Military Review

Ekranoplan "Lun": combat flying ship

136
Ekranoplan "Lun": combat flying ship



Hovercraft at a speed of 500 km / h

In 1986, the first ship from the series of 400 tons of rocket launchers, weighing 90 tons, was launched. It was called the Lun. A peculiar hybrid with the engines developed by aircraft designer Nikolai Kuznetsov combined the qualities of a ship and an airplane. The project was considered promising, but was conserved in XNUMX.



The ekranoplan moves near the surface of water or the earth due to the so-called screen effect: the incoming air flow under the wing creates an additional lift force - an air cushion. It can reach speeds of up to 500 km / h and has some obvious advantages. Moreover, there is a kind of wig, capable of a long time to break away from the surface, going into airplane mode, - ekranolyty.

"CASPIAN MONSTER" AND "Eaglet"

The first prototype of a military ekranoplan was developed by a Nizhny Novgorod design engineer Rostislav Alekseev. A ship layout (KM) with a wingspan of 38 meters and a length of 92 meters in the West has been dubbed the Caspian Monster. In the air, the engine has been lifted by a dozen engines developed for strategic bombers.

The advantages of ekranoplans over other types of military transport - economy, payload and speed - were evaluated by the leadership of the USSR and the Ministry of Defense. The main "chip" amphibians became its invisibility to enemy radar. The prototype flew at a height from 4 to 14 meters (too low for radar) surface above the sea, did not touch the water when flying (not catchable for sonars). The CM could take on board cargo equal to its own weight (240 tons), while at the same time it spent on delivery five times less fuel than a transport aircraft of similar capacity.

In 1972, Alekseev developed his ideas and created an amphibious version of the ekranoplan "Eaglet", aka A-90. A ship could deliver in an hour from one coast of the Caspian Sea to the other up to 200 marines with full arms or two amphibians tank (BTR, BMP) with crews. At the same time, the ship already had the features of an ekranolet - it could not only glide a few meters above the surface of the water, but also rise to a height of 300 meters. The ekranoplanes of the "Eaglet" type entered the armament of the USSR Navy in 1979. A total of five A-90s were built, the last of which was decommissioned in 2007.



"AIRLESS KILLER"

The evolution of engineering Alexeyev eventually led to the creation of the rocket WIG "Lun". The first and, unfortunately, the only copy of the ship was launched on July 16 1986.

The length of the machine has decreased to 73 meters, and the wingspan in turn has increased to 44 meters. The speed of the “Lunya” reached 500 km per hour, and the range of the course - up to 2000 km. The maximum take-off weight was 380 tons. Helped the flight of 8 gas turbine engines NK-87. Armed with ground-effect vehicle by six Soviet mosquito anti-ship missiles. At the time of the creation of one of the most modern developments. “Mosquitoes” move at supersonic speeds (2,5 thousand km per hour) at a distance that makes them difficult to detect and capture anti-missile installations (5-7 meters above the sea surface).

In 1984, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense brought the topic of ekranoplanes to priorities for the department. Among the reasons given by the experts are atypical design, the need for new materials, etc.



MODERN CONDITION OF INDUSTRY

Recently, the development of the construction of wig is remembered more and more often. In March, 2014, scientists of the Far Eastern Federal University announced the beginning of the development of the first experimental model of a passenger airplane. Earlier, the Border Service of the Federal Security Service of Russia announced its intention to resume construction of this type of vessels on a dynamic air cushion. The country's Ministry of Defense also voiced its interest in ekranoplanes, but funding for their development has not yet been included in the state armaments program until 2020.
Originator:
http://rostec.ru/news/4513331
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 1 May 2014 09: 51
    +48
    Ekranoplanes are our pride and pain, as well as many promising directions for the development of our military-industrial complex, this direction of development was safely ditched by a dermocratic bastard under the control of a labeled animal and bagadul.
    1. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 1 May 2014 11: 24
      +5
      Come on, not only can you use it for cargo transportation, but also to launch space ships. In Soviet times, I saw a pilot projection of the aircraft, was able to carry up to 2000 passengers, and took off from the water surface. So you can use it as the first step.
      1. 0255
        0255 1 May 2014 12: 36
        +12
        Quote: schizophrenic
        Come on, not only can you use it to transport goods, but also to launch space ships

        Yes, there was such a project from the Myasishchev Design Bureau. It is a pity that there is no information about him anywhere except for the magazine "Our wings" published by "Aviko press" and the site of this publishing house:
        http://avicopress.ru/aviation/russian/16-2010-07-27-17-00-33/2010-09-15-18-37-55
        / 179 - qq-qq
        When someone has posted this number in pdf format on the Internet laughing ?
        1. schizophrenic
          schizophrenic 1 May 2014 13: 50
          +3
          Quote: 0255
          When someone has posted this number in pdf format on the Internet

          I would like to read it. After all, it is possible to create an ekranoplane with a carrying capacity of 5000 tons, though not immediately. Compared to an aerodrome landing, take-off weight is unlimited, as is the case with sea vessels.
        2. studentmati
          studentmati 1 May 2014 20: 03
          +2
          Quote: 0255
          It is a pity that there is no information about him anywhere except the magazine "Our Wings" published by "Aviko Press"


          As well as for your profile picture.
          1. 0255
            0255 1 May 2014 21: 26
            +4
            Quote: studentmati
            Quote: 0255
            It is a pity that there is no information about him anywhere except the magazine "Our Wings" published by "Aviko Press"

            As well as for your profile picture.

            I liked the photo of the M-25 airplane so much, if this is really a photo and not a photoshop, I wanted to put it on the profile picture laughing
            People, who knows, this photo is real? Does anyone know anything about the M-25? Search engines find only the story of the Daman conflict with China, after which the idea was born to create this aircraft.
            1. studentmati
              studentmati 2 May 2014 06: 26
              +4
              Quote: 0255
              People, who knows, this photo is real? Does anyone know anything about the M-25?


              M-25 in this version was not exactly in the iron. He remained in the idea and studies. Design Bureau of Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev created many beautiful and original products. Unfortunately, more remains in the drawings and designs.
              1. 0255
                0255 2 May 2014 18: 30
                +3
                Quote: studentmati
                Quote: 0255
                People, who knows, this photo is real? Does anyone know anything about the M-25?


                M-25 in this version was not exactly in the iron. He remained in the idea and studies. Design Bureau of Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev created many beautiful and original products. Unfortunately, more remains in the drawings and designs.

                it's a pity recourse I am amazed at how many good projects were developed in the USSR by Myasischev and not only that remained projects. It would be my will, with me only the Myasischev planes would fly fellow
                Originally invented - to kill the advancing Chinese with a sonic boom from M-25 engines. Khramchikhin would have liked such a plane laughing
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 3 May 2014 16: 18
                  +1
                  and to knock him off his nose or from nasal courses with firing from RPG-7 would it really be a big problem?
                  1. 0255
                    0255 3 May 2014 21: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    and to knock him off his nose or from nasal courses with firing from RPG-7 would it really be a big problem?

                    This is you explain to the M-25 developers))) After all, someone came up with such an application for an airplane.
                    Or do you know anything about the M-25?
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 3 May 2014 21: 22
                      0
                      I know that it was supposed to use drones for this purpose, and conventional aviation has such a technique of "supersonic ramming" both in the air and on the ground.
                      1. studentmati
                        studentmati 5 May 2014 19: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        conventional aviation has such a "supersonic ramming" technique


                        From which, in fact, Yuri Alekseevich Gagarin died. Hooliganism with supersonic.
                      2. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 5 May 2014 21: 27
                        +2
                        Yes, but not his hooliganism - he and his partner flew on the subsonic MiG-15
                    2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Bayonet
            Bayonet 2 May 2014 19: 49
            +3
            Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that supersonic aircraft of existing patterns and sizes could create shock waves with a pressure drop of P = 30 + 50 kg / m500 when flying at supersonic speeds at altitudes of 1000-2 m. What does this mean in simple human language? But here's what - after the flight of such an aircraft as a result of exposure to a shock sound wave, any living organism had a rupture of blood vessels with an instant lethal outcome. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary.

            The work continued until 1972, five basic configurations of the M-25 aircraft were worked out, and the fifth version had a fuselage length of about 100 m!

            In the wind tunnels TsAGI (T-112, T-113) and ITPM ​​(T-313), models were purged, the first results were obtained. The topic was closed in 1972 and over 35 years the materials of this work were classified as “Top Secret”.
            1. 0255
              0255 2 May 2014 20: 09
              0
              Quote: Bayonet
              Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that supersonic aircraft of existing patterns and sizes could create shock waves with a pressure drop of P = 30 + 50 kg / m500 when flying at supersonic speeds at altitudes of 1000-2 m. What does this mean in simple human language? But here's what - after the flight of such an aircraft as a result of exposure to a shock sound wave, any living organism had a rupture of blood vessels with an instant lethal outcome. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary.

              The work continued until 1972, five basic configurations of the M-25 aircraft were worked out, and the fifth version had a fuselage length of about 100 m!

              In the wind tunnels TsAGI (T-112, T-113) and ITPM ​​(T-313), models were purged, the first results were obtained. The topic was closed in 1972 and over 35 years the materials of this work were classified as “Top Secret”.

              I read it, only search engines find this information. The hike has to fork out for the book "Chronicle of EMZ")))
          4. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 1 May 2014 20: 43
        0
        The figure shows the carrier of the spacecraft "Buran" (project). Moreover, 2 turbojet engines were attached to the Buran. On the actually flying Buran - there were 6 of them in the laboratory. This thing has nothing to do with the launch.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 1 May 2014 21: 37
          0
          Quote: Bayonet
          Moreover, 2 turbojet engines stuck to Buran. There were 6 of them in the real flying Buran - laboratory. This thing has nothing to do with the launch.

          The turbojet engines were planned to be installed on "Buran", but they were not installed on the first one:

          "... VRD (two-circuit turbofan D-30KP - modified engines widely used on the long-range passenger aircraft Il-62M) on the side pylons were moved upward, on opposite sides of the keel, replacing them with the AL-31 turbojet engine, and placed in semi-submerged nacelles, but were later removed and did not participate in the flight of "Buran". ..... " http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 2 May 2014 04: 30
            0
            The turbojet engines were planned to be installed on the "Buran"
            And why was this idea abandoned, in the know? I would like to look at these engines after passing through the atmospheric entry section.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 2 May 2014 11: 46
              0
              Quote: Bayonet
              And why was this idea abandoned, in the know? I would like to look at these engines after passing through the atmospheric entry section.

              It seems that you didn’t even go to my manufacturer’s website using my link.
              The engines were abandoned in the first flight, since not all questions on this topic were worked out. The fact that they were abandoned altogether - there is no such information there. The arguments why these engines should stand on the Buran are painted there in detail.

              On the engines. They stand in the upper part of the fuselage, in the tail region and at the entrance of Buran to the atmosphere, they are in a shaded place. In addition, they are covered with thermal tile, and closed with lids.
              1. Bayonet
                Bayonet 2 May 2014 13: 07
                0
                Why should we argue - on a real Buran they were abandoned.
              2. Bayonet
                Bayonet 2 May 2014 13: 38
                0
                Pay attention to the drawing of the Buran. The leading edge of the vertical tail (as well as all other areas subject to the greatest heat) is covered with a particularly heat-resistant tile based on carbon fiber. Upon entering the atmosphere, plasma jets from the edge will wash the engine nacelles, subjecting them to very strong heating. If you dream up, you could position the engines under the casing and install the rising air intakes, like car headlights (see fig.) Then it’s possible, but again - to carry a supply of fuel and other problems. All this to the detriment of carrying capacity.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 3 May 2014 21: 28
                  0
                  that he flew that the MiG-105 with engines. this gave, among other things, a 2,5 times larger lateral lapel than the shuttle during landing.
              3. kosmos1980
                kosmos1980 2 May 2014 23: 40
                +2
                They refused corny due to the large weight of both the engines themselves and the TZP. The first Buran project could only put itself into orbit, the payload could no longer work, designers and material scientists had to create a bunch of different solutions and materials. Something around 1500. So, in spite of one start, "Buran" brought a lot of benefits.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 3 May 2014 00: 03
                  -2
                  Quote: kosmos1980
                  They refused corny due to the large weight of both the engines themselves and the TZP. The first Buran project could only put itself into orbit, the payload could no longer work, designers and material scientists had to create a bunch of different solutions and materials. Something around 1500.

