleg was able to learn - air density at the sea surface is higher than at an altitude of 10 km. To realize that this is what makes the screen effect possible, the author does not have enough education smile
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 00: 59
              +2
              Quote: bot.su
              The eaglet had a twin Utyos-M installation. Lun - two twin gun mounts

              Coaxial machine guns laughing

              against the S-300, "Dagger", "Calm" air defense systems and automated six-barrels with radar guidance and many other things that are on real ships of the Navy
              Quote: bot.su
              The relief is indifferent, but for takeoff and landing a runway is required, at least a dirt one

              The ability to fly over a love terrain completely covers the imaginary problem with the runway.
              Quote: bot.su
              Radar with the mode of mapping and search for targets on the background of the surface

              To do this, fly at an altitude of 6 km)))
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 29 October 2013 09: 56
                -1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                against the S-300, "Dagger", "Calm" air defense systems and automated six-barrels with radar guidance and many other things that are on real ships of the Navy

                Again you refuse the ekranoplan in the possibility of modernization and improvement. Radar guidance and missiles on it can be implemented. If you set a goal, then the s-300 can be installed, probably.

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The ability to fly over a love terrain completely covers the imaginary problem with the runway.

                Imaginary? What is the area of ​​the Arctic territory of the Russian Federation and the number of runways on it? In addition, the lack of binding to the runway radically solves the problem of dispersal in the event of a war.


                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                To do this, fly at an altitude of 6 km)

                Well, you’re in the subject, if you indicate the ceiling of Orlyonok :) And if the height is so critical, then a standard collision avoidance radar would solve the hummock problem.
                1. Santa Fe
                  29 October 2013 20: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: bot.su
                  Again you refuse the ekranoplan in the possibility of modernization and improvement. Radar guidance and missiles on it can be implemented. If you set a goal, then the s-300 can be installed, probably.

                  To install modules of rockets, antenna pots and ballast to compensate for their harmful effects on stability, many hundreds of tons of reserve load are needed.

                  ECP is not where to get them.
                  Quote: bot.su
                  the number of runways on it?

                  Where necessary, there is.
                  Barneo’s ice runway is built annually in the North Pole area for a couple of days and tourists are massively transported there on the An-74 (ice diving, etc. extreme)


                  Quote: bot.su
                  In addition, the lack of binding to the runway radically solves the problem of dispersal in the event of a war.

                  Can Lun replace Su-27?
                  Quote: bot.su
                  ceiling eaglet

                  Well then you are going to fly on a screen effect, at a height of a couple of meters
      2. sniper
        sniper 29 October 2013 01: 43
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        lying

        Current one great Oleg Kaptsov knows the truth and writes the truth and nothing but the truth !!! My friend, didn’t you turn to a psychiatrist ??? It’s a pity ... Be sure to go, you have megalomania, however ....
        1. Santa Fe
          29 October 2013 02: 08
          0
          I do not pretend to high truths

          Kaptsov brought figures
          An ekranoplan site is just words. which is understandable - there are no examples confirming their correctness.

          I did not want to touch this topic. I was purposely provoked
          http://topwar.ru/35077-ispolnilos-20-let-s-momenta-poslednego-poleta-sovetskogo-
          orlenka.html #
          1. sniper
            sniper 29 October 2013 02: 44
            +4
            It is not surprising that the topic was covered up, and the "genius" charlatan Alekseev was kicked out into the street

            Oleg, excuse me, but for such statements you have no right ... Alekseev proved his worth as a constructor in business, but here you are .... At least ugly and mean ...
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 29 October 2013 02: 51
              +3
              Quote: sniper
              . Alekseev proved his worth by deed,

              Bartini also proved without options request But why did it preserve its heritage until 2179, if I’m not mistaken. Maybe it was right?
              1. Santa Fe
                29 October 2013 03: 08
                +2
                Quote: Ruslan67
                But why did it preserve its heritage until 2179, if I’m not mistaken. Maybe it was right?

                Is it possible in more detail? Time capsule?

                Bartini is a cool aircraft designer. He built classic aircraft with unique characteristics.
                1. Ruslan67
                  Ruslan67 29 October 2013 03: 14
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Is it possible in more detail? Time capsule?

                  Well-known fact request He wrote a will and handed over the sealed box for storage what Oleg! here, it seems, they are not children and you also do not need links hi Young people need to be taught but maybe for these technologies it’s just not the time belay It will take 30-40 years and it will become popular as some Roberto Ludwigovich’s devices?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    29 October 2013 08: 16
                    0
                    Quote: Ruslan67
                    It will take 30-40 years and it will become popular.

                    no, it won't

                    This is the same as teaching a person to fly like a bird, flapping wings - no nanotechnology will help. This is contrary to the laws of nature
                    Quote: Ruslan67
                    Well-known fact

                    I first found out. Although Bartini was an unusual specialist ...
                    VV Unlike Alekseeva created really cool cars with unique performance characteristics
            2. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 03: 06
              -1
              Quote: sniper
              Alekseev proved his worth by deed

              That's the thing, that no
              20 years of work - and only 2 operating life-size models. Another 30 years have passed since then - the topic has completely blown away, both here and abroad.
              Quote: sniper
              but for such statements you have no right

              From what? All this canoe with 10 engines was built at the expense of my parents - taxpayers and citizens of the USSR

              I don't want the same "brilliant" idea to be pushed to my children in the future. The construction at the expense of the state of an incredible aircraft with 10 engines, which could not demonstrate any of its advantages (even in theory, in the long term) is pure charlatanism
              1. Ruslan67
                Ruslan67 29 October 2013 03: 18
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                the topic was completely blown away, both here and abroad

                Maybe gigantomania let down like with a flying jackets? Those, too, in the era of piston airplanes were a serious striking force, and now they have become a target — how many missiles do not use to destroy it are still cheaper than one aircraft in a life cycle request
              2. sniper
                sniper 29 October 2013 15: 00
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                That's the thing, that no

                All the "trick" is that YES !!! Alekseev is, first of all, hydrofoils ... Well, as for ekranoplanes ... How does the birth of a new one usually take place? A designer comes with a brilliant, beautiful idea, and the customer begins to put forward his own requirements, often completely absurd. and now, as a result of lengthy negotiations and compromise decisions, only one name remains from the original brilliant design solution ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  29 October 2013 20: 24
                  0
                  Quote: sniper
                  Alekseev is primarily a hydrofoil ship

                  Oh, from the topic of ekranoplanes immediately jumped!

                  "Comets" and "Rakty" are another era of Alekseev's life and work. Respect for this.
                  But then he began to do a frank get on, that's why he is a genius ("Doctor" laughing ) From the sixth chamber. Where is the prosecutor.
                  Quote: sniper
                  A designer comes up with a brilliant, beautiful idea

                  What is the genius of the idea of ​​EPC?
                  What SPECIFIC advantages can these La demonstrate in combining aviation?
  • apostrophe
    apostrophe 28 October 2013 11: 04
    +2
    If the author is so negative about ekranoplanes, then why does the article have such a title? To fast
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 28 October 2013 11: 10
    +6
    Oleg gave the Russian classic a good answer to this article:
  • Diviz
    Diviz 28 October 2013 11: 14
    -1
    What are the goals of the ekranoplane. To conquer the Arctic, this technique is the most ideal option. Now our expeditions use icebreakers all-terrain sleds with a team of dogs husky tractor. Aircraft require a landing strip. And the question to the author is how he will choose the mode of transport?
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 16: 41
      -3
      Quote: DiViZ
      To conquer the Arctic, this is a technique. the most ideal option

      People leaving and adding such comments, you have a hike between the ears ... I understand that few of you were in those parts ... but really no one has ever seen photographs of the Arctic Ocean

      The ekranoplan in the Arctic ... is a complete zizdets. What do you think, is there ice smooth as on a skating rink?


