Military Review

Uselessness of WIG

378
Uselessness of WIG

Safest flight


“They found only one leg in the water, with a boot in camouflage. So they buried it, ”eyewitnesses recall of the crash of the Orlyonok ekranoplan in the Caspian Sea in 1992. During the 2 turn, when driving on the “screen” at the height of the 4 meter and the speed of 370 km / h, “pecks” occurred, longitudinal oscillations began with changes in height. In the process of hitting the water, the wig crashed. The surviving crew members evacuated civilian cargo ship.

Similarly, the Caspian Monster ended his career, smashing to pieces in 1980 year.

The Caspian Monster repeated the fate of its predecessor, the SM-5 WIG (a copy of the 100-meter CM at the scale of 1: 4), who died in the 1964 year. “He swung sharply and lifted. The pilots turned on the afterburner to climb, the device broke away from the screen and lost stability, the crew died. ”

Another “Eaglet” was lost in 1972. The whole feed with the keel, horizontal tail and cruise engine NK-12MK fell off from a blow to the water. However, the pilots were not taken aback, and, increasing the speed of the nasal take-off and landing engines, they did not let the ecologo fly into the water and brought the car to the shore.

The described case is issued as a sample of high survivability and safety of WIG. But the question can be formulated differently: show the ship or aircraft, which is able to tear off the stern with one awkward movement of the steering wheel.


The next wreck of a wig in August 2015


Deadly danger inherent in the very idea of ​​flight on the screen. The basic principle of the aircraft is violated: the farther from the surface, the safer. As a result, pilots do not have enough time to level the car and take any measures in case of a contingency.

In the episode with the foot in the boot, the crew of the “Eaglet” was still “fortanulo”: their speed did not exceed 370 km / h. If this happened at the speed of 500-600 km / h (these are the figures indicated in the ground-breaking devices), no one would have survived.

RPC becomes completely out of control at high speeds. He has no contact with water, and he cannot, like an airplane, tilt a wing: there is water a few meters below. Usually soft and supple, at a speed of 500-600 km / h, it becomes like a stone. Media density varies 800 times. What should be the strength of the construction of an airplane (and its weight!) In order to withstand such a “touch”? And what to do if a ship or another obstacle suddenly appeared on the course?

I'm not talking about flights over ice or tundra. Try to “hook” the ground at a speed of 370 km / h.

Most economical

The ekranoplan “Eaglet” had three times more fuel consumption than the An-12, similar in load, created a quarter of a century before the “Alekseev miracle”.

The Eaglet design was heavier on 85 tons (dry weight of 120 versus 35 tons on transport aircraft). Three times overruns. This difference (85 t) is too big to blame on the imperfection of materials and technologies. The brainchild of Rostislav Alekseev broke the laws of nature. The aircraft must be as light as possible. The ship must be strong (and therefore heavy) for safe walking on the waves. It was impossible to combine these two requirements in one car.

Airplanes are rapidly flying through the rarefied layers of the atmosphere. EKP drags near the water, where the atmospheric density reaches maximum values. The monstrous appearance of the ECP, hung with engine garlands, also