                  According to the performance characteristics "Buran" could deliver a payload weighing up to 30 tons to low orbit, and could take up to 20 tons with it from orbit.
                  And what is 1,5 tons against this background?
                  1. postman
                    postman 4 May 2014 01: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    And what is 1,5 tons against this background?

                    from 20% to 13% (not including fuel)
                    NOT BAD!!!
                    here (there) for each Kg they are fighting .... and 30% is certainly not a "background", this is stupidity
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 4 May 2014 04: 06
                      0
                      what freak? 10%, no more. although it is possible and more.
                      but it gave a 2-fold advantage in the side lapel.
              4. postman
                postman 3 May 2014 14: 30
                0
                Quote: Bad_gr
                It seems that you didn’t even go to my manufacturer’s website using my link.

                THIS IS NOT A PRODUCER SITE !!!
                This is a publicist site.
                Quote: Bad_gr
                are in a shaded area. In addition, they are covered with thermal tile, and closed with lids.

                "D-30KP - modified engines, widely used on the long-haul passenger aircraft Il-62M"
                and they will survive:
                1. the acceleration section (there is no "shadow"
                2. being in vacuum and in the sun + 200grS and in the shade -170grS
                3. during the descent, after the disruption of the heated plasma from the edge, the effect of the oncoming flow, and T about 600g.
                4. How about the fuel for these turbojet engines? separate component (ODE of snowstorm not on the components that feed on D-30KP)
                5. Why carry ballast into orbit (each gram counts)
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 3 May 2014 21: 31
                  +1
                  because it is a combat vehicle and not a space transportation system (STS), and the engines give more maneuver when landing. it is better to simply launch into orbit with Energy alone, as the Polyus was launched.
                  shuttles are needed not for launching cargo, but for their descent from orbit or for service missions. Orbiting satellites by them turns out to be 3-5 times more expensive because its own weight is being carried there. besides PTB all the same disappeared.
                  landing engines from Buran could be removed
                  the shuttle had only 2-3 landing attempts per day, the Buran - much more, despite the fewer suitable airfields around the world
                  1. postman
                    postman 3 May 2014 22: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    then what is it a combat vehicle and not a space transport system (STS)

                    yeah. drop a bomb on Washington ..
                    course my projection (malayatoltka) was on the fuel intake systems in zero gravity, just for B.
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    This is how Polyus was launched.

                    what’s the pole? -Paper mon, sing about the combat laser (only for reference, heat-release systems, it WASN’T, but there was a 3KW heater (if I'm not mistaken))
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Christmas trees are needed not for the removal of cargo but for their descent

                    1.What to let down? Since the 1985s it’s cheaper to throw out than to repair (power units for the S-300, although removable)
                    2. Read at your leisure the economic feasibility of reusable CS, more than 30-50 launches per year - no industry can provide remote control and LV
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    besides PTB all the same disappeared.

                    WE HAVE NO PTB !!! it is the MAIN stage with the MAIN LRE (which KILLED_DON'T SAVE the STEP with the LRE, gentle. it is not a solid propellant rocket engine)
                    and the ODM of the Burana, since Kaka: maneuver and brake impulse
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    landing engines from Buran could be removed

                    question!!! Why the hell to carry them (weight + their own fuel components), IF THERE IS AN ODE Burana, + CAC (under development) with solid propellant rocket motor, WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO "maneuver"?
                    САС, after 70 km it loses its functionality (answer Buran from the main stage)
                    ?AND
                    WHY TO CITY A GARDEN?
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    the shuttle had only 2-3 landing attempts per day,

                    do not LA_LA!
                    TO LIST the runways for Buran and for the Shuttle ?, as well as "hostile encirclement)? USSR against the USA and" satellites "?
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 4 May 2014 03: 49
                      0
                      You can still in New York if you wish

                      I wanted to talk about sore? Well, you scratch the wrong callus, seerrr! smile

                      the pole is the pole about him and about his heat sink is written in sufficient detail
                      it wasn’t about that, but that it’s stupid and expensive to make a simple launch of satellites and upper steps a shuttle from his hold.

                      1. there is something to lower from orbit, single crystals grown under microgravity conditions, for example,
                      2. Read "LEO on the Сheap".

                      Shuttle ODE moved after each launch, and lived 1/5 of the airframe,
                      Delta engines and atlases somehow do not save although they had more launches,
                      to make separately salvaged engines of the 2nd stage is actually not a problem, but again there will be excess weight of the ablation shield - it is already needed for the separately salvaged section of the engines of the 2nd stage (then only one tank would also disappear).
                      the shield on the engines will of course weigh much less (and cost) than a "whole shuttle".

                      shuttle launch accelerators were saved because when they returned to the atmosphere they managed to pick up a small speed (and therefore did not burn out) and then they were brought vertically not into the steppe but into the water.

                      the shuttle also had such a remote control (in the engine nacelles at its keel) for descent from orbit and for the impulse of reaching a circular low earth orbit at the apogee when it was launched.

                      for such a horseradish separate engines are needed, that they are WFD - 4 times less mass of "consumables" (an oxidizer is not needed)
                      therefore, orbiters would not be enough

                      CAC, then what sideway to the airfield will be sideways? besides, again, probably mono-fuel?

                      stripes? well list!
                      just learn that transporting the shuttle on the back is also an unnecessarily expensive trouble, so if the weather didn’t allow them, they usually preferred to spin an extra day or two to get on the same lane that was at their starting table.

                      Buran, unlike the shuttle, could dive into the atmosphere many times to change the parameters of its orbit. bully
                    2. postman
                      postman 4 May 2014 13: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      can still in new york

                      so hit. entry angle + \ - 20gr = tolerance. "spread" from 500 km, do not accidentally touch Alaska
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      I wanted to talk about sore?

                      1. didn’t hurt anything - I DO NOT respect stupidity
                      2. Nothing itches
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      to lower from orbit is what single crystals grown under microgravity conditions

                      1. "micro" ??? gravity, how is it?
                      2. how much weight is it in a single crystal? gram 30 ?.
                      HOW Soyuz and Progress Group will cope.
                      20 tons why?
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      LEO on the Сheap "read.

                      37.5 $ sorry

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      Shuttle ODE moved after each launch

                      Seriously?
                      1. Start it was TOTAL one.
                      2. nothing "got over"!
                      So writes people. not understanding what is a rocket engine
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      making separately salvaged 2nd stage engines is not really a problem,

                      what kind of garbage !!! Will you do a compartment on the hinge of the suspension? bursting pyrobolt?
                      And the fuel fittings, and TNA?
                      But are the TB-the thinnest, most expensive design, at the limit of materials science - scrapped?
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      shuttle launch accelerators were saved because when they returned to the atmosphere they managed to gain a small speed

                      what nonsense
                      1. they (accelerators) solid propellant fuel is the power building itself + modularity + no fittings, TNA, etc.
                      2. "low" speed - I will upset you, FROM HEIGHT FROM! KM all bodies will have the same speed, regardless of the drop height
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      the shuttle also has such a remote control

                      the Shuttle does not have the United, but the BASIC DU.
                      MARCH, Darling, and 15 more are still in stock, Ares are waiting.
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      4 times less mass of "consumables"

                      Seriously ... didn't know.
                      and carry kerosene with you?
                      and the impulse (thrust) in the rocket engine
                    3. postman
                      postman 4 May 2014 13: 24
                      0
                      Do you need horseradish? Transatlantic MOVE to do?
                      Runway no, side maneuver 500-700km, without remote control
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      CAC, then what sideway to the airfield will be sideways? besides, again, probably mono-fuel?

                      You need traction and momentum to maneuver, here you are (SAS took Buran from a vertical position. From a step at 500-700m, with ZERO horizontal speed) - use it, since you need Du
                      SOLID FUEL !!!
                      To spin the TNA, fill the lines, set fire, exit to the mode-NO TIME is simple
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      stripes? well list!

                      no them. except the one on which I stood in Baikonur

                      Quote: Kassandra
                      Buran, unlike the shuttle, could dive many times

                      , tiles tz wallowing in the garage, strewed even during testing
                    4. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 4 May 2014 14: 10
                      0
                      Do we have a longer range of Me-262 than Me-163?

                      your lie, Buran could still sit on Camran, for example
                      then the tile is in the wrong system. Buran, unlike Colombia, didn’t burn out, I had to hire a Tajik
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 4 May 2014 17: 13
                    0
                    at the expense of mono-glass - google.
                    20 tons more than 2

                    sorry $ 37,5 - download for free, there is a link

                    seriously - shuttles were launched about 140 times

                    base frame compartment
                    An epoxy and fiberglass PTB burned out like that ... or are you suggesting that it be tied with expensive heavy tiles?

                    Well, don’t write ... why a parachute? only one thing when the accelerator pokes into the water and another thing when it is on the ground, and then lies on it with a whip.

                    he made a circular orbit at launch giving an impulse, at the peak of not using SSME, then the PTB was already separated. didn’t go out of orbit either with her help

                    Yes, of course carry kerosene, but how? and the oxidizing agent is not
                    WFD has an advantage - the duration of the work. on aircraft LRE or WFD are? stop trolling.

                    filter the bazaar ...
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 4 May 2014 10: 44
            0
            Quote: Postman
            THIS IS NOT A PRODUCER SITE !!!
            This is a publicist site.

            I can write in another way:
            "A site that contains articles from people who were directly involved in the creation of this system."
            What has changed in essence?
            1. postman
              postman 4 May 2014 13: 26
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              "The site that contains articles from people who have had direct

              so it will be more true, for fragile minds, and even low-power minds !!!!
              from SOME people who had some relationship
              Quote: Bad_gr
              What has changed in essence?

              All the same, the producer is more serious, the publicist is not very.
              FANTASIES A LOT OF A PUBLICIST
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 4 May 2014 13: 52
                0
                Spring?

                non-publicists usually gather on that site
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 May 2014 21: 25
        0
        chassis from a much more thermally loaded bottom like what the Buran that the Shuttle let out and nothing
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 May 2014 19: 41
      +1
      Who is this "clever" minus throws us? He himself, I suppose, due to his stupidity, does not even understand what it is about.
      1. 0255
        0255 2 May 2014 20: 11
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Who is this "clever" minus throws us? He himself, I suppose, due to his stupidity, does not even understand what it is about.

        don't mind it
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 3 May 2014 20: 12
          0
          Konstantin - everything is normal!
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 3 May 2014 16: 00
    0
    it’s more practical to launch Russian Indian or Chinese Su-27s or MiG-29s, so they didn’t go on the ocean.
    there will simply be a shandets of democracy.
    and the Caspian Desert against Iran swam and that's enough. not even released into the Black Sea even once.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 3 May 2014 20: 13
      0
      I don’t even understand - what is it about?
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 May 2014 12: 59
        0
        you don’t want to mine.
    2. postman
      postman 4 May 2014 13: 27
      +1
      Quote: Kassandra
      it’s more practical to launch Russian Indian or Chinese Su-27 or MiG-29,

      Damn, I answer this man (Cassandra), explain ....
      But in vain, it seems that everything is not all right with your head.
      Well, like "not all at home"?
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 May 2014 13: 55
        0
        it looks like you ...

        An aircraft carrier taking planes to aerofinishes (and launching from catapults too) turns against the wind and is in full swing.
        and with the speed of an ekranoplan, an aerofinisher is not really needed - just a hook cable is placed on its back for the hook of the nose strut of the aircraft chassis so that the plane does not blow off it (the ekranoplan) when the pilot removes the engine thrust.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren 4 May 2014 13: 58
          +1
          Kassandra does not know that the ekranoplan is the simplest aircraft, which due to the screen effect, has a 50% increase in lift. Landing a fighter on an ekranoplane is like landing a fighter on An-225 Mriya, for example. A little less than idiocy.
          1. postman
            postman 4 May 2014 15: 15
            0
            Quote: ar-ren
            . Landing a fighter on an ekranoplane is like landing a fighter on An-225 Mr

            WORSE!!!
            on the ekranoplan a completely different flow around the incident stream.
            at 300-500km / h there is generally porridge.
            And the flow along the upper edge and surface is SPEEDED, SPARED and unstable.


            Quote: Kassandra
            to the plane from it (ekranoplan) not blown awaywhen the pilot removes engine thrust.