      Your ekranoplan there will be smashed to pieces on hummocks




      Is it weak to land the ekranoplan on such "teeth"?





      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 43
        +5
        Put something else there ... There, neither the plane will drop the cargo, nor the ship will pass. On a strip of even ice or water with a length of 500-700 meters, it is easier to find than with shovels to level the GDP in 1.5 km. Or make your way there on the atomic icebreaker.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 19: 07
          -2
          Quote: Wedmak
          There, neither the plane will not load the cargo, nor the ship will pass

          The ship will pass
          The plane will drop the load
          The helicopter gently lowers the load and the rope ladder
          Quote: Wedmak
          with shovels to level GDP 1.5 km

          Barneo runway is being built within a few days. The tourist polar station itself exists for no more than 1-1,5 months (usually from April to the end of May)
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 28 October 2013 21: 40
            +1
            The ship will pass

            Through hummocks ?? Is that atomic. And that is not a fact.
            The plane will drop the load

            Which then figs you get out of this hell of a pile of ice.
            The helicopter gently lowers the load and the rope ladder

            The helicopter does not fly very far. And its basing on a nuclear-powered icebreaker flies a pretty penny.
            Barneo runway is being built within a few days.

            Here .. a few days. And then the ice slide and hello ... ECP within several hours will deliver the goods, sit on snow or water, unload and depart home.
            1. Santa Fe
              28 October 2013 23: 36
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              Through hummocks ?? Is that atomic

              Will pass
              He will choose the most optimal trajectory and pass. The Arctic reached the pole in 1977, since then tourists have been transported there annually
              Quote: Wedmak
              Which then figs you get out of this hell of a pile of ice.

              if he dumps the load - then someone needs it
              The main thing is that it easily flies through hummocks and gets to ANY region of the Arctic
              Quote: Wedmak
              The helicopter does not fly very far

              Enough to complete the tasks. Egozh nobody will drive from Greenland to about. Wrangel
              Quote: Wedmak
              And its basing on a nuclear-powered icebreaker flies a pretty penny.

              Arctic exploration is not a cheap thing
              Quote: Wedmak
              And then the ice slide and hello ... ECP in flow

              EPC will not reach there at all
              He will tear his belly about a random hummock and will break into chips
              1. SkiF_RnD
                SkiF_RnD 29 October 2013 18: 29
                0
                People, ay! Is it not obvious that there are often no arguments against a person even? Stupidly minus. An opponent writes in a controversy, they say, the ship will not sail in hummocks, and they give it advantages, they say, of course it will not sail! What the hell is that? Kill for ekranoplans laughing
                Aircraft, they say, will not dump the cargo. The author replies that they will discard (logically). To the author minus, to the opponent plus laughing
                seemingly adequate people on the site. Is this topic talked about?
  • JonnyT
    JonnyT 28 October 2013 11: 17
    +3
    If the Americans did not succeed, this does not mean that the original models do not evolve into something more. Ekranoplanes recognized as promising. So they are still chasing NATO aircraft carriers
  • aviator65
    aviator65 28 October 2013 11: 17
    +7
    "Exactly 20 years ago, in the fall of 1993, the last flight of the Eaglet ekranoplan took place at the 11th airbase of the Caspian Flotilla of the Russian Navy - the flight took place in the presence of many foreign guests from the Pentagon, NASA and American aircraft manufacturing companies, including the working group engineers under the leadership of aviconstructor Burt Rutan. 20 years have passed, but no serious work in this direction has been noted - neither here, nor abroad. Obviously, "Eaglet" did not particularly impress the Yankees with its capabilities ... "
    "Iron" argument! Apparently for the same reason, we went under the knife "Satan", railway missile systems, tactical missile launchers "Oka", and much more that "unimpressed" our overseas friends in the late 80's and early 90's.
  • 17085
    17085 28 October 2013 11: 29
    +4
    I think no one is going to reanimate the eagles. But burying the desire to use the principle of the screen is premature.
    An example from another area. Marine vessels SA-15 - having 2 power plants of 7700 kW each and a displacement of 33850 mt, "take" ice over a meter thick. I have met erroneous sayings that ships of this class are icebreakers. This, in principle, is not possible without the use of auxiliary systems.
    This I mean that the problems of ekranoplanes are quite solvable. By abandoning aircraft engines, replacing them with systems more acceptable for the fleet, electric motors and diesel (gas) generators, installing "air lubrication" systems to reduce the resistance of the water environment and reduce the acceleration time, new control and navigation systems, it is possible to achieve an increase in displacement, autonomy and more stable screen effect.
    The prospect of organizing Vladivostok-Murmansk year-round freight traffic is very attractive, and may well solve the problem of the cost of developing this kind of equipment.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 16: 19
      0
      Aircraft engine gives the necessary thrust, in the Navy there is simply nothing like that with comparable compability.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 28 October 2013 11: 31
    +6
    All these "open source data" have one (but very significant) drawback - extremely low reliability. Especially in terms of the REAL characteristics of military equipment. Suffice it to recall the data on the displacement and applied materials of the TRPK CH 941 project. They differ by one and a half times from different authors ... And draw deep conclusions on their basis ... lol

    Father told me how in one of the flights they once saw a KM on Tu-16. Such a strange thing wanders over the water itself, without rushing. Decreased to look more closely. So he drowned ... We, he says, just looked after us, left, as if he were standing ... lol

    The screen effect on the border of two environments exists OBJECTIVELY, regardless of our desire. And the fact that he has not yet found application in modern models of technology, IMHO testifies only to the fact that the engineering school has not yet reached this point. Recall the airships. It would seem that their era has irrevocably gone, BUT ... with the development of materials science and engineering, as it turns out, this is a rather promising topic ... request
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 14: 51
      -1
      Quote: Misantrop
      The screen effect on the border of two environments exists OBJECTIVELY, regardless of our desire

      The air pressure at the surface is also OBJECTINO 4,5 times higher than at an altitude of 10-11 km
      Quote: Misantrop
      Recall the airships

      Airships have an important advantage - they hang in the air without energy consumption.
      + climb to an unattainable height for aircraft and are able to stay there for weeks

      therefore they are always relevant

      Can you name any clear advantage of EPC?
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 28 October 2013 17: 17
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        any clear advantage of EPC
        So it’s obvious: to keep such a device in the air much less effort is required than with an airplane flight method. It is due to the created air cushion. Leaving the numbers given here (I already wrote about the degree of reliability of the open information), ECP, all other things being equal, should be more efficient than an airplane. Well, if this did not work out, then this is not a dead end, but either they did not take into account something, or the level of technical performance did not allow it. request

        Do you know that according to the currently used theory of flight, forty are physically unable to lift more than a third of their own bodies into the air? And the May bug is generally 1/12. lol However, both fly, and pretty well. In whole, not in parts, which is typical. Even in the Antonov Design Bureau, a hefty poster hung on the wall with their image and the signature: "Constructor, remember: in theory, these creatures should not be able to fly." wink