            The brain will blow away, or blow out altogether
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 4 May 2014 17: 19
              +1
              a fighter would land where there is no turbulence,
              project ekranoplan-aircraft carrier posted on the network.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 4 May 2014 17: 17
            0
            he would sit where there is no turbulence
  • kare
    kare 1 May 2014 13: 54
    +6
    The initiative here was intercepted by pin. Dos. There are no links. But I remember the transfer on TV
    True development has received a private peaceful
    But their designers gave this solution of the "ekranolet" as their own
    I don’t remember exactly, but it seems there was a development of a fire ekranoplan
    A very promising thing in my opinion, due to frequent fires
    Which year is the same, burning and burning
    An article on arson should be equated with treason.
    And life span
    1. alleksSalut4507
      alleksSalut4507 2 May 2014 06: 18
      0
      how many guest workers will take the line for "life"?
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 1 May 2014 15: 47
    +7
    recently, I came across a program that talked about the development of ekranoplanes in America ... they are all still at the stage of experimentation and collecting information ... but ... if our defenders do not scratch their lips and continue to develop all our accumulated experience in building these promising cars, then in the near future, the US will catch up with us ... and squeeze the maximum benefit out of the potential of such machines, so be sure ...
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 May 2014 20: 50
      +1
      They developed a project for a heavy transport WIG Pelican ULTRA for the transfer of troops and equipment. They considered, analyzed the effectiveness and covered the project.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 May 2014 15: 53
        0
        Of course, otherwise the Chinese will copy it and release 100 thousand milen units in circulation. and wait for guests on the West Coast.
        By the way, not only the same "ill-fated" Yak-141 will sit on this one, but even Drying without aerofinishers, so it is especially impossible. callom-faced democracy will somehow end immediately, and on a global scale.
        and so long as demo-static aircraft carriers will go (for those who can) and bomb all those for whom human rights do not apply, which are already outdated for your sailing battleships.

        Everything goes according to plan laughing
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 3 May 2014 20: 16
          0
          Ivanovich, what are you (you) persecuting?
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 3 May 2014 20: 49
            0
            mine doesn’t drive, the landing speed of the Su-27 or MiG-29 is less than the speed of the ekranoplan - they will land on it like a helicopter to a standing helipad. the reception of aircraft ekranoplan even have to slow down. and on release they will fly in tucked under a cork and with full pendants.

            US world domination and its global projection of power rests entirely on the carrier fleet. and with aircraft carrier ekranoplanes and supersonic STOVL available from other countries, it will not be easy to collapse, and many will even want to come to visit them and get even. the same Chinese are used in addition to aircraft carrier landing craft. all the more so for what. especially since there are a lot of them ...

            ekranoplanes can also walk on ice, which means a good escort by fighters when the bombers go through the north pole.
            there they will sit on the water, wait and then they will take aboard the fighters back.

            therefore, no one in the USSR or the Russian Federation has ever given a serious move to ekranoplans. with the exception of Stalin’s times, this country is spreading its own people in the first place, hanging it on ... so that it does not run away and there is someone to spread rot further. otherwise they will run away from such enlargement of villages or tariffs of zhykikh on some kind of subantarctic uninhabited island or in sugar. and they will live well there.
            can you imagine bad luck - there are clamps, and all the slaves fled. and there is no one "food" ... it will be more terrible for these wicked people than the Desired O. Blik P. promising A. army

            and without an aircraft carrier cover forge where will you run and who will let you be based, therefore, the "global" projection of the RF power with conventional weapons ends with the range of the Su-27 from the nearest coastal airfield. and the destiny of Russians and Russians to admire the deposits of bananas and oranges on TV or from orbit. and warm your ass or wash your boots only on tour. recourse
  • Hunghuz
    Hunghuz 3 May 2014 14: 47
    0
    hi The editors of the News.Ru News publication reserve the right to delete comments that violate the laws of the Russian Federation, including statements:
    - containing calls for the overthrow of the constitutional order
    - insults to specific individuals or any groups of citizens
    - inciting ethnic hatred and religious hatred
    - calls for violence
    - propaganda drugs, pornography, prostitution
    In addition, according to the internal rules of moderation, the editors reserve the right to delete comments that do not meet generally accepted moral standards, provoke users to an unconstructive dialogue, insult the authors of the commented material, as well as containing profanity, any hyperlinks, or pursue advertising purposes. If the user regularly violates the moderation rules, his account may be blocked, and all messages left by him will be deleted.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 May 2014 15: 55
      0
      on youtube the editors are even worse
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 1 May 2014 09: 56
    +6
    the hope remains that the harrier will still show its sharp teeth and frisky disposition.
    1. sub307
      sub307 1 May 2014 12: 29
      +5
      Mr. Rogozin seemed to "threaten" to resume work on the topic of combat ekranoplanes.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 May 2014 20: 54
      +1
      Lun is on conservation, in a very poor conditionhttp: //andriuha077.narod.ru/cad/ekranoplan.igor113.html
  • Giant thought
    Giant thought 1 May 2014 10: 05
    +10
    Of course, it is necessary to restore work on ekranoplanes, taking into account modern technologies, they can become even more dangerous for aircraft carrier connections of mattresses. At the Pacific Fleet they will have where to turn around. And the Chinese with their increasing naval power will also be afraid, and take into account the presence of these machines.
    1. sso-xnumx
      sso-xnumx 1 May 2014 11: 20
      +11
      I fully agree with you. They belong to the Pacific Fleet! If "Looney" appeared there in 1988-89, the Americans would not have time for the collapse of the USSR. They would have had such a headache and hemorrhoids to develop a defense system against these handsome men that everything else would look like flowers. Moreover, instead of "Mosquitoes" to equip them with "Granites or Basalts" would be a song !!!!!!
      1. 0255
        0255 1 May 2014 12: 47
        +13
        Quote: sso-250659
        If "Looney" appeared there in 1988-89, the Americans would not have time for the collapse of the USSR. They would have had such a headache and hemorrhoids to develop a defense system against these handsome men that everything else would look like flowers. Moreover, instead of "Mosquitoes" to equip them with "Granites or Basalts" would be a song !!!!!!

        In the 1980s, Americans already had protection against ekranoplanes, and from Tu-160, Yak-141, MiG-a MFI, Buran, nuclear missiles and much more from which:

        To defend against a geopolitical rival, all you have to do is put in power your (non) people.
        1. studentmati
          studentmati 1 May 2014 19: 36
          +2
          Quote: 0255
          In the 1980s, Americans already had protection against ekranoplanes, and from Tu-160, Yak-141, MiG-a MFI, Buran, nuclear missiles and much more from which:


          Could you tell more in detail what kind of protection did they have?
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 1 May 2014 20: 57
            +1
            Any anti-ship missiles launched from an airplane.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 May 2014 00: 08
              +5
              That 160 is extremely difficult to shoot down, due to the fact that they have anti-radar systems and jamming systems for missiles on their sides ... this is not an easy target, I'll tell you ... and the Americans did not dream in vain to put these birds under the saw in the 90s. .. I think it is quite possible to install the anti-missile systems on the "harrier" too ...
          2. 0255
            0255 1 May 2014 21: 17
            +5
            Quote: studentmati
            Quote: 0255
            In the 1980s, Americans already had protection against ekranoplanes, and from Tu-160, Yak-141, MiG-a MFI, Buran, nuclear missiles and much more from which:


            Could you tell more in detail what kind of protection did they have?

            in the person of these two, and not only them. They surrendered a great country without war, burying the programs I listed. Or do you disagree with me?
            1. ar-ren
              ar-ren 1 May 2014 21: 26
              +1
              Quote: 0255
              They surrendered a great country without war, burying the programs I listed. Or do you disagree with me?


              I must say thanks to dear Leonid Ilyich! Because it was he who planted the USSR on the oil needle of Samotlor. And when the Saudis, for their own reasons, dropped oil prices, the USSR very quickly rolled up, like a drug addict dying with a wild experience without breaking drugs.
              1. 0255
                0255 1 May 2014 21: 29
                +1
                Quote: ar-ren
                Quote: 0255
                They surrendered a great country without war, burying the programs I listed. Or do you disagree with me?


                I must say thanks to dear Leonid Ilyich! Because it was he who planted the USSR on the oil needle of Samotlor. And when the Saudis, for their own reasons, dropped oil prices, the USSR very quickly rolled up, like a drug addict dying with a wild experience without breaking drugs.

                well, and finally finished off the USSR Gorbachev, Yeltsin and other pack of "reformers"
                1. ar-ren
                  ar-ren 1 May 2014 21: 55
                  +7
                  Quote: 0255
                  well, and finally finished off the USSR Gorbachev, Yeltsin and other pack of "reformers"


                  The Soviet Union created such an excellent personnel selection system that only cattle broke up ... In any case, with such a personnel selection system, the USSR was not a tenant. Well, not these, so others would cover.

                  Deng Xiaoping, analogues of the one who made China current China, did not have power in the USSR and could not get it.
                  1. Corsair0304
                    Corsair0304 7 May 2014 09: 05
                    +1
                    It was not the USSR that created such a personnel selection system. Just in the 53rd, after the death of Vissarionych, a bald maize came to power. Here we are lucky for the bald leaders that Nikita Khrushchev, that Misha Gorbi made a lot in order to ruin the country. So the corn-mailer did the first thing - he pushed the KGB’s ban on conducting operational-search measures against the then highest officials of the USSR, Union republics, and also members of their families to the Central Committee of the CPSU.
                    Need to explain what causes impunity? When the children of these freaks went to closed schools, and the mothers of the rest categorically forbade the girls to appear in those areas, the Risk of being raped there was 100% and NO ONE ABOUT THE PEOPLE WAS DONE.
                2. alex86
                  alex86 1 May 2014 22: 33
                  +2
                  Excuse me for my point of view, but I recall the circumstances before the collapse of the Union: Kravchuk declares that he will not sign the Union Treaty, and Gorbachev declares that the Union is impossible without Ukraine. Thus, two parties - the USSR represented by Gorbachev and one of the founders - Ukraine, represented by Kravchuk, declare the impossibility of the existence of the USSR. And what could be expected? - just what happened. So, Ukraine was the main factor in the collapse of the Union (not considering the economy and the parade of sovereignty), or rather, the main detonator. And the rest joined in the small-town aspiration to steer each in his aul (village).
                3. alleksSalut4507
                  alleksSalut4507 2 May 2014 06: 26
                  0
                  they stick out straight. sniffed.
              2. for
                for 5 May 2014 17: 42
                0
                Well, not quite like that, then the share of oil in the entire USSR export was a little less than 20%. And the fact that the chain reaction caused a drop in oil prices, to put it mildly, is not entirely accurate.
                There were worse times, and nothing - coped.
                There was an elementary betrayal of the interests of the country.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 5 May 2014 21: 22
                  0
                  nothing caused at all - the USSR exported mainly gas and not oil.
                  it was just another revolution, only in 1917 (when the German was not on the Volga) in peacetime.
            2. studentmati
              studentmati 2 May 2014 06: 20
              +3
              Quote: 0255
              in the person of these two, and not only them. They surrendered a great country without war, burying the programs I listed. Or do you disagree with me?


              Perfectly said! good It's just that I did not immediately enter.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          3. ermolai
            ermolai 2 May 2014 05: 01
            +1
            labeled bear, boring drunk Nanochubais, Germans, Hodor, Berezovsky, and other trash
          4. for
            for 5 May 2014 17: 37
            0
            And you take a closer look at the photo ..........
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Denis
          Denis 2 May 2014 14: 17
          +1
          Quote: 0255
          their (non) people

          let it be quick, rayka was waiting
          she and the whole p-brethren
        4. for
          for 5 May 2014 17: 36
          +1
          The Americans in the 1980s already had protection against ekranoplanes, and from Tu-160, Yak-141, MiG-a MFI, Buran, nuclear missiles and much more from ....

          Respect and respect: - "a very accurate idea combined with a photo"
  • RONIN-HS
    RONIN-HS 1 May 2014 10: 09
    +10
    MOON is a worthy response to US carrier strike groups. And in time trouble - the ONLY possible!
    I know for sure that proposals were made to the General Staff to use MIE (mobile bases of combat ekranoplanes) to bring Lun to the ocean line. But our admirals want everything to be like theirs - shock and escort aircraft carriers and preferably more (30 shuk). The truth will be this only by 2050. It's bad when the security of the country depends on the opinion of a dozen officials !!! hi
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 1 May 2014 18: 41
      +2
      Looney has one drawback that makes the entire project a failure: he has extremely weak air defense / missile defense. He is completely defenseless. He should at least have TOR-M2U on board with the ability to automatically reload rockets and metal cutters instead of regular guns ...
      1. Velikoruss
        Velikoruss 1 May 2014 19: 22
        +4
        The problems of providing air defense to warships, even those so unusual and advanced, are technically quite solvable. If the direction were developed, the whole range of problems for Russian designers would be too tough. If they were able to create, to improve, they would be even more so.
        As mentioned above, the problems of Russian combat ekranoplanes are not technical, but political. These are high-ranking agents of influence and equally high-ranking dumb generals-careerists who are preparing for yesterday's wars. If you recall Tukhachevsky, who, although he was shot, but the impulse that he gave in the development of the latest military technologies was able to interrupt the opposition of venerable and deserved supporters of "cavalry" doctrines. And if you look in general, you can immediately see the main thing: combat ekranoplanes were created in the USSR, but destroyed in liberal-crap Russia, when, what and in whose interests both happened, I think, it is not necessary to chew. As they say, feel the difference.
  • ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 1 May 2014 10: 23
    +4
    A very necessary and original THING, it is a pity that they did not allow us to develop this direction, because what technologies could be discovered and explored
    1. poccinin
      poccinin 1 May 2014 13: 33
      +3
      at 90, the Americans came to look. They photographed everything they needed. It's a pity that such a project was buried. But there would be such a ship in the Northern Fleet. You look and the crew of the "KURSK" could be saved. And it's a RESCUEER on the SEA. as long as the ships come up. and here 500 km per hour. and how many different projects we have closed. for the simple reason that - nobody did a new thing and what will come of it is unknown
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 1 May 2014 21: 03
        +2
        There was a project of a lifeguard on the basis of the carrier carrier Mriya and the Orlenok ekranoleta. Mriya brought Orlyonok to the disaster area of ​​the ship, then he undocked and got into the water. Having helped, he went to the shore on his own. There were many articles about this project, easy to find on the Internet.
        1. Corsair0304
          Corsair0304 7 May 2014 09: 07
          0
          Damn, I have not even heard of this. 5 points to you, I will look for information.
      2. jayich
        jayich 3 May 2014 12: 31
        0
        The rescuer is now gathering dust on a slipway somewhere in St. Petersburg.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Good cat
        Good cat 5 May 2014 16: 59
        0
        How could it be possible to save the Kursk crew with the help of Lun?
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 5 May 2014 21: 19
          0
          quickly catch up on the emergency and rescue equipment of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, which at that time participated in the filming of the next bullshit bourgeois kin about the Titanic.
  • svp67
    svp67 1 May 2014 10: 35
    +10
    It’s interesting, if such a “monster”, and more than one, “slipped” around “Donald Cook”, how much would the number of American sailors “go ashore forever” in the first port?
    1. Gray 43
      Gray 43 1 May 2014 11: 05
      +11
      I don’t know about the sailors, but the ship would have a large margin of buoyancy, at least to the nearest port, but I would have to put up with the corresponding aroma
    2. kare
      kare 1 May 2014 13: 58
      +2
      It would be interesting if such a monster would "slip" around "Donald Cook"

      Not around, but above him
    3. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 7 May 2014 09: 10
      0
      Yes, there would be no Cook in the Black Sea, if you knew AME about the presence of such a monster.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 1 May 2014 10: 40
    +3
    We need to think very well about the development of strike and landing ekranoplanes ... they have many advantages due to their high speed and maneuverability
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 May 2014 21: 06
      +2
      There were problems with profitability and security, so the thing was hanging.
    2. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 7 May 2014 09: 13
      0
      I heard somewhere that our marines sort of landed in a turret on ekranoplans, then they sat down and went back to the base. Skangdal was there for some reason.
      Do not judge strictly, perhaps it was a journalistic duck, just inspired by the theme of memory.
  • not good
    not good 1 May 2014 10: 48
    +4
    Apparently, our leadership is waiting for the combat ekranoplanes to appear at the enemy, and then clutching their heads we will rush to catch up.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren 1 May 2014 11: 56
      +4
      Quote: Negoro
      Apparently, our leadership is waiting for the ekranoplans to appear at the enemy, and then, clutching their heads, we will rush to catch up.


      Do not worry, do not appear!
      1. Hudo
        Hudo 1 May 2014 13: 14
        +1
        Quote: ar-ren
        Quote: Negoro
        Apparently, our leadership is waiting for the ekranoplans to appear at the enemy, and then, clutching their heads, we will rush to catch up.


        Do not worry, do not appear!


        God works in mysterious ways. Few people believed in a tiltrotor too.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren 1 May 2014 13: 24
          0
          Quote: Hudo
          God works in mysterious ways. Few people in the tiltrotor


          Physical laws cannot be refuted.
      2. Corsair0304
        Corsair0304 7 May 2014 09: 13
        0
        Why? Argument.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 7 May 2014 18: 03
          0
          Because he (CL-84) eliminates the dependence of the people on the road network and on airfields - how then to control it, wave it with a rod, and keep it and not let it go? No kidding.
          Everyone would become like birds of the air, and make nests wherever they wanted.

  • The comment was deleted.
  • demotivator
    demotivator 1 May 2014 10: 58
    +1
    Recently, the development of the construction of ekranoplanes is remembered more and more often.

    It is high time. In Soviet times, a group of designers of this miraculous technique, headed by R. E. Alekseev in 1962. The Lenin Prize was awarded. This is a very high assessment of the work of its creators. And here is just one interesting fact from the history of the creation of ekranoplan.
    When the ekranoplane was still in the floating dock during the tests, the Doctor (as the employees respectfully and sympathetically called Alekseev, as if emphasizing the highest, unsurpassed qualifications) pulled the ropes along with everyone, docking the wing. And suddenly he surprised his employees, seemingly already accustomed to his eccentricity, - taking a flight sheet, Alekseev calmly inscribed on it: "Flight in the dock." They started all 10 engines, the rumble grew, the cables holding the KM stretched like strings, a wooden fence began to break on the shore, falling under the exhaust of the engines. With a thrust of 40% of the nominal, the dock with the ekranoplane moored in it started off, began to break anchors. Satisfied, Alekseev ordered to turn off the engines

    Note that this is only for "40% thrust"! What then did he develop with full thrust?
    1. alleksSalut4507
      alleksSalut4507 2 May 2014 06: 33
      +1
      Well done! Well done! Well done!
  • Gray 43
    Gray 43 1 May 2014 11: 01
    +3
    With modern technologies and maintenance, ekranolets are capable of questioning the combat effectiveness of the AUG in principle, such is the evolution of weapons - if an expensive sword is equipped with an effective shield, then the search for a new sword begins, and so on ad infinitum. "Lun" and the family is by and large just sketches of promising weapons, it would be wrong if this topic does not receive proper development
    1. Owl
      Owl 1 May 2014 11: 15
      +7
      A ballistic missile strike at the AUG is more effective and inevitable, this method of struggle was developed (long ago) in the USSR, these systems are armed with the PRC.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 4 May 2014 22: 22
        +1
        tactical aviation will not fall into a given square of the world's oceans with a ballistic missile, and it, like the landing force, will not then take it back from there.
        and the ekranoplan can pick up and deliver both one and the other (landing + carrier-based aviation).
        it turns out ultrafast UDC. in rocket launcher execution it is much easier for him to work on AUG as well as NK
  • Cossacks
    Cossacks 1 May 2014 11: 19
    +3
    In World War I and WWII, minefields created big problems for the fleet. This can be estimated by the loss of ships. For ekranoplanes there is no such problem and it is impossible to lock them with a minefield. Especially relevant for the Baltic.
    1. 0255
      0255 1 May 2014 12: 53
      +1
      Quote: Cossacks
      Especially relevant for the Baltic.

      it would be nice to fly on such an ekranoplane near the borders of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - if only they would raise high laughing
      1. alleksSalut4507
        alleksSalut4507 2 May 2014 06: 36
        +1
        and then on an excursion, but on the beach to sunbathe, while a note is presented there, already at home.
    2. Klim2011
      Klim2011 1 May 2014 13: 07
      +3
      Now there is certainly such an opportunity, but if we adopt this model, probable opponents may be able to develop a sea mine on the principle of a helicopter mine.
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren 1 May 2014 13: 28
        +1
        Quote: Klim2011
        but if we adopt this sample


        No one will take ekranoplans into service.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 May 2014 21: 11
      +1
      Ordinary sea mines they certainly nevermind, but as they say - To the tricky ... What prevents a mine from being counter-helicopter-like, direct contact is not needed here.
  • Dezinto
    Dezinto 1 May 2014 11: 26
    +1
    Well, why don't they start doing them again !! This is an amazing chtukovina, one hundred years ahead of its time! Thanks to the brains of Mother Russia! I wonder if there is a chance, because it’s brilliant! I love this invention when I first opened my eyes to my forehead! Sizes! Armament, eight granites, speed under 500 mph, a storm of 6 points is not an obstacle! FANTASY! Not deservedly thrash .... oh, and forgotten fiction!
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren 1 May 2014 11: 50
      +2
      PS here's another good article, why ekranoplanes "didn't take off" - http://vk.com/wall-39695140_364213?&offset=40
      1. Dezinto
        Dezinto 1 May 2014 12: 24
        +5
        And for a different opinion, did you slap me a minus?

        They did not take off because the Americans bricks wed ... from our developments! Clear!? And for Coca-Cola, with sneakers, we were ruined at the most difficult moment, in company with a hunchback. Clear? And these steaks, they don’t talk about anything, they would have let me finish it ... I would have brought everything to the ideal!
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren 1 May 2014 13: 25
          +4
          Quote: DEZINTO
          And for a different opinion, did you slap me a minus?


          I don’t know who slammed the minus there for you, but for the tantrum about minus and minus me, an innocent person, I slammed the return minus.
          1. Dezinto
            Dezinto 1 May 2014 13: 47
            +2
            Ah - ha)) Come on .. well, if not you, then I'm sorry. Yes, these are nonsense minuses. No tantrums. OK. apparently in vain I consider them to be excellent, this is clearly a controversial topic, but I don’t give engineering ratings. Just a great car.! The fact that they did not finish it, well, they did not finish it ... I say it would be time.
            1. ar-ren
              ar-ren 1 May 2014 21: 16
              0
              Quote: DEZINTO
              Just a great car.!


              It would be great, they would rivet everything.
        2. Nikolay74
          Nikolay74 1 May 2014 14: 33
          +2
          I plusan respectfully hi
          1. Dezinto
            Dezinto 1 May 2014 14: 40
            +1
            Thank you for your understanding, here we really just got a misunderstanding (pun intended). Catch you too. + (YES you are also the namesake!)
      2. xtur
        xtur 1 May 2014 19: 27
        +1
        > PS here's another good article, why ekranoplanes "didn't take off" - http://vk.com/wall-39695140_364213?&offset=40

        in this article there is a lot of abuse and few arguments, no reliable figures. According to Wikipedia, the maximum take-off weight of the "Lunya" is 380t, according to this article, more than 500t. But I did not find the data on the carrying capacity of the "Lunya" on the Internet, but only a comparison of these data with the data of ordinary transport aircraft and can make it possible to draw any conclusions about their usefulness / uselessness.

        so the article is demagogic
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 May 2014 21: 13
      +1
      Keep that whopper on the screen in a gale?
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren 1 May 2014 11: 30
    +2
    Mosquito rocket weighs 4.5 tons.
    1. Lun. It has a crew of 11 people, carries 6 missiles, is afraid of excitement, is afraid of birds along the water, we see for AWACS radars, 500 km / h, can not do anything other than anti-ship, it is completely defenseless against enemy fighters.
    2. 3 aircraft of the Rafal or Su-33 class. Well, the same 6 missiles. 3 pilots. Unrest - not afraid. He is afraid of birds only on take-off and landing. Poorly visible to early warning radar, 2000+ km / h. If there are no anti-ship missions, it can bomb, shoot fighters, and patrol. By themselves, they are very dangerous for enemy fighters.

    The question is as if obvious why the ekranoplans turned out to be of no use to anyone ...