        And why with fire extinguishing systems such garbage so far? There are no reliable systems capable of extinguishing a fire with a 100% probability. Yes, simply because there is still no unified theory of combustion. And how many thousands of years humanity has been using fire? wink
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 17: 22
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          to keep such a device in the air requires much less effort than with the airplane method of flight

          he has 8 djs)))

          and a flight range of 2000 km - 3-4 times less than that of any aircraft of similar carrying capacity
          ECP, all other things being equal, should be more efficient than an airplane.

          should not
          1. "ballast" in the form of a garland of engines and a solid body (otherwise it is impossible - if done according to aviation technologies - it will crash against the waves)

          2. Frontal Tormentation:
          frost-bitten silhouette with a garland of engines and a float hull + 4,5 more air resistance

          3. low speed
          in the same time the plane goes a greater distance

          the currently used theory of flight of forty is PHYSICALLY NOT ABLE to lift more than a third of its own body into the air? And the May bug - that’s generally 1/12
          Naturally, they have a different principle. They are "flies")))

          so there are no paradoxes in aerodynamics. Serious science
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 28 October 2013 18: 00
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Naturally, they have a different principle. They are "flies")))
            Do all other birds fly according to a different principle? Are they not flywings? belay
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            he has 8 djs
            Remember the engine capacity of the first cars. And what about the current ones? Or the efficiency of the first steam locomotives, excavators lol By your logic, technology has no chance of development at all request
            1. Santa Fe
              28 October 2013 19: 12
              -1
              Quote: Misantrop
              Remember the engine capacity of the first cars. And what about the current ones?

              So, what is next. It's not about the engines from the IL-86. The point is the fundamental laws of nature and the structure of the earth's atmosphere
              A new, more economical engine will be installed on the plane and it will still have an advantage over the EPC
              Quote: Misantrop
              Do all other birds fly according to a different principle? Are they not flywings?

              You want to say that the crow has significant differences from the Carduelis or the pigeon in terms of the ratio of mass and developed power, the structure of the wings (everyone has 5 fingers each) and the movements of the wings in flight ... I have never been an ornithologist, but it seems to me that all birds in this regard are the same. Although not all

              these, as I understand it, cannot fly. But swim great
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 28 October 2013 17: 45
          +3
          Do you know that according to the currently used theory of flight, forty are physically unable to lift more than a third of their own bodies into the air? And the May bug is generally 1 / 12. lol However, both fly, and pretty well.

          Correction All these theories have already been rejected. In particular, with the May bug, ultra-fast shooting allowed us to see the secret - vortices.
      2. aviator65
        aviator65 28 October 2013 19: 30
        +1
        This is not an airship. This is a balloon.
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 28 October 2013 11: 46
    +5
    Who ordered such nonsense to Kaptsov, who paid for this opus? And who is Kaptsov anyway? The two-man is a dropout, he picked up the terms and, well, trump them, as if there were no literate people besides him. Kaptsov is a dirty trick and provocateur. I am amazed by such "experts" who throw mud at worthy of our compatriots.
    1. Professor
      Professor 28 October 2013 12: 01
      +3
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Who ordered such nonsense to Kaptsov, who paid for this opus? And who is Kaptsov anyway? The two-man is a dropout, he picked up the terms and, well, trump them, as if there were no literate people besides him. Kaptsov is a dirty trick and provocateur. I am amazed by such "experts" who throw mud at worthy of our compatriots.

      Anyone can offend the author, only a few can refute his argument.
      1. Yura
        Yura 28 October 2013 12: 18
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        Anyone can offend the author, only a few can refute his argument.

        That's right. Regardless of how I personally relate to this topic, I always read articles by Oleg Kaptsov with great interest. And thanks to him, this topic by ear always provokes lively discussion, and if he had not written a single article on this topic, he would definitely have to be asked about it.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 14: 44
          +2
          Quote: Jura
          Regardless of how I personally relate to this topic, I always read articles by Oleg Kaptsov with great interest.

          Thank you Jura

          Without your feedback, this would not make any sense. I am happy to argue with each of the readers.
      2. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 28 October 2013 12: 25
        +2
        I don’t know how much you are a professor, but you will agree that the topic was discussed more than once, and the advantages of ekranoplanes were proved quite reasonably. So tell me why for a person to whom the arguments of experts are not a decree, why should he bring these arguments again? Agree when a person stubbornly pushes illiterate articles, this leads to certain thoughts. But you can disagree with me, your right.
        1. Professor
          Professor 28 October 2013 12: 33
          0
          Quote: vladsolo56
          I don’t know how professor you are,

          Clearly, sour cabbage soup. wink

          Quote: vladsolo56
          So tell me why for a person to whom the arguments of experts are not a decree, why should he bring these arguments again?

          His most important argument, and not contested, is "thousands and thousands of ekranoplanes plying the primeval oceans". wink Well, the statements that the Americans "could not" create an ekranoplan from the area of ​​jingoistic patriotism. Not found necessary. Bourgeois always count money.
          1. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 28 October 2013 14: 54
            +3
            The fact that in our country they hacked at the direction of ekranoplans is not a fact of their inefficiency. By the way, hydrofoil vessels were issued for a very long time only in the USSR. And while no one disputed their need and benefits. So your argument is at least not serious.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 28 October 2013 17: 22
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            Well, the statements that the Americans "could not" create an ekranoplan from the area of ​​jingoistic patriotism. Not found necessary. Bourgeois always count money.

            Well, it does not fit even once. Especially if you recall the aircraft carriers (and do not forget which country has the most). Oddly enough, it was Oleg on this forum who is the main herald of their uselessness ... lol Is there other money? belay
            1. Santa Fe
              28 October 2013 17: 30
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              Especially if you recall the aircraft carriers (and do not forget which country has the most).

              Here everything is clear as day
              1. industrial lobby
              2. war lobby

              based on traditional American taxpayer and senatorial views of a "strong navy"
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 28 October 2013 18: 01
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                1. industrial lobby
                2. war lobby

                based on traditional American taxpayer and senatorial views of a "strong navy"
                Well, that would be the Dreadnoughts built. Cheaper and where it looks more formidable lol
                1. Santa Fe
                  28 October 2013 19: 14
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Well, that would be the Dreadnoughts built. Cheaper and where it looks more formidable

                  Yankees are used to AB
              2. The comment was deleted.
      3. nerd.su
        nerd.su 28 October 2013 19: 42
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        here it is argued to refute only a few.

        If demagoguery was alien to this author, he himself would admit that stupidity froze laughing
    2. Mhpv
      Mhpv 28 October 2013 12: 21
      +2
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Who ordered Kaptsov such nonsense, who paid him this opus?

      I'm not an informer, but I know the form of the report laughing
      The beginning, as in the article, was here:
      SWEET_SIXTEEN (1) RU 25 October 2013 19: 26 ↑

      Quote: 11111mail.ru
      and consequently nobody has canceled the great lifting force!

      no one canceled the force of air resistance

      pressure at the surface of the sea - 760 mm. Hg. Art.
      air pressure at a height of 11 000 meters - 170 mm. Hg. Art.

      In addition, the ekranoplan still needs to take off take-off speed in 200 km / h
      And to do this with takay upset oh how difficult.
      request
  • sem.sorok
    sem.sorok 28 October 2013 11: 47
    +4
    Quote: Rinat 1
    Isn't it that bad?