    PS here's another good article, why ekranoplanes "didn't take off" - http://vk.com/wall-39695140_364213?&offset=40
    1. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 1 May 2014 11: 44
      +3
      Quote: ar-ren
      Well, the same 6 missiles. 3 pilots

      With what 6 missiles do you compare, you can explain how you can replace 6 Mosquitoes weighing 4.5 tons with 6 located on Raphael.
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren 1 May 2014 11: 48
        0
        Raphael's lifting capacity is 9.5 tons. That is, figuratively speaking - Mosquito can carry off 2 missiles. It is clear that it was not designed for this, and there are no such pylons, etc. But figuratively, if you make a new model, make pylons for 4.5 tons there, then "Rafale" can carry 2 Mosquito missiles - it can. Well, for six missiles you need three Rafals. But that's what I wrote, if you read carefully - "2. 3 aircraft Rafale class ... "
        1. schizophrenic
          schizophrenic 1 May 2014 12: 15
          0
          Quote: ar-ren
          That is, figuratively speaking - 2 rockets Mosquito can drag

          It would be so simple, it would be much simpler, with the same success it is possible to replace anti-ship missiles on the moon with cruise missiles to strike at ground targets. True, I did not finish about 2,3 Raphael.
    2. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 1 May 2014 12: 39
      +2
      Strange question, can you guarantee just work on the enemy, one plane, one ship, or even one submarine in a modern war? Then why, as the conversation goes about ekranoplanes, they immediately argue that the ekranoplan allegedly is not able to break through the defense of the AUG or some other. It seems that all means are good for spitting ekranoplanes. Honestly already tired of reading such comments arrogant upstarts.
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren 1 May 2014 13: 23
        +2
        Quote: vladsolo56
        Then why, as the conversation goes about ekranoplanes, they immediately argue that the ekranoplan allegedly is not able to break through the defense of the AUG or some other.


        vladsolo56 is just a liar! Purely from the fact that I did not say anything about "breaking through the AUG defense", which he tried to attribute to me. Because he cannot refute truthful information about 500 km / h of ekranoplanes versus 2000+ km / h of fighter-bombers, therefore this liar fantasizes false words, ascribes to me, and then refutes with a proud look.

        PS Naturally, if a liar agitates for something, most likely it is something - shit that the liar wants to betray suckers.
        1. sniper
          sniper 1 May 2014 21: 32
          0
          Quote: ar-ren
          vladsolo56 - just a liar!
          Sir, you were born late ... Century would be at 18 You would for a duel for such words .....
          Quote: vladsolo56
          . Honestly already tired of reading such comments arrogant upstarts.
          Something I about you nothing in a respected post vladsolo56 (1) did not find ... Or did you take everything only at your own expense? I will disappoint you, you are not alone in your delusions, we still have "experts" ... it is useless to argue with you, rummage through the site's archives, and you will find everything there ... Good luck! hi
          1. ar-ren
            ar-ren 1 May 2014 21: 56
            0
            Quote: sniper
            Sir, you were born late ... Century would be at 18 You would for a duel for such words .....


            I do not refuse a duel with vladsolo56.
            1. sniper
              sniper 1 May 2014 22: 10
              +1
              Quote: ar-ren
              I do not refuse a duel
              Stop talking nonsense, just do not take everything at your own expense and do not scatter words, they sometimes become material ...
            2. vladsolo56
              vladsolo56 2 May 2014 04: 59
              0
              Quote: ar-ren


              I do not refuse a duel with vladsolo56.

              but in vain, by the way, am I shooting well, or would you like to hand-to-hand fighting in my age?
      2. ermolai
        ermolai 2 May 2014 05: 16
        -1
        and if it solves the problem of evacuating the crew, then this is an analogue of Japanese torpedoes with Kamikadts, the thought cost of 1 moon is not comparable with aug
  • sso-xnumx
    sso-xnumx 1 May 2014 11: 32
    +6
    Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy S.G. Gorshkov immediately appreciated the capabilities of the ekranoplanes, in his fleet development concept he even outlined a project to create an ekranoplan-aircraft carrier. Khrushchev also appreciated the merits of these machines and in every possible way supported the work of Rostislav Evgenievich, but Khrushchev "left", and Brezhnev, from the principle of "all Khrushchevs", was thrown into figs, all work in this direction was covered. It is a pity that our rulers do not always have enough foresight.
  • wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 1 May 2014 11: 47
    +6
    For the marines, it’s almost an ideal transport for fast transfer to almost any theater of operations; these devices can provide MP with mobility almost equal to that of the airborne forces.
    If Alekseev’s design bureau had resumed work on these machines, I’m sure that the Navy would have got very promising equipment for fulfilling its tasks of controlling the oceans.
    Using ekranoplanes would change the current state of things. And it would put an end to American dominance in the ocean.
  • Cristall
    Cristall 1 May 2014 11: 49
    +6
    there are many advantages, disadvantages. Strange in the article, the range is -2 km. What's this? Typo?
    Wiki gives 2 km.
    For Pacific Fleet then refueling is needed. What is most interesting - can an ekranoplane refuel with a regular air tanker (and even a ship refueling one)? He is at the junction of two elements - he can combine the capabilities of both.
    Lun now needs to be re-created - engines are more economical, less, more traction, materials easier stronger, electronics easier, rockets easier. Materials for reducing radar detection.
    But if the ekranoplans were promising - wouldn’t it be all the countries would start building them? There are doubts .... Any breakthrough in technology - the whole world usually picks up, but here almost nobody.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren 1 May 2014 11: 53
      0
      Here are the arguments against - http://vk.com/wall-39695140_364213?offset=40
  • 52
    52 1 May 2014 11: 59
    +2
    Quote: ar-ren
    Mosquito rocket weighs 4.5 tons.
    1. Lun. It has a crew of 11 people, carries 6 missiles, is afraid of excitement, is afraid of birds along the water, we see for AWACS radars, 500 km / h, can not do anything other than anti-ship, it is completely defenseless against enemy fighters.
    2. 3 aircraft of the Rafal or Su-33 class. Well, the same 6 missiles. 3 pilots. Unrest - not afraid. He is afraid of birds only on take-off and landing. Poorly visible to early warning radar, 2000+ km / h. If there are no anti-ship missions, it can bomb, shoot fighters, and patrol. By themselves, they are very dangerous for enemy fighters.

    The question is as if obvious why the ekranoplans turned out to be of no use to anyone ...

    PS here's another good article, why ekranoplanes "didn't take off" - http://vk.com/wall-39695140_364213?&offset=40

    Do not forget, ekranoplanes are a more universal tool, the load was not even possible for three rafals, heavier weapons will be more effective, and as for visibility, well, the technologies do not stand still, you just did not have to throw a promising direction. And rafals are more afraid of birds with water - a collision with birds at the working height of the ekranoplan will lead to a gurgle, and the ekranoplan will simply splash down.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren 1 May 2014 18: 26
      +2
      Quote: 52gim
      three rafals never dreamed of carrying capacity


      But nothing that not a single ekranoplan came close to the payload, not that the MRII, but even the An-124go? And even the results of the S-17 could not get!
  • sv68
    sv68 1 May 2014 12: 07
    0
    the authors correct the text — the range of the ekranoplan’s course is indicated at two kilometers. and according to the text — not the bombers because of the usual political leapfrog and the collapse of the Soviet Union — the new government didn’t give a damn about the defense and the projects were closed in packs
  • Dezinto
    Dezinto 1 May 2014 12: 28
    +1
    Quote: DEZINTO
    And for a different opinion, did you slap me a minus?

    They did not take off because the Americans bricks wed ... from our developments! Clear!? And for Coca-Cola, with sneakers, we were ruined at the most difficult moment, in company with a hunchback. Clear? And these steaks, they don’t talk about anything, they would have let me finish it ... I would have brought everything to the ideal!
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 1 May 2014 13: 09
    +3
    And the idea of ​​a large-capacity ekranoplan and its implementation were remarkable and Alekseev in this regard was far ahead of the designers of the whole world. In other countries, nothing good, except for small ekranoplanes, did not work. The "Eaglet" and then the "Lun" showed exceptional seaworthiness even in strong seas and no less exceptional survivability. For example, during a test demonstration flight with high "guests" on board, the ekranoplan hit the water due to a pilot error, practically lost its tail section, but nevertheless safely reached the base on its own. It is difficult to say about the ability of this ekranoplan to act as a killer of aircraft carriers. at all its speed, it is very vulnerable to carrier-based aircraft, since it is not so difficult to detect such a large target from a carrier-based AWACS aircraft and from satellites, and it was not possible to create a reliable target designation system for Granit cruise missiles at that time ... There were some hopes for the Killer Whale satellite system, which they intended to create to detect the AUG and issue the control center to the cruise missiles of the USSR Navy, but something went wrong with this system.
    There was a big debate in the Navy over who should be responsible for the basing and operation of ekranoplanes: sailors or naval aviation. The sailors claimed that it was more a plane than a ship, and the pilots claimed the exact opposite.
    And when Alekseev died, and the main "pusher" of the ekranoplanes, Gorshkov, was removed from the command of the navy, the ekranoplan's fate was decided, and alas, not in their favor. But in vain. After all, this ship would be indispensable for the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and for patrolling the coastal zone, and for quickly responding to threats arising in remote coastal areas.
    In the late 90s, Australia negotiated with Russia on the joint creation of Eaglet-type ekranoplanes for the rapid delivery of equipment and people to areas of fire and other natural disasters. For Australia, where the bulk of the population is concentrated along the ocean coast and the distances are more than enormous, such ekranoplanes would be the very thing. But even here something did not work out. And the same in vain. War is war, but in peacetime the ekranoplan would have found work above the roof.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren 1 May 2014 13: 27
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      "Eaglet"


      Eaglet, in comparison with an airplane of the same payload An-12:
      1. Has half the flight distance.
      2. Eats more fuel on the same flight.
      3. It can fly only above water, although the An-12 can fly everywhere.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 1 May 2014 14: 52
        +1
        How can an ekranoplan be compared with a transport plane? These are completely different "birds" created for completely different purposes. An ekranoplan is still a ship, although it can fly over the water surface due to the screen effect. But it can also "splash down" in any place, and a transport aircraft needs at least a runway that meets the airworthiness standards of this transport aircraft. feel the difference.
      2. Helizer
        Helizer 1 May 2014 14: 57
        +1
        WIG can fly over any flat surface.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren 1 May 2014 18: 25
          0
          Quote: Chelicera
          WIG can fly over any flat surface.


          Well, muddy types come to you and say - "You carry it for X hours, spending Y kg of fuel, let's you carry our crap, for 2 * X hours, spending 1.5 * Y kg of fuel ??!" What will you do? Right. Twist at your temple and ask the question - "Why should I spend twice as much on transportation and one and a half times more on fuel ?? !!" And here you are proud of the muddy types - "Because you carry by plane, and we offer to carry ekranoplan !!"

          Then I predict two options: a) you just kick them out; b) you hand them over to the asylum.
          1. Helizer
            Helizer 1 May 2014 19: 29
            -1
            KM could take on board a cargo equal to its own weight (240 tons), while it spent five times less fuel on its delivery than a transport aircraft of similar carrying capacity


            Read the article.
          2. Avenich
            Avenich 1 May 2014 19: 29
            +1
            And what about the landing ship, which moves at a speed of 500 km / h, lands 2 armored personnel carriers on any gentle coast (without soaking feet, by the way), then deployed on the spot leaves for the second batch of paratroopers, grabbing the wounded. And at the same time, having a power installation comparable in capacity with a transport aircraft with a mass of two times more.
      3. Avenich
        Avenich 1 May 2014 19: 20
        +1
        Dear, quite recently on the pages of this site there was a rather heated discussion about the construction and use of combat and airborne ekranoplanes. When comparing the flight characteristics of an ekranoplan and a transport aircraft, opponents usually forget one characteristic, probably very unimportant for them: the mass of the device. So the maximum take-off weight of the "Orlyonok" is more than twice that of the AN-12, with approximately the same power of the propulsion system. Let me remind you once again that the Eaglet is not an airplane, but a delivery vehicle. How the AN-12 can land troops on an unprepared shore, I do not really imagine.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren 1 May 2014 19: 59
          0
          Quote: Avenich
          How can AN-12 land on an unprepared shore, I do not really imagine.


          https://www.google.ru/search?q=%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%
          D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&
          ei=cW9iU4XkEoqk4gTWtoDYCg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1887&bih=957
      4. xtur
        xtur 1 May 2014 19: 32
        0
        links to the given data for Orlyonok - carrying capacity, maximum take-off weight, flight range, fuel weight
      5. Bayonet
        Bayonet 1 May 2014 21: 26
        0
        The ekranoplan "Eaglet", or rather, the ekranoplan, could leave the screen to a maximum height of 3000 meters. Everything else is correct.
      6. abc_alex
        abc_alex 5 May 2014 11: 32
        0
        Tales again ...