    I put a minus to the article, because the author writes frank delirium. It is enough that the garland of engines is intended for one thing - ascent to the "screen". Then the cruise engines come into play. Here's to you, and efficiency. The carrying capacity is also maybe more than that of the plane. If anyone is interested, I will throw in reviews on ekranoplanes. Yes, and if everything is bad - why are mattress mats currently engaged in the development of ekranoplanes?
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 14: 39
      +1
      Quote: sem.sorok
      Then the marching engines come into play. That's actually for you and profitability

      With the same load (20 tons) and fuel reserve, the Orlyonok's flight range was 3 times less than that of the An-12

      That's actually for you and profitability
  • sem.sorok
    sem.sorok 28 October 2013 11: 50
    +5
    Quote: aviator65
    Apparently for the same reason, we went under the knife "Satan", railway missile systems, tactical missile launchers "Oka", and much more that "unimpressed" our overseas friends in the late 80's and early 90's.

    the "unimpression" was so powerful that they woke up in a cold sweat at night lol
    1. Vasia kruger
      Vasia kruger 28 October 2013 12: 19
      +4
      Quote: sem.sorok
      Quote: aviator65
      Apparently for the same reason, we went under the knife "Satan", railway missile systems, tactical missile launchers "Oka", and much more that "unimpressed" our overseas friends in the late 80's and early 90's.

      the "unimpression" was so powerful that they woke up in a cold sweat at night lol


      That's right. Not impressed ... they left with a proudly upturned nose. And at home they were already dispersed on the topic "what is yours in the rocker they have and we do not!" )))))
  • svp67
    svp67 28 October 2013 11: 57
    +7
    At the same time, the aircraft was many times superior to the giant ECP in speed, range and economy. And of course, they could fly over both over land and over the sea: the relief under the wing did not mean the least to them.

    For all the correctness of what was said, one question arises - who said that ekranoplanes should FULLY replace ordinary planes and ships?
    I think that the answer suggests itself - everything has its place, you just need to carefully analyze how many ekranoplans we need, with what capabilities and where. And I think that it is not worth proving that they are necessary, at least in the Pacific theater of operations, to protect our islands ...
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 14: 34
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      and who said that ekranoplanes should FULLY replace ordinary planes and ships?

      they are PARTLY not able to replace. There is not a single niche where their application would give an advantage over an airplane or ship
      Quote: svp67
      And the fact that they are necessary, at least in the Pacific Theater, to protect our islands

      Submarines, frigates, basic naval aviation
      1. Col.
        Col. 28 October 2013 15: 46
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        basic naval aviation


        From our once mighty naval aviation in the MA of the Pacific Fleet remained several combat-ready IL-38s, helicopters and a "pounded" transport regiment. These forces will only be enough for EPISODIC flights in the near sea zone.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 16: 01
          +1
          Quote: Colonel
          From our once mighty naval aviation in the MA of the Pacific Fleet remained several combat-ready IL-38s, helicopters and a "pounded" transport regiment.

          So you need to restore
  • aviator65
    aviator65 28 October 2013 12: 06
    +2
    If anyone is interested, there is good material on this topic.
    [media = http: //vk.com/video191853783_166251198]
  • Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 28 October 2013 12: 15
    +4
    The article is fueling)))
    I fundamentally disagree with the author. I see the problems of ekranoplanes in a completely different way.
    1. Belonging to the department.
    2. Technologies of the Soviet period.
    3. Misunderstanding of the principles of application.

    All these problems can be solved over time, as mentioned above, aircraft developed over 100 years, and a huge number of specialists around the world. And the ekranoplanes are 50 years old ... and to put it mildly, not very massively.
    I think that these machines have their own niche, both in the peaceful version and in the military (do not forget that it is more difficult to find it than a high-altitude bomber). The main thing is not to bother yourself with stupid thoughts that the ekranoplan will replace both ships and planes. They can complement. The car did not supplant the railway)))

    And about the economy ... I read somewhere that the same Lun uses his entire machinery only until he breaks off the surface, that is, he needs so much dope only to enter the main operating mode. And then part of the engines either shuts down, or operate at minimum speed. But here I can’t say anything, for which I bought it and sell it.
    There was simply no political or economic will for the full development of this area.
    If I'm not mistaken, hydrofoils (by the way, this is also the work of Alekseev, the same "Rockets" that are still rushing along the rivers, his brainchild) also did not immediately come to the court.
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 15: 53
      0
      Quote: Vasia Kruger
      I read somewhere that the same Lun uses all his machinery only until he breaks off the surface

      why does he have a range of only 2000 km?
      3-4 times less than any of the aircraft of the same size and carrying capacity
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 16: 46
      0
      About technology is very accurately indicated by the example of helicopters. The right equipment, even with imperfect technologies, will find the customer.

      And then part of the engines either shuts down, or operate at minimum speed.


      The turbine at minimum speed eats fuel beyond measure.
  • common man
    common man 28 October 2013 12: 27
    +6
    Alekseev's ekranoplanes were built using ship technologies, from ship materials, hence the low weight return. On the other hand, in this case, they should be cheaper than aircraft. And this is a plus. Driving problems? If the goblin F-117 was taught to fly, then the ekranoplan is not a problem at all. And there are also ekranollets which solve the problem of "flat surface". WIGs are still at the beginning of their development and it's too early to put melancholy on them.
    PS Cars also drove quieter than horses with carts and didn’t eat fuel at all.
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 14: 31
      0
      Quote: man in the street
      WIG Alekseev built on ship technology, from ship materials, hence the low weight return.

      Do you offer aviation?

      then forget about trying to take off in a 6-point storm.
      1. common man
        common man 28 October 2013 15: 01
        +2
        In this case, in the rescue option, it will not be replaced by a seaplane. (In a six-point storm.) When rescuing those in distress, it’s not enough to find them, there are beacons or an airplane for this, as you say. It is important to quickly get to them and be able to pick up on board. Including excitement 6 points. Ships - long, amphibious aircraft for sea waves. WIG remains?
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 15: 30
          -1
          Quote: man in the street
          it will not be replaced by a seaplane

          The task of the IL-38, C-130 or P-3 Orion is to find a shipwreck
          helicopters will be pulled out of the water
          Quote: man in the street
          there are beacons for this

          look at any news on this subject (shipwreck, search for victims in the ocean) - the rescue operation lasts at least a WEEK, or even more

          a dozen pieces of aviation and marine equipment scrupulously search the probable place of the tragedy, trying to find the victims

          And these jokers with ekranoplanes gathered to find and save everyone in an hour
          Quote: man in the street
          It is important to quickly get to them and be able to pick up on board.