        1) the difference in the flight distance is determined primarily by the HEIGHT of the flight. This is physics, you can't argue against it. Air resistance decreases with increasing altitude. If you manage to lower the AN-12 to the flight altitude of the Eaglet, then his "shoulder" will learn to be comparable.
        2) the same. The higher the resistance of the medium, the higher the fuel consumption. Aircraft demonstrate all their "good performance" at an altitude of 5000+. And the Eaglet was created for extremely low heights.
        3) nonsense. The ekranolet can fly over ANY even surface. Flat field, water, snow, asphalt. He doesn’t care. The surface is only needed to reflect the incoming air flow.



        Specifically, the Eaglet, thanks to the original scheme with the APU, could fly at an altitude of 1 km (tested) to 10 km (theoretically) like an airplane and land at near-zero horizontal speed (in helicopter).
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 5 May 2014 20: 58
          0
          resistance of the medium, which depends mainly on its speed
          ekranoplan flying over water much slower than an airplane at altitude
          a chubby airship is even more economical, but it flies very slowly
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 May 2014 16: 24
      0
      he can carry his own (carrier-based aviation) in this and is tsimense, therefore it is undesirable to have winged and silver-footed aircraft carriers (ekranoplanes). Well, if only in the Caspian and then for a short time and a little
  • shoroh
    shoroh 1 May 2014 15: 27
    0
    Stealth technology and the new Bramos cruise missiles are the secret to success. You can punish aircraft carriers so effectively. Plus, on an ekranoplan you can put the latest radar, like on the T50, and use it against aviation, arming missiles with air and air. There would be just killers of all the sea
    1. jayich
      jayich 3 May 2014 12: 47
      0
      Not Brahmos, but Onyx, Brahmos is an export option.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 1 May 2014 15: 51
    +2
    and range - to 2 km

    Presumably a typo, most likely 2000 km
    There is no doubt that there are unique machines, but my amateur opinion is about military use - for vehicles of this type, careful study of tactics and application conditions is required, a careful study of the range of tasks is required, which was not done at one time. Mechanically hanging on Lun Mosquitoes into a fighting vehicle does not turn it. Lun in the form in which he was only a demonstrator of the capabilities of a new class of technology. Nevertheless, I believe that with the proper approach, such machines would find their military (and not only) niche.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 May 2014 06: 19
      0
      they have already found in Germany and Iran a long time ago
  • My doctor
    My doctor 1 May 2014 16: 13
    +3
    Lun is the killer of aircraft carriers in the Caspian Sea? What do you smoke?
    I’m not special, but it’s striking when assessing how a ship lacks the criterion of autonomy, seaworthiness, stability, buoyancy, pitching, unsinkability, controllability
    I am especially interested in the possibility of a turn over the surface of the water, (turning criterion from the elements of maneuverability).
    when evaluating how an airplane there is speed, flight range, but did not see maneuverability in that part where it is necessary to perform a 90 and 180 degree turn, the payload is a dash payload.
    All these criteria are obviously not in vain missed in the article, but you can guess for example: The carrying capacity is somewhere in the region of 27 tons (if 6 missiles are 4,5 tons each) and this is with a take-off weight of 380 tons.
    So draw your own conclusions.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 1 May 2014 21: 29
      +1
      Quote: MyVrach
      The carrying capacity is somewhere in the region of 27 tons (if 6 missiles are 4,5 tons each) and this is with a take-off weight of 380 tons.


      In fact, in addition to the "Moskit" missiles themselves, the "Lun" carried the radio-electronic equipment of the complex, as well as a powerful long-range radar. Since in those days there was no portable electronics as it is now, all this equipment took up almost the entire place in the Lunya case, and its weight was not small, remember the first A-50s.
      In addition, two artillery mounts were installed on the Lun for defensive fire in the front and rear of the hull.
      1. My doctor
        My doctor 1 May 2014 22: 15
        +1
        I am clearly not in the subject, so a dispute with me is useless and unnecessary.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 3 May 2014 19: 50
          0
          with the reverse effectiveness of the ailerons (so as not to have a pancake), etc.
          they even walk normally along narrow rivers
          seaworthy is no worse than any flying boat
          for the rest, look at wikipedia if not in the subject.
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 5 May 2014 11: 35
        +1
        And two anchors weighing several tons. And what to do, requirements for the ship's crew :)
    2. RONIN-HS
      RONIN-HS 10 May 2014 23: 01
      0
      My doctor good No, this is your conclusion. If Lun is brought to the ocean line at the WIG-Mobile Base - then all your questions are easily removed. And such characteristics as carrying capacity and economic component are easily compensated by the performance of a combat mission - DESTRUCTION OF AUG. Relate the cost of the AUG and a dozen of the moons ???????
  • Kar Karych
    Kar Karych 1 May 2014 17: 35
    +3
    Quote: MyVrach
    Lun is the killer of aircraft carriers in the Caspian Sea? What do you smoke?
    I’m not special, but it’s striking when assessing how a ship lacks the criterion of autonomy, seaworthiness, stability, buoyancy, pitching, unsinkability, controllability
    I am especially interested in the possibility of a turn over the surface of the water, (turning criterion from the elements of maneuverability).
    when evaluating how an airplane there is speed, flight range, but did not see maneuverability in that part where it is necessary to perform a 90 and 180 degree turn, the payload is a dash payload.
    All these criteria are obviously not in vain missed in the article, but you can guess for example: The carrying capacity is somewhere in the region of 27 tons (if 6 missiles are 4,5 tons each) and this is with a take-off weight of 380 tons.
    So draw your own conclusions.


    And no one spoke about aircraft carriers in the Caspian Sea, read carefully. It was just that the site for testing this apparatus was not so hot, so the Caspian was chosen. Plus, regarding the carrying capacity, Arlyonok is able to deliver cargo to places where the plane does not land, it is possible to deliver the cargo and quickly leave for replenishment. For an airplane, this already presents difficulties. Covering a transport aircraft is also a question.
    1. Velikoruss
      Velikoruss 1 May 2014 19: 43
      +1
      As karych please excuse me, I set you +, and came out minus, I somehow did not understand request
    2. My doctor
      My doctor 1 May 2014 22: 20
      +1
      Quote: Kar Karych

      Plus, regarding the carrying capacity, Arlyonok is able to deliver cargo to places where the plane does not land, it is possible to deliver the cargo and quickly leave for replenishment. For an airplane, this already presents difficulties. Covering a transport aircraft is also a question.

      I repeat, I probably understand the least here in the military
      I read somewhere that, for example, Orlyonok has a payload of about 27% in payload, which is not enough as a conclusion for a transport vehicle.
  • 9lvariag
    9lvariag 1 May 2014 19: 34
    +3
    Quote: schizophrenic
    Quote: 0255
    When someone has posted this number in pdf format on the Internet

    I would like to read it. After all, it is possible to create an ekranoplane with a carrying capacity of 5000 tons, though not immediately. Compared to an aerodrome landing, take-off weight is unlimited, as is the case with sea vessels.

    Bartini wanted to build a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier!
    2500 atomic aircraft carrier bartini.2500 atomic aircraft carrier bartini.

    http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/beriev/be/5000/index.htm
  • Avenich
    Avenich 1 May 2014 19: 47
    0
    Quote: ar-ren
    Quote: 52gim
    three rafals never dreamed of carrying capacity


    But nothing that not a single ekranoplan came close to the payload, not that the MRII, but even the An-124go? And even the results of the S-17 could not get!


    For God's sake: MOON the maximum take-off weight is 380 tons
    thrust 8X13000 kg / s 104000
    AN-124 maximum take-off weight of 405 tons
    thrust 4X23400 kg / s 93600
    It is clearly seen that the flight characteristics of the Ruslana and Lunya are approximately the same.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 3 May 2014 00: 12
      0
      Quote: Avenich

      MOON maximum take-off weight of 380 tons
      thrust 8X13000 kg / s 104000
      AN-124 maximum take-off weight of 405 tons
      thrust 4X23400 kg / s 93600

      Probably, it is a little incorrect to compare the engine thrust:
      the ekranoplan uses the entire pack of engines only during take-off, and after taking it off the water, it shuts down almost half of the engines and flies in a rather economical mode.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 5 May 2014 11: 38
        0
        If we talk about Orlenka, out of 3 engines only 1 worked on the marching section. Two nasal ones either switched off or worked at extremely low speeds in case of emergency blowing (lift-up, accident)
  • moreman78
    moreman78 1 May 2014 20: 10
    +1
    Quote: Avenich
    Quote: ar-ren
    Quote: 52gim
    three rafals never dreamed of carrying capacity


    But nothing that not a single ekranoplan came close to the payload, not that the MRII, but even the An-124go? And even the results of the S-17 could not get!


    For God's sake: MOON the maximum take-off weight is 380 tons
    thrust 8X13000 kg / s 104000
    AN-124 maximum take-off weight of 405 tons
    thrust 4X23400 kg / s 93600
    It is clearly seen that the flight characteristics of the Ruslana and Lunya are approximately the same.


    It remains only to strain your brains and answer the question to yourself - WHY AN-124, S-17 and other transport aircraft are in demand and are in service, but "WUNDERWAFFLES" Lun and Eaglet - NO ONE NEEDS!
    1. Helizer
      Helizer 1 May 2014 20: 54
      +1
      It remains only to strain your brains and answer the question to yourself - WHY AN-124, S-17 and other transport aircraft are in demand and are in service, but "WUNDERWAFFLES" Lun and Eaglet - NO ONE NEEDS!


      According to international treaties, the ekranoplanes are currently dismantled.

      Because the world accomplices and their leader NEED our lack of combat ekranoplanes. And the An-124, S-17 and other transport planes are NOT SCARY.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 2 May 2014 04: 45
        +2
        Give a link to the agreement, according to which "ekranoplanes were dismantled". This is the first time I've heard of this.
        1. Helizer
          Helizer 2 May 2014 14: 26
          0
          START-1 Treaty
          Article 5
          Paragraph 19

          c) not conduct flight tests of an aircraft that is not an aircraft, or an aircraft that was not built from the very beginning as a bomber, with long-range nuclear ALCMs, do not equip such an aircraft or such aircraft for long-range nuclear ALCMs, and do not deploy such an aircraft or such an aircraft with long-range nuclear ALCMs.

          Everything is fair and transparent. Well, the prohibition of flight tests is the last step before dismantling.
          1. ar-ren
            ar-ren 2 May 2014 16: 53
            +2
            Quote: Chelicera
            not to conduct flight tests of an aircraft that is not an aircraft, or an aircraft that was not built from the very beginning as a bomber, with long-range nuclear ALCMs


            And where is the ban on flight tests of an aircraft with HE shells? I see a ban on installing nuclear missiles on ekranoplanes, shuttles and fighters with attack aircraft.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 5 May 2014 11: 45
      0
      Because none of these aircraft is used in conditions of real combat opposition by a high-tech enemy. They are now used in an almost civilian version. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, they worked only with safe airfields in the complete absence of danger from air defense.

      In the case of the presence of normal air defense, ground-based radars will detect them at their working heights hundreds of kilometers to the landing point and pre-launch them with weapons of destruction.

      The eaglet, most of the way passes below the radio horizon. You can only detect it from an AWACS or satellite plane.
  • anfil
    anfil 1 May 2014 20: 10
    +2
    Quote: schizophrenic
    Ekranoplan "Lun": combat flying ship

  • The comment was deleted.
  • ALEK7SANDR
    ALEK7SANDR 1 May 2014 20: 20
    +1
    good car. it’s stupid that they don’t produce such a miracle of technology. although they did for the Ministry of Emergencies, and Posozhirsky was also real, for example, to Kaliningrad. I saw a cargo for you, and sometimes a plane. stupid that is unproductive. very stupid.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 May 2014 21: 34
      0
      "Posozhirsky Porom" is certainly cool, but not economically profitable. They refused from supersonic airliners.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 May 2014 06: 26
        0
        ekranoplan the most optimal transport taking into account speed. without her account - airship
        then maritime container, river, rail, and pipelines
        supersonic transatlantic liners abandoned due to wear and tear
  • Captain45
    Captain45 1 May 2014 20: 42
    +2
    The article says that in the 1972 year a prototype of the landing craft was created, in the 1986 year the first model was adopted; 14 years have passed from development to commissioning. And now, no offense, how many years do you think those designers who developed the concept of ekranoplan, engineers who embodied in drawings and metal, and those foremen who assembled this miracle of technology. I’m afraid there aren’t others, but those are far away. I don’t think that yesterday’s petushniks, at least workers aged 40-50, would have assembled the building. And how old are they today? No matter how sad it is to admit that this topic is unlikely in the coming 20 years whether it appears, especially since the army they are arming themselves with existing developments that have long been gathering dust in design bureaus. Although, in fairness, I admit that these developments comply with new requirements and trends, but nevertheless, hands will still not reach the ekranoplanes. There are no designers, no base, no workers, no matter how sad it is to admit. If wrong, then correct.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 May 2014 04: 51
      +1
      A total of 5 Eagle-type ekranoplanes were built and tested, all of which became part of the Navy; even a special ekranoplane control aircraft group was created.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 1 May 2014 21: 22
    0
    Hovercraft at a speed of 500 km / h

    I didn’t read further. What is the air cushion ?!


    Who misses this nonsense on IN ?! am
    1. Assistant
      Assistant 2 May 2014 22: 37
      +1
      What is the air cushion ?!


      Р ”РёРЅР ° РјРёС ‡ ескР° СЏ.
  • Kar Karych
    Kar Karych 1 May 2014 23: 54
    +1
    [My Doctor]
    I repeat, I probably understand the least here in the military
    I read somewhere that, for example, Orlyonok has a payload payload of about 27%, which is not enough as a conclusion for a transport vehicle. [/ Quote]

    Well, the carrying capacity or capacity, suppose the armored personnel carrier is also nonsense. But this is military equipment and no one asked questions. And as for the Lunya, for a Mosquito missile strike against a ship group, it is not necessary to approach the target very closely, all the more, the impact of one ship is ineffective, but if groups of 2 or 3 units, in my opinion the chances were very high.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 May 2014 06: 29
      +1
      ekranoplane goes over water, it is difficult to detect
      ekranoplanes have better returns than BTA because they use the screen effect
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren 3 May 2014 10: 29
        +1
        Quote: Kassandra
        ekranoplanes have better returns than BTA because they use the screen effect


        The screen effect only adds 50% to the lifting force. And the need to fly at high pressure near the ground increases the resistance to ekranoplan 4 times in comparison with the VTA. As a result, on the same path, the ekranoplan will spend 2 times more fuel than an airplane.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 3 May 2014 11: 32
          +1
          Quote: ar-ren
          The screen effect only adds 50% to the lifting force. And the need to fly at high pressure near the ground increases the resistance to ekranoplan 4 times in comparison with the VTA. As a result, on the same path, the ekranoplan will spend 2 times more fuel than an airplane.

          "...
          Advantages
          .... ekranoplans have high efficiency and a higher carrying capacity compared to airplanes, since the lift is added to the force generated from the ground effect .... " http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DD%EA%F0%E0%ED%EE%EF%EB%E0%ED

          "... Compared to the most economical aircraft, the transport efficiency of already developed and built ekranoplan ships is one and a half to two times higher, that is, it is 30-35%, and in the future it can reach more than 50% of the total mass of the ekranoplan. .. " http://www.aex.ru/docs/3/2010/10/31/1202

          Caspian Monster ".... With a weight of 544 tons, it could reach speeds of over 400 kilometers per hour and fly at a height of up to five meters above the surface. Equipped as a testing laboratory, soon the ekranoplan showed its advantages (mainly greater load capacity with less power and less fuel consumption than an airplane, as well as the ability, like seaplanes, to land anywhere in the ocean, be almost invisible to radars and much less vulnerable to missiles) .... " http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/1225333/
          1. ar-ren
            ar-ren 3 May 2014 12: 39
            0
            "Don't read Soviet newspapers in the morning!"

            On the fingers, one more time. Suppose we have a plane weighing 2 kg, lifting 1 kg, flying 10 km and spending 1 kg of fuel per 100 km. Then, due to the screen effect, 1.5 times more = (2 + 1) * 1,5 = the ekranoplan will weigh 4.5 kg in total; 4,5 kg - 2 kg of own weight = 2.5 kg of cargo will be lucky, instead of 1 kg in an airplane. How cool, 2.5 times more, right? However, due to the high air pressure near the earth, 4 times greater, the ekranoplane will gobble up 4 times more fuel, not 1 kg per 100 km, but 4 kg per 100 km.

            Или:
            1. Airplane - 1 kg of cargo and 1 kg of fuel per 100 km.
            2. WIG - 2.5 kg of cargo and 4 kg of fuel per 100 km. Or, 1.6 kg of fuel per kg of cargo per 100 km.

            That's why the ekranoplans did not take off!
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 3 May 2014 12: 52
              +1
              Quote: ar-ren
              On the fingers, one more time.

              On the fingers is not necessary, give links to a third-party opinion that will confirm your point of view. It is desirable that the link was not one.
              For example, I brought three in which the opinion is completely opposite to yours.
              1. ar-ren
                ar-ren 3 May 2014 13: 04
                0
                Quote: Bad_gr
                On the fingers is not necessary, give links to a third-party opinion that will confirm your point of view. It is desirable that the link was not one. For example, I brought three in which the opinion is completely opposite to yours.


                Consider my opinion as someone else's opinion. I have substantiated mine. Your "three authorities" sucked everything out of the thumb and did not give any, even the most minimal justifications. The smart one will compare opinions and choose the right one. will require some kind of "authorities". Because he cannot think himself.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 3 May 2014 15: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: ar-ren
                  Consider my opinion as someone else's opinion. I have substantiated mine. Your "three authorities" sucked everything out of the thumb and did not give any, even the most minimal justifications. The smart one will compare opinions and choose the right one. will require some kind of "authorities". Because he cannot think himself.

                  Question:
                  why should a plane with cut wings, which is not enough for a normal flight of an airplane, but enough to create a screen effect and a flight near the ground should weigh 2,5 times more than a full-fledged airplane?
                  1. ar-ren
                    ar-ren 3 May 2014 20: 13
                    0
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    why should a plane with cut wings, which is not enough for a normal flight of an airplane, but enough to create a screen effect and a flight near the ground should weigh 2,5 times more than a full-fledged airplane?

                    I can only advise five times to carefully re-read what I wrote before:
                    Quote: ar-ren
                    On the fingers, one more time. Suppose we have a plane weighing 2 kg, lifting 1 kg, flying 10 km and spending 1 kg of fuel per 100 km. Then, due to the screen effect, 1.5 times more = (2 + 1) * 1,5 = the ekranoplan will weigh 4.5 kg in total; 4,5 kg - 2 kg of own weight = 2.5 kg of cargo will be lucky, instead of 1 kg in an airplane. How cool, 2.5 times more, right? However, due to the high air pressure near the earth, 4 times greater, the ekranoplane will gobble up 4 times more fuel, not 1 kg per 100 km, but 4 kg per 100 km. Or: 1. Airplane - 1 kg of cargo and 1 kg of fuel per 100 km. 2. WIG - 2.5 kg of cargo and 4 kg of fuel per 100 km. Or, 1.6 kg of fuel per kg of cargo per 100 km.

                    In my words there is not a word about the fact that the ekranoplan will weigh 2.5 times more !!

                    If it is not clear, go to the physics teacher at school, show this text.
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 3 May 2014 20: 31
                      +1
                      you don’t rot your fingers ... otherwise the teacher won’t understand bully
                      air resistance is about the 4th degree of the speed of the ekranoplanes go directly above the water much slower than airplanes. their wing is of slight elongation, and does not create such resistance as that of an airplane. in addition - to keep the plane
                      An airplane at altitude needs a lot because there is no screen effect and the air is rarefied. but the plane will fly fast. but fuel consumption at the same distance will still be greater than that of an ekranoplan every 2-2,5
                      1. ar-ren
                        ar-ren 3 May 2014 22: 04
                        -1
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        air resistance is about the 4th degree of the speed of the ekranoplanes go directly above the water much slower than airplanes. their wing is of slight elongation, and does not create such resistance as that of an airplane. in addition - to keep the plane
                        .
                        An airplane at altitude needs a lot because there is no screen effect and the air is rarefied. but the plane will fly fast. but fuel consumption at the same distance will still be greater than that of an ekranoplan every 2-2,5


                        Suppose Kassandra is a smart woman, not TP, and everything she wrote is true.

                        What is the 4th degree? This is when an increase in speed by 2 (two) times increases fuel consumption by 2 to the 4th degree, or 16 times. And if the speed of the aircraft is reduced by half? Then there will be fuel economy 16 (sixteen!) Times. Well, why the heck do you need an ekranoplane flying twice slower and consuming 2 times less fuel, if you can reduce the speed of the aircraft by half (increasing the size of the wings) and spend 16 times less fuel?
                      2. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 4 May 2014 02: 54
                        +1
                        the ancient Greeks did not listen to her either.

                        if you reduce the speed of the plane by half, then the wing it has less than the water itself from this still will not
                        and a larger wing means more unnecessary weight and more unnecessary drag, as well as exhausting jolting when flying at low altitude.

                        Not well, of course, Alekseev was a fool and you are smart. and the Germans who are doing ekranoplanes (though of a different system) are smarter than you, you’re a toilet bully
                  2. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 3 May 2014 20: 55
                    0
                    Quote: ar-ren
                    I can only advise five times to carefully re-read what I wrote before:

                    Links to sites in support of your work, as I understand it, will not.
                    1. ar-ren
                      ar-ren 3 May 2014 21: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      Links to sites in support of your work, as I understand it, will not.

                      http://topwar.ru/23076-chem-zamenit-ekranoplan.html
                      http://vk.com/wall-39695140_364213?&offset=40

                      But I don't see any reason to communicate with you anymore! People who cannot think for themselves, but demand "authorities", are not interesting to me.
                    2. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 3 May 2014 22: 05
                      +1
                      get off your uncle, and then chat with me.

                      on the second link immediately "b'nai delirium" as ekranoplanes, like flying boats, refer to aircraft and not to ships
                      and according to the first one too - if the author does not understand why amphibians have a shortened take-off from small lakes and clearings, then this characterizes him.

                      besides, the "Pelican" is drawn completely incorrectly, it is double-hull and the wing is low-lying and the engines are on raised pylons
                      ekranoplanes with a high wing does not happen - its high location weakens the screen effect.

                      so that with authoritative Internet links and your own thinking turn on yourself.
                    3. ar-ren
                      ar-ren 3 May 2014 22: 15
                      -1
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      get off your uncle, and then chat with me.


                      After you figured out that the aerodynamic drag is proportional to the 4th degree, it makes no sense to communicate with you either. Maybe, as an exception, it makes sense as an instructor and student, where the instructor is me and the student is you.
                    4. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 4 May 2014 02: 58
                      0
                      nafigachilo you, having forgotten that the larger wing is the greater drag and the greater mass of the aircraft.

                      due to the screen effect on ekranoplans cost much less.
                2. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 3 May 2014 22: 18
                  0
                  Quote: ar-ren
                  But I don't see any reason to communicate with you anymore! People who cannot think for themselves, but demand "authorities", are not interesting to me.

                  Likewise. People who think that they are "authority", whose words do not require proof, are not interesting to me either.

                  By the way, your links to forums where someone's opinion was voiced has no more authority than my link with Aviation EXplorer (Commonwealth of Aviation Experts).
                3. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 4 May 2014 02: 59
                  +1
                  in mine he cannot go there ... he is not a gentleman. lol
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 3 May 2014 15: 39
    0
    not at all - it flies at a lower speed, and the wingspan is much smaller.
  • 9lvariag
    9lvariag 2 May 2014 01: 51
    +1
    Quote: MyVrach
    Lun is the killer of aircraft carriers in the Caspian Sea? What do you smoke?
    I’m not special, but it’s striking when assessing how a ship lacks the criterion of autonomy, seaworthiness, stability, buoyancy, pitching, unsinkability, controllability
    I am especially interested in the possibility of a turn over the surface of the water, (turning criterion from the elements of maneuverability).
    when evaluating how an airplane there is speed, flight range, but did not see maneuverability in that part where it is necessary to perform a 90 and 180 degree turn, the payload is a dash payload.
    All these criteria are obviously not in vain missed in the article, but you can guess for example: The carrying capacity is somewhere in the region of 27 tons (if 6 missiles are 4,5 tons each) and this is with a take-off weight of 380 tons.
    So draw your own conclusions.

    Quote: 0255
    Quote: sso-250659
    If "Looney" appeared there in 1988-89, the Americans would not have time for the collapse of the USSR. They would have had such a headache and hemorrhoids to develop a defense system against these handsome men that everything else would look like flowers. Moreover, instead of "Mosquitoes" to equip them with "Granites or Basalts" would be a song !!!!!!