          Ktozh argues with this. Only life, alas, is far from ideal

          Sea King heavy helicopter - perhaps the best marine rescue system to date
        2. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD 30 October 2013 00: 30
          0
          WIG? How do you imagine this? I have already been offered to take water on the ECP, as on the Be-200 ... Maybe it is the same with people? laughing And then, how much trouble to sit down not far away- into a six-storm storm (it’s unlikely to succeed in jewelry, and it’s dangerous to sail through the heads of what’s good) ... and then? to row? Oars with you, or something to take? And then, anyway, as you sit down, you will lose sight of those whom you are going to save. Well, not a damn thing! laughing
          In general, nothing happens. It is mortally dangerous for the rescued - to select an ekranoplan. You splash down, and their two-meter wave, and your head against the side of your super-cruiser ... The only thing you can do is throw the raft or life buoy neatly. (but here the seaplane is again simpler again) Also not so hot what solution, but much smarter. And picking up a storm from the water is generally a non-trivial task, as far as I know, only a rescue helicopter is good here.
  • Avenich
    Avenich 28 October 2013 13: 07
    +9
    But I don't know why Oleg hates ekranoplanes so fiercely. Although he also dislikes infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers and aircraft carriers. At the same time he likes to "cheat" with obvious performance characteristics and performance characteristics. Most recently, I kindly suggested to him the obvious superiority of active hovercraft over aircraft. There were no objections. Well, apparently you have to get up on the same rake again. The weight of the "Orlyonok" is 120 tons, the weight of the An-12 is 28 tons. The weight of the Alekseev ekranoplan is 3 times more. Orlyonok's traction characteristics are slightly worse, but at the same time the carrying capacity is the same, and the range is only 2 times lower. Those. it turns out that if Alekseev had been at least a third of the weight, his Eaglet would have overtaken Annushka far, just like any other plane. I think that the chief designer knew about this, and therefore complained about the departmental use of materials. And the efficiency, its the same can be assessed in different ways, as you know, the efficiency of a passenger car, reduced to the energy stored in the fuel 6-8%.
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 15: 50
      +1
      Quote: Avenich
      Oleg so fiercely hates ekranoplans. Although he also does not like BMP and armored personnel carriers and aircraft carriers

      Thank you for your interest in my modest work. Thank!
      Quote: Avenich
      fiercely hates ekranoplans.

      The media occasionally receives news about the possible resumption of their production.
      To the joyful cries of the townsfolk: Yes, come on! We need EPCs to develop the Arctic. And the border guards really need them

      I would be seriously interested in this project in the place of Rogozin and Co. - when the goal is to cut and absorb funds, the most meaningless project brings the greatest benefit
      Quote: Avenich
      and infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers

      Only the lungs!

      Heavy Ahzarit, Puma, Namer, BMO-T - excellent cars in every respect
      Quote: Avenich
      At the same time he likes to "cheat" with obvious performance characteristics and performance characteristics.

      WHERE did you see this ??
      Quote: Avenich
      Weight "Eaglet" 120 tons, weight An-12 28 tons ..

      I do not understand what do you mean
      What do the numbers mean - payload, take-off weight (what? Max.? Norms?), Empty weight?
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 28 October 2013 18: 16
        +1
        I do not understand what do you mean
        What do the numbers mean - payload, take-off weight (what? Max.? Norms?), Empty weight? [/ Quote]
        Again cheating, dear. If I add 20 tons of payload to the "empty" weight of the vehicles, nothing will fundamentally change.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 19: 15
          +1
          Quote: Avenich
          Again cheating, dear. If I add 20 tons of payload to the "empty" weight of the vehicles, nothing will fundamentally change.


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Weight "Eaglet" 120 tons, weight An-12 28 tons ..

          Where is the weight of the empty device here? And where is the muhlezh?)))
          In my opinion, you just take numbers from the ceiling and try to calculate something strange
          1. Avenich
            Avenich 29 October 2013 06: 54
            0
            Dear Oleg, I beg you very much before writing pogrom articles, please take a little time to prepare for writing it. And please be more attentive when giving comments. The weight of the empty equipped "Eaglet" is 120000 kg. Airwar.ru data. The empty weight of the An-12 is similarly 28000 kg. Even if you, dear, remember the anchors and chassis of the "Orlyonok" and compare with the maximum takeoff weight of the An-12 of 61000 kg and with the analogous weight of the "Eaglet" 140000 kg, the difference is obvious.
            Further, I will ask one more question, for the transportation of what goods or weapons was the Caspian Monster intended? A "huge" device without soft passenger seats, without cannons and machine guns, what, excuse me, did he move in the cramped space of the screen?
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 08: 19
              +1
              hi
              Quote: Avenich
              An-12 weighing 61000 kg and a similar one for the "Eaglet" of 140000 kg, the difference is obvious.

              Whose problems are these?

              After all, the mass of the payload is the same
              1. Avenich
                Avenich 29 October 2013 10: 13
                0
                Dear, your answer is called "trolling".
  • efeer
    efeer 28 October 2013 13: 23
    +9
    the author here invented anything ... Did he invent this simply? It is known that KM took on board not 200-250 tons of cargo, but all 500 tons. Cruise mode was supported by only 2 engines installed on the keel. Where does such a consumption come from - 30 tons of kerosene in 5 minutes of dispersal? On the eaglet there are two nk-8 engines in the bow for blowing under the wing for quick separation from the water during take-off.
    We were also pleased with the "pertinent" comparisons of an ekranoplan with a container ship () ... It is a pity that the author did not come to comparing a helicopter and a boomerang, a cat and sour cream, and jo ... with a finger.
    1. Windbreak
      Windbreak 28 October 2013 17: 11
      +1
      Quote: efeer
      It is known that KM took on board not 200-250 tons of cargo, but all 500 tons
      Although it empty weighed 240 tons and had a maximum take-off weight of 544 tons. And you probably came up with new math, where 304 = 500.
      1. Santa Fe
        28 October 2013 17: 16
        0
        304
        Of these, 100 tons are fuel and technical fluids.
        1. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD 30 October 2013 00: 44
          -2
          Don't like the shoulder straps in your profile? Do you want to get a rating? Tired of not understanding everyone there, "specialists" who do not understand anything about patriotism !?

          THERE IS AN EXIT!!! Leave a couple of comments in defense of the ekranoplanes, and things will go quickly quickly! It is absolutely not necessary that they are adequate, most importantly, in order to protect ekranoplanes !!!
  • Cristall
    Cristall 28 October 2013 13: 37
    +2
    I disagree with the opinion of the author, but it can negatively serve officials as an excuse for financing.
    WIG is a specific tool, and if it is developed wisely ... oh, someone will see happy (or not very) dreams on the other side of the ocean (and not only)
    The main thing is to identify the problem and ways to solve problems. And with such articles you can definitely write off both Satan and tanks and all our planes - uneconomical and so on ...
  • Neighbor
    Neighbor 28 October 2013 14: 54
    +3
    As they wrote in the "Tekhnka Molodyozhi" during the Soviet era, the construction of ekranoplanes was assigned to shipbuilders .... So they demanded that Rostislav Evgenievich install ship anchors, like on a steamer.
  • Delta
    Delta 28 October 2013 14: 58
    +1
    Understand the author correctly - being a nihilist at all times was fashionable
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 15: 33
      +1
      The doctor often encounters pathologies at work (for that he and the doctor)

      Here is similar
  • xtur
    xtur 28 October 2013 15: 13
    +1
    when I learn to guess the authorship of Kaptsov in three letters, I will achieve enlightenment. In the meantime, I manage to do this one page at a time
  • saag
    saag 28 October 2013 15: 29
    0
    The main problem of the EKP is its specificity, when a universal solution is generally needed, so most likely it will not develop very much as aircraft carriers, the Almaz orbital stations and thermonuclear torpedoes-killers of coastal cities
  • Armata
    Armata 28 October 2013 15: 41
    +1
    Oleg. Thank you for the article. But just answer me. Someone something like that could come up with from those times? Of course, one can persistently prove that this is a dead end branch. Simple question. Which country currently has the means to defeat this monster? And 100% recognition and maintenance of this goal? You know, with all due respect to you, there is no objectivity in your statements.
    1. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 16: 18
      -1
      Greetings, Eugene
      Quote: Mechanic
      Someone something like that could come up with from those times?