    In the 1980s, Americans already had protection against ekranoplanes, and from Tu-160, Yak-141, MiG-a MFI, Buran, nuclear missiles and much more from which:

    To defend against a geopolitical rival, all you have to do is put in power your (non) people.
    Yes Yes. Blessed are those who believe, is this "Sprint" with "Safeguard" or what? Or Aegis, a fat fucked up in the Persian Gulf? Either this advanced country still stuffs the world with legends about bad Russians with our AK and PC, and also calls RPG-7, "the weapon of the devil"! Now and then their "Patriot" is constantly approaching our borders. to get anywhere ?! And their flying laser turned out to be even more messy than everything that America has created on missile defense .-)))) And already withdrawn for conservation - how much money did the people put in there? And our anti-ship missiles, developed during the scoop, are not intercepted by any ship missile defense system. And as for the fact that to remove the long-suffering R-36M2, so its Americans have already 4 times. tried to file it into metal. Gorby hello to the old selling skin and piss. Something I have not heard that their warheads, even in a distant perspective, could intercept something? PS: When we had a case at our base. By mistake one officer, working on an electronic warfare (PP) aircraft, turned on the old "Bouquet", so the stench was up to heaven. Within a radius of 100 km. everything went blind! And besides, this pribluda irradiates mom do not worry. His technicians servicing the plane at this time almost nailed.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 May 2014 05: 00
      0
      The RPG-7 has been in service for over 50 years and is still beating up everything! If you are called "the weapon of the devil", then they are afraid of him and respect.
  • 9lvariag
    9lvariag 2 May 2014 02: 04
    0
    Such planes would be sent to us in the Crimea, then to the Black Sea, different and yet another thing ... didn’t swim.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 May 2014 04: 53
      0
      These are NOT airplanes!
      1. 9lvariag
        9lvariag 2 May 2014 12: 36
        0
        These are aircraft-type ekranoplans, and there are others. In the course, there are such ekranoplanes that could fly at altitudes up to 1 km. With excessive consumption of fuel, of course. I read even old books like "Hovercraft."
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 4 May 2014 21: 25
          0
          This could be done by the Eaglet ekranoplan. He could rise to a height of 3000 meters! They are also called ekranoletami.
      2. Kassandra
        Kassandra 3 May 2014 06: 31
        0
        aircraft in general, like flying boats, are only specific.
        but hydrofoil or hovercraft, these are already ships.
      3. Kassandra
        Kassandra 6 May 2014 17: 16
        0
        is a flying boat also not a plane? bully
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 2 May 2014 05: 10
    +1
    WIG is generally an interesting thing. Even as carriers, not as carriers of weapons. Although taking into account the mass-dimensional characteristics of current anti-ship missiles (such as Caliber), installing a pair of missiles will not greatly increase the mass. Well, again, it is necessary to launch this business in the civilian area.
  • fox14
    fox14 2 May 2014 09: 28
    +1
    Quote: Sakhalininets
    Ekranoplanes are our pride and pain, as well as many promising directions for the development of our military-industrial complex, this direction of development was safely ditched by a dermocratic bastard under the control of a labeled animal and bagadul.

    Sakhalin gold words
  • GRIGORY
    GRIGORY 2 May 2014 15: 18
    +2
    In March 2014, scientists from the Far Eastern Federal University announced the start of development of the first experimental prototype of a passenger winged aircraft

    And as always they will create an ekranoplan the size of a boat. Like everything modern should be less. am
    We would have the power of the Soviet Union.
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 2 May 2014 16: 48
    +4
    If there are airplanes, then why are ekranoplanes needed?
    What rocket can not be released from an airplane?
    Flies wherever he wants, at any height. And the rocket too.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 3 May 2014 06: 36
      0
      look at Wikipedia "ekranoplan", there - "dignity".
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 5 May 2014 12: 13
      0
      The aircraft will go towards the AUG at its operating altitude. This is at least 7 km. but in real life much more. Calculate the radio horizon for this height. Million-in-a-million, actually. That is, in addition to the AWACS aircraft and satellites ship radars will see the plane at the limit своих technical capabilities. In order for a plane to get somewhere under such conditions, he needs either a radio stealth reduction complex (stealth) or cruising supersonic. This greatly increases the cost of construction.

      The ekranolet flies at an extremely low altitude, which is inaccessible for most aircraft, and for those who are available it is unsuitable for flight. Therefore, almost up to a distance of tens of kilometers, it is hidden by the radio horizon from the radars of the ship. You can only detect it from an AWACS or satellite plane. Ship radars are useless here. Well, the interception of Mosquito from a distance of even 100 km is a task in general unrealizable. And even more so in a salvo.

      Further. No modern combat aircraft can deliver 6 Mosquitoes to the launch line. 24 tons of external suspension will not pull either the Tu-22M3 or Su-34. And for the strategists of the Tu-160 or T-95 class, there are completely different tasks.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 May 2014 21: 11
        -1
        Tu-160 or Tu-95 will not be able to deliver decked aircraft on their back anywhere in the Ocean, and an ekranoplan aircraft carrier will do.
        in addition to delivering a nuclear power plant on it, unlike a bomber, there are no special problems, primarily for safety.
        all this for the country of Pindos (which aircraft carriers can be) is very good. laughing
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 6 May 2014 16: 54
        +2
        abc-alex:
        Why not less than 7 km? What a million? There will be a couple of hundred kilometers. Why can't a plane get anywhere? Figs him cruising supersonic? What is it that makes airplanes more expensive to design than ekranoplanes? Noses are hung with motors, rockets and bombs cannot be simply dropped. It’s not clear how to turn. Why is the height of ekranoplanes not available for airplanes? Yes, probably just because aviators have common sense in their heads. Why are these radars useless for such monsters with huge keels? And there, on the tail, another part of the motors is fixed, sometimes turboprops! And radars are useless ??? The plane can not take 24 tons? What are the other tasks for Tu? Write complete garbage. Think for yourself a little.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 6 May 2014 17: 08
          0
          complexity increases
          somehow it turns
          such a low altitude is unavailable to the aircraft because after a long flight a large aircraft wing will collapse due to shaking, and the crew’s brains will be wrapped up in a maximum of only ten minutes.
          these turboprops are marching ones, and the nasal ones are launch ones, for extra traction and blowing under the wing to separate them from the water.
          no matter what tasks Tu has, he will have a smaller radius (but speed is higher), and he will not deliver tactical aviation and landing troops on his back and in the hull ... since ekranoplanes are a threat to American aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers as well as UDCs can be owned only by the USA, in the USSR perestroika just covered this topic, just as before 100 ordinary aircraft carrier ships covered it,
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 7 May 2014 01: 09
            0
            "minus shots" and pulled up here ...
            Well, it shouldn’t, well, it shouldn’t be for Russia and the Russians to have aircraft carriers, ekranoplanes and SUVVP. Americans and almost everyone else can.
  • i80186
    i80186 2 May 2014 17: 36
    +1
    I think we still need such a thing. smile
    Well, he didn’t take off, apparently there were objective reasons, he was cheaper than the TU-160.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 May 2014 20: 00
      +1
      Quote: i80186
      I think we still need such a thing.

      This thing is the plane of the designer K.A. Kalinin - K7. 1933 year. I don’t even know why we need such a thing. What is cheaper than the Tu-160, that's for sure.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 May 2014 20: 03
      0
      K-7 plane
  • 9lvariag
    9lvariag 2 May 2014 21: 58
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    If there are airplanes, then why are ekranoplanes needed?
    What rocket can not be released from an airplane?
    Flies wherever he wants, at any height. And the rocket too.
    And what about "Aegis" and other things. After all, not every rocket is designed to be dropped from a catapult. Moreover, not everyone follows the surface. Although you can starve to death, you can start up the X-35 / X-45 and watch how they will be repulsed.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 3 May 2014 17: 34
    -2
    It is difficult even to imagine if such a "bird" would fly over an American destroyer in the Black Sea. laughing After this, their admiral would quit on his own. laughing
  • Shustov
    Shustov 4 May 2014 10: 45
    0
    I saw Lun live. Impressive even on conservation.
  • nikcris
    nikcris 5 May 2014 13: 56
    -2
    In the Caspian, these pieces made sense while Iran was an enemy. Today, this meaning is almost lost. To have in order to have? What for?
    In any other basin (sea-ocean) it is not useful. They will tell me about the Black Sea Fleet, but I will say that it is not necessary to fly at a speed of 400 km / h for the subsequent launch of the rocket. From the coast it will fly faster and cheaper.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 5 May 2014 15: 03
      -1
      Lun as is - the brainchild of 60-70 years. Of course, it is out of date. But his concept is still relevant. It is a heavy high-speed RCC carrier. The speed of the aircraft, the striking power of the destroyer.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 5 May 2014 21: 15
        0
        B-52 is still ancient ..
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 May 2014 21: 14
      -1
      it will come in handy everywhere. even in the ice of the center of Antarctica yes
      from the shore the rocket will fly away not far
  • marder4
    marder4 5 May 2014 15: 36
    +1
    it is unfortunate that the ekranoplans are not included in the weapons program ...
  • Tishka
    Tishka 5 October 2014 00: 29
    0
    I'll add a spoonful of honey to the tar barrel, duma. in November 2014, promised to return to discussing the idea of ​​resuming the development of ekranoplanes! Of course, they have their pluses and minuses, the minus is that, like vertical take-off planes, there is a large fuel consumption for separation from the water surface, therefore, a large number of engines were needed, which ate half of the fuel reserves, the second problem is controllability at low altitudes, especially in stormy weather. So, they also have disadvantages, but there are also advantages that you have successfully listed, so it's easy to try to restore old developments with new thinking and new materials, and if you increase the flight range, then nothing complicated will be translated these monsters, on the vastness of the oceans, as combat units, instead of the notorious "Mistrals", for which the landing is possible only on 27 percent of the land. There are pluses here, flew up, sat down on the nearest water surface behind enemy lines, and landed troops! Yes, and support for submarines can also be carried out from such devices, with a sufficient range. As a use as an Aircraft Carrier, unfortunately I haven't read anything, but the topic is quite interesting, but much larger sizes are needed, because of one fighter, such a garden is not worth fussing! So, let's wait for what our Duma decides about this invention!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 5 October 2014 03: 31
      0
      Where does such information come from on account of half of the fuel reserves? 5-10% to be spent depending on the car. No need to splurge - the plane fires with rocket boosters.

      even if it was your opinion, then what for the goat vertically flying helicopters and hovercraft?

      I even used TB-3 as an aircraft carrier, and quite successfully
      there was an ekranoplan that carried three aircraft instead of six granites; there was a project for 6 aircraft.
      outline designs were on a larger number.
      1. Tishka
        Tishka 25 February 2015 01: 53
        0
        Let's not rake in one pile, hovercraft and ekranoplanes! Landing and landing, this is a minimum of 2 landings, therefore from your arguments, 20 percent of the fuel is spent, this is at least! Lifting on a pillow, with maximum load, is also an extra fuel consumption. Yes, and it is doubtful that 8 engines afterburner, when entering the mode, with the given contours of the hull, give only 5 percent fuel consumption, not counting the marching operation. You saw how the plane starts, with jet boosters, at such a start, the skin should be at least armored, when starting from the guides, along the accelerators, on the ground, a strip is burned, and this, provided that the entire structure is raised above the ground. Yes, TB 3, was used as a uterus, for fighters, only there was a problem there. he delivered them, returned on their own, or there was an attempt to attach a swing to pick up donkeys back. Not for nothing, on all aircraft carriers. a network of pipelines was laid under the deck to cool the take-off deck so that it would not melt, which is also quite a lot of weight, and water is also used. Helicopters and vertical take-off planes are designed to not be tied to a network of airfields, unfortunately, ordinary planes, without a good take-off strip, are not always able to take off, if I remember correctly, during the war years, in the spring thaw, , for take-off and landing. Attempts to take off planes from an ekranoplane were not made, everything remained on paper. Therefore, we need a study of this issue, preferably with calculations, and a miscalculation of materials. I have nothing against ekranoplanes, especially since I read that as a lifeguard. he is very good, behind him, there is practically no excitement, which is very bad for saving the crew from submarines. but you must admit that 6 granites, or basalts, are not enough to destroy the AUG; here, at a minimum, you need a link with fighter support. And ideally, a hypersonic bomber that distracts the enemy on itself, and behind it, an attack of the ekranoplanes link, this will ensure the reliable destruction of the AUG. So, everything requires reflection, and the development of new tactical solutions. It is advisable that several KB submit works on this topic in order to choose the best!