      Unique, does not mean right and useful


      Quote: Mechanic
      Which country currently has the means to defeat this monster?

      Any developed country

      Marine air defense systems. air-to-air missiles. Shoot from a cannon, in the end


      under the belly of F-35, a hanging container with a 25 mm cannon is visible


      On April 4, 2012, at the rocket firing range of the French General Agency for Arms (Direction générale de l'armement - DGA) near Ile do Levant near Toulon, the French Navy frigate D 620 Forbin (such as Horizon), equipped with the PAAMS anti-aircraft missile system, made the first successful Aster 30 anti-aircraft guided missile interception of a supersonic low-altitude target. As such a target, the US-acquired Orbital Sciences GQM-163A Coyote supersonic target rocket, specially designed to simulate modern Russian anti-ship missiles and having a flight speed of up to 2,5 M at low altitude, was used.

      Small drone, at a speed of 2,5M, flight height 5 meters. What would have happened in his place with "guseedinorg", I think, does not require explanation
      Quote: Mechanic
      A 100% recognition and maintenance of this goal?

      Please tell us about the inconspicuous nature of the ekranoplane to this Sentry (RG when detecting targets on the surface - more than 400 km. EPR ekranoplane? Under 1000 square meters) ... or the F-35 radar



      Radar AN / APG-81 in mapping mode. Let the shadows do not bother you - this is not from the sun. and not shadows at all, in the usual sense of the word
  • Letnab
    Letnab 28 October 2013 15: 56
    0
    As far as I remember, this same article, maybe under a different name (I don’t remember) was posted here on the site about a year ago .. and there was a lot of debate there
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 28 October 2013 16: 16
    +1
    The material is good, if only because the opinion of the author is the opposite of many other authors. And what a surge of emotions and comments is expected wink I still think that the EKP is hardly a dead-end path, and the experience of the "Eagles" will certainly be in demand in the following designs.
  • Alex_T
    Alex_T 28 October 2013 16: 18
    +2
    Quote: Cristall
    disagree with the opinion of the author, but it can negatively serve officials, ..

    Dear Cristall, the question is off topic. Are you a "boy" or a "girl"? The avatar looks like a girl, and the comments are from the masculine gender, there is a cognitive dissonance.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 29 October 2013 02: 29
      0
      He’s a guy, he’s just guys who love girls, and they put it on. I know him on another forum on gaming topics, in fact, I have a nickname for the unit from this game, and there may be a couple of pieces in the whole history of girls, but such an epidemic is simple with avatars.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 28 October 2013 17: 07
    -2
    To be honest, I have long come to the conclusion that the most important thing in cutting billions is the Idea.
    Having come up with an Idea, you can justify anything you want, no matter how technically illiterate and ineffective it is.

    They came up with the idea of ​​an "elite" tank and a "mobilization" tank in the USSR, and the country suffered for 20 years with the curve of the T-64, which slightly exceeding the T-72 in performance characteristics constantly demanded representatives of the plant in parts, was extremely difficult to manufacture, and its super -super engine broke off in the Afghan mountains. Along the way, they built an ultra-expensive (one turbine is worth something) T-80 for a throw to the English Channel. In practice, it turned out that 1 T-80 will not replace 3 T-72s for the same money, the excessive consumption of fuel makes 80 km / h of a single tank on the highway meaningless, reducing the speed of connections. As a result, both bobby, as soon as there was a shortage of money in the country, successfully died, the first back in 1987, in 2012 in the Russian Federation was scrapped, the second a little later and even a little exported, but in fact it also serves and no prospects for T -90 does not.

    They also came up with the idea of ​​a VTOL aircraft. As a result, the "Harriers" did not particularly show themselves, do not consider the same successes in the Falklands War against Argentine aircraft, which reached the islands with half the fuel, for a great victory. The Yak-38 completely failed, both vehicles became famous for their monstrous accident. F-35B on the way ...

    However, the F-35 itself is also an Idea (of a single aircraft). Why would the United States build such magnificent aircraft as the F / A-18 Super Hornet, F-15 and A-10, this is not profitable for manufacturers. It is necessary to sell something else, although for me personally, the very technical feasibility of any acceptable placement of weapons in the internal compartments of a relatively small aircraft and the availability of a fuel supply for a dry supersonic sound are questionable. As well as the shooting of every savage with DShK or ZU-23-2 guided missiles without crawling to them at the range of destruction, which immediately requires not superb electronics, but thicker armor. Well, the fucking "vision through the plane" when you need a tactical map before your eyes.

    You can set the goal of a manned flight to Jupiter on ion engines and cut the project for 50 years.

    You can think about the screen effect and do not care that the plane climbs specially higher in order to save kerosene in rarefied air. And it takes a very long time to solve the problem of how to lift at least a little load with a machine that is designed for the strength characteristics of the ship, otherwise it will break into the cheeks against the waves and a bunch of specific fundamentally unsolvable problems.

    You can still remember something, but I hope the idea is clear.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 28 October 2013 17: 22
    +5
    I don’t think that the author of the article is smarter than the designer R. Alekseev himself, the specialists of his design bureau, the military department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the special technical commission of the Navy, the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Admiral S.G. Gorshkov, TsAGI, specialists from many other branches of science and industry, from whom The implementation of this project depended. Is it right to compare the ekranoplan with a cargo ship or aircraft, without evaluating operational experience? Indeed, it is from the operating experience that a conclusion is drawn on the suitability of the design for solving particular problems.

    During the years of the past war, the fastest ship of the Black Sea Fleet, the destroyer leader "Tashkent", developed a speed of 45 knots, i.e. about 90 km / h. Today, not a single destroyer or missile boat in our navy goes faster. When I hear about the speed above water of 200 km / h and the carrying capacity of 200 tons, my heart sank with delight.
    The criterion of "cost-effectiveness" in the evaluation of any technique is important, but not always crucial.

    Talking about the death of the Komsomolets submarine, the submarine officer told me with resentment in his voice: “We have nothing for rescue operations. They laughed at the Japanese that their Shin Maeve seaplane was invented back in 1930, and he takes on board a boat and a helicopter that takes off 5 minutes after being unloaded by crane. If we had such an airplane and a helicopter, the submariners of Komsomolets would be all saved, otherwise the IL-38 would fly in and drop life rafts. They fell far from the boat, not all opened, but to those that opened, you still have to swim in ice water .... Not everyone sailed, not everyone climbed the rafts, many died from hypothermia. " How long did it take to hold out on the water and can it hold out before a rescue vessel, located at a distance of 300 km from the place of the tragedy and moving at a speed of 18 knots (about 36 km / h)?
    If we had a large special seaplane, like the Japanese one or an ekranoplan, included in the COSPAS-SARSAT rescue system and on duty in this area of ​​the world's oceans, people could be saved. During the Second World War, the Germans considered the possibility of replacing submarine crews at sea with the help of large seaplanes and evacuating them if necessary flooding. You know, they were not stupid at all. Only 2 of these aircraft were built, two of which were destroyed by the British from the air. Well, war is war.
    One can argue who is ahead of whom and in what way, America is us or we are her. I believe that the idea in Russia and the USA in all sectors of activity works the same way and it is only a matter of economic opportunities. Most likely, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic opportunities of the Russian Federation did not allow to develop and implement the concept of ekranoplan. Although more than 20 years have passed, interest in this topic has not waned and will be returned to it. In the United States, for example, the world's largest airship today is being built ....
    1. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 30 October 2013 00: 52
      0
      The answer to the death of the submarine is a seaplane. Not ekranoplan.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 28 October 2013 17: 35
    +7
    "In general, Alekseev possessed some amazing design intuition. For example, when the schemes of his hydrofoils were published abroad, one German professor of hydro-aerodynamics, having studied them, categorically stated: "These devices cannot move so fast - the wings will collapse from cavitation"... Having learned that the Russians were already moving from prototypes to serial production, the wounded scientist could not resist and came to Alekseev. The foreign guest was given a ride on the Raketa, and he spent part of the voyage in a rather original way. At his request, the lower hatch was opened, the professor hung upside down closer to the water (two of the crew were holding his legs) and watched the water flows washing the wing. After a while the professor took a normal position and, shaking Alekseev's hand, said: "Amazing, brilliant!"

    Yes, the Doctor was an unusual person. He, like KM, can be called a "monster", capable of something that others cannot. Until now, what he has achieved in the creation of ekranoplanes remains a domestic secret. Foreign counterparts of these machines are, in fact, low-flying aircraft - pilots forcibly keep them near the surface. KM, on the other hand, was so stable that Alekseev sometimes stopped controlling it for show and even turned off the engines in flight. The pilots who watched this were especially impressed that the device, without any intervention of the rudders, tracked every bend in the relief. He possessed KM and good maneuverability - he was capable of sharp turns with a lot of roll and contact of the puck (wing end) on the water. The observers saw how, after a protracted run across the sea with 3-point excitement, he broke away from the water and went beyond the horizon.

    The CM tests took place in the Caspian for 15 years and ended very sadly. Alekseev died on February 9, 1980. KM died in the same year. The pilot, who had not been at the helm of the "monster" for a long time, lifted the nose of the car too sharply during takeoff, it quickly and almost vertically went up, the confused pilot abruptly dropped the thrust and did not operate the elevator according to the instructions - the ship, falling on the left wing, hit the water ... There were no casualties. Everyone who knew the "Caspian Monster" still assures - it was necessary to do something out of the ordinary to ditch it." (with)
  • svp67
    svp67 28 October 2013 17: 45
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Can you name any clear advantage of EPC?

    I think about it the crew of the "Komsomolets" could tell, the rescuers could fly to them on the "ground-screen" flight ...
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 28 October 2013 17: 57
      0
      Serezha, I doubt that he would be able to sit in those weather conditions, an excitement of 3 points.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 28 October 2013 19: 07
        +3
        Son! Let not an ekranoplan, but a large seaplane. Like the Japanese. He lands on the water with an excitement of up to 5 points. A helicopter would take off from him and pick up someone in the water. An existing boat in a seaplane could approach a submarine and take off all the submariners. It would be possible to save everyone and take it to the shore by plane.
        It is a pity that there is no Alekseev, many others are no longer there either. but there is an author of the article Oleg Kaptsov. which, roughly speaking, compares x .. with a finger. I knew one more such thing. He was a colonel and compared a rocket to a tank.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 28 October 2013 19: 14
          +3
          Quote: rubin6286
          Son!
          Do not flatter yourself, I have a father. And do not start communication here with such a tone.
        2. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 19: 34
          +1
          Quote: rubin6286
          and a large seaplane. like the Japanese. He sits on the water with excitement up to 5 points

          Say nonsense

          5 points are waves 2-3 meters high. The plane will fall apart

          Secondly, such an aircraft does not exist in reality. The Japs only have 2 flying boats - US-1 and US-2, both piston. very modest sizes
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 29 October 2013 01: 22
            -1
            That's interesting!
            I talked about the possibility of using an ekranoplan in rescue operations at sea, based on its carrying capacity and speed. As an example, he cited the Japanese seaplane "Shin Maiva", writing from a friend's words that he has on board a helicopter and a boat used during rescue operations. This is the plane in the photo.
            Is it worth discussing the question of whether such an aircraft will be able to land on water with a sea swell of 5 points? I do not idealize a Japanese airplane. The main thing is different: today we don’t have one or another seaplane in the rescue version, capable of patrolling for 330 hours at a cruising speed of 15 km / h, having a practical range of 4750 km and an ekranoplan with a speed of 200 km / h, a carrying capacity of 20 tons and a flight range at least 1300-1500 km is not there either, but such cars are needed ... ..
            Theoretically, with a payload of 20 tons, the ekranoplane could carry on board, for example, a Ka-26 helicopter weighing 3300 kg and a Project 1393A ship rescue boat with a displacement of 3,85 tons.
            In a word, everything is just like in a joke:
            - Vasily Ivanovich! You know, in China they drink beer with crayfish.
            - No, Petka, it’s their faces.

            It is called who is talking about.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 01: 49
              +1
              No jokes.
              What is the point of "releasing" the helicopter?

              When searching for shipwrecked people, the main question is not how to lift them out of the water
              The main question is HOW TO FIND THEM ??

              In this case, you need a search aircraft (at least IL-38, at least US-1), and the ECP has nothing to do with it. A low-flying and therefore blind device is useless in such an operation

              In any case, the plane flies faster, farther and sees much more from a height ... without any difficulties with the "release" of the helicopter and garlands of 8 engines
              1. rubin6286
                rubin6286 29 October 2013 13: 07
                0
                Read and delve into. Of course, a helicopter and a boat aboard a rescue seaplane (ekranoplan) are needed not to search for the victims, but to save them. How they will be used for this is a technical question and probably thought out by the designers, as long as these funds are available. You can enter a burning private house through the door, or you can by breaking a window and even dismantling the roof. The main thing is that this be done on time. When the airship Nobile crashed at the North Pole, the Swedish pilot was the first to find it. He was his own pilot and navigator, he drove the car himself and searched, using his eyes and a geographical map. Today the situation is different: There is an airplane or ekranoplan, performing search and rescue, crew, navigator, airborne radar, sonar, maps, radio. Helps him in this space navigation and communications, electronic intelligence and much more .... In short, you can find.
                How much life-saving equipment is needed, which and in what combination, is there anyone in the fleet to determine and bear responsibility for this. It does not matter who finds the first, the main thing is that help comes as soon as possible and is effective.
                I hope that I intelligibly explained the obvious, and then I stop the polemic.
      2. family tree
        family tree 28 October 2013 19: 25
        +4
        Quote: Alex 241
        Serezha, I doubt that he would be able to sit in those weather conditions, an excitement of 3 points.
        Seems like I could
        rolik (3) SU Today, 18:04 ↑

        Quote: Zerstorer
        Well, seaplanes also cannot be exploited in a 6-point storm,

        Seaplanes are not allowed, seaworthiness Lunya was 5-6 points.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 28 October 2013 19: 33
          0
          Quote: perepilka
          seaworthiness moon
          I assume that we are talking about Eaglet?
          1. family tree
            family tree 28 October 2013 21: 01
            +2
            Quote: Alex 241
            I assume that we are talking about Eaglet?

            Climbed, looked, it turns out up to 4 points
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 28 October 2013 21: 16
              +1
              Sea cargo ekranoplan "ORLENOK-Gr"

              REGISTER CLASS - Type B according to IMO classification
              WATER DISPLACEMENT, t - up to 140
              DRAFT, m - 1,6
              SPEED, km / h - 375-425

              CREW - 4
              CAPACITY, t - up to 40
              SEAFARE (wave height), m
              takeoff / landing - 1,5
              ENGINES
              marching, count. x kW - 1x11030
              starting, count. x kg traction - 2x10500
              PURPOSE - Urgent delivery of special wheeled and tracked vehicles, including to the unequipped shore. The wave height is 1.5 meters, agree that this is not 5 points.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 28 October 2013 21: 18
                0
                5 points on the Beaufort scale: 5 points Fresh: Swinging branches and thin trunks
                trees, the wind feels like a hand everywhere
                white sheep are visible.
                Maximum wave height 2,5m, average - 2m.
                wind 8,0 - 10,7 m / s.
                1. family tree
                  family tree 29 October 2013 01: 08
                  +1
                  Serezha, I doubt that he would be able to sit in those weather conditions, an excitement of 3 points.


                  Seaworthiness, score 4
                  http://army.lv/ru/proekt-904/harakteristiki/2407/487#info
    2. Santa Fe
      28 October 2013 19: 19
      0
      Quote: svp67
      I think about it the crew of the "Komsomolets" could tell, the rescuers could fly to them on the "ground-screen" flight ...

      I do not think

      1. The rescuer would simply not have reached - Komsomolets sank at a distance of over 900 km from our shores

      2. The recipe for salvation is well known - in Norway there were SeaKings ready for the flight, but you understand ... not the time, nor the situation
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 28 October 2013 19: 29
        0
        Oleg welcome, IL-38 flew to the crash site: 14.40 - Visually detected aircraft. Smokes, comes in from the port side, designating its place, 4-engine.
        14.41 - The “mosquito” beacon is off. IL-38 - classified. "
        A plane arrived in the accident area, a connection was established with a submarine, the first photographs were taken. From the aircraft it was reported that surface ships would approach the submarine at 18 p.m. At this time, a request was made through a plane to a submarine from the headquarters of the Northern Fleet for water to enter a sturdy building and for a fire. At the same time, the attention of the submarine command was drawn to the need to use all the capabilities of the SOC system to supply freon to the 6th and 7th compartments, to seal the feed compartments, to exclude the contamination of other compartments of the submarine, to constantly monitor the gas composition in the compartments and economical use of personal protective equipment. The command post of the Northern Fleet, having no information about the development of the accident and the course of the fight against it, was forced to transmit a set of standard recommendations known to the young sailor.
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 20: 02
          +1
          Hi Sanya

          According to Komsomolets, everything has been studied quite well - the main problem was the lack of experience in operating a boat without a kingston boat. When they reported that everything was okay, they were seriously sure of it themselves.

          And then the K-278 sharply gave the trim in the stern and fell into the abyss - the crew simply did not have time to evacuate and deploy the rafts.
          No EPC would save here

          In this situation, the Norwegian SeaKings had a definite chance, but you know, the boat is secret, then the command then stars from their shoulders fly off. No way. Better let the sailors freeze
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 28 October 2013 20: 05
            +1
            As usual with us, people-consumables, if only nothing would happen to the iron!
            1. Eugeniy_369
              Eugeniy_369 28 October 2013 23: 23
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              As usual with us, people-consumables, if only nothing would happen to the iron!

              Gold words.....
              Oh ... I didn’t read the comments below ((((Sorry for plagiarism, this was my first thought after reading such a statement.
          2. rudolff
            rudolff 28 October 2013 21: 28
            +1
            No Norwegians, no ekranoplanes would have been needed if there had been at least one person on board who had read the instructions for life rafts. Instead of dumping the thermal containers with PSN into the water, and then tearing the launch line, they tried to pull them out of the containers, then opened the packaging cords and started the gas filling system on the deck. No one simply knew how to handle them properly! No one!
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 28 October 2013 21: 36
              +1
              I greet my friend, I don’t remember who said it: Very little is needed to negate the most sophisticated security measures.
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 28 October 2013 22: 04
                +2
                Greetings, Alex! Gold words!
            2. rubin6286
              rubin6286 29 October 2013 12: 06
              0
              Rudolf! Dad told me in childhood:
              1.Everyone imagines himself a hero, sitting at home on a pot.
              2. In the wrong hands x ... always seems thicker.
              Understand ship commanders (especially nuclear submarines), competent, educated and knowledgeable people, and boat crews did not shobble fans at the nearest pub. Do you yourself believe in what you wrote?
      2. svp67
        svp67 28 October 2013 19: 34
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The rescuer would simply not fly - Komsomolets sank at a distance over 900 km from our shores

        Listen, it’s not for me to teach you, but it was possible for such cases to provide for the possibility of refueling in the air ... Isn’t it really difficult? The Japanese did something like that during World War II, but are we worse?
        1. Santa Fe
          28 October 2013 19: 57
          0
          Quote: svp67
          but it was possible for such cases to provide for the possibility of refueling in the air ..

          How to refuel EPC in flight?
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 28 October 2013 20: 08
            0
            No way, if only after landing on water from a floating base, but even here it’s stuck, the floating base at the meeting point will not have time.
          2. svp67
            svp67 28 October 2013 20: 10
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How to refuel EPC in flight

            Judging by the information - their flight is straightforward, without any special "yaw" and that means refueling from a "tanker" can be ... Or, landing - refueling, takeoff ... You can also use several tankers.
            "Tanker" is the same "ekranolet", but with refueling means and, accordingly, with fuel ...
            You can think of everything, the main desire.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 28 October 2013 20: 25
              +1
              Serezha ekranoplan is limited in maneuver, especially in vertical, and for a tanker the height is small.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 28 October 2013 20: 26
                0
                .........................................
              2. svp67
                svp67 28 October 2013 20: 37
                +1
                Quote: Alex 241
                Serezha ekranoplan is limited in maneuver, especially in vertical, and for a tanker the height is small.

                But he is half a "ship", which means you can try "on a ship ..."


                and sailors do it even in a storm ..
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 28 October 2013 20: 50
                  0
                  You can, of course, only the tanker needs to be nearby.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Egevich
    Egevich 28 October 2013 19: 21
    +4
    an interesting discussion ... without pretending to be the ultimate truth, I can say one simple thing about the "moon" - it was made for a specific task and at one time he fulfilled it, sharply cooling NATO from the deployment of certain objects in Turkey, because it extinguished " Lun "these objects with 100% probability. And conversations about cost price, economy and other blah-blah-blah immediately give out people who have no idea what it is - "a specific task for a unique combat unit" ... But as I understand it, "it's always nice to talk about everything and nothing about than"...)
    and since the conversation was all the same about the "Eaglet" from the beginning, then he had his own tasks.)
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 28 October 2013 19: 58
      -2
      Wouldn’t you put out the Tu-22M? In the conditions of the most powerful bomber aviation, the attempts of under-planes in the Black Sea are simply children's fun.
      1. Egevich
        Egevich 29 October 2013 21: 58
        -1
        well ... I'll try to add more ... about the Tu-22 - its takeoff (and preparation for takeoff) is immediately noticed by everyone, and the flight time, although very short, is there ... but the Lunya cannot it was discovered until the last moment ... WELL, IT'S NOT JUST AND NOT THE FOOLS PUT IT IN THE CASPIAN ... he was there in the right place and at the right time, even though the map look and think something to your nose ... although, throughout apparently, it will not give anything to some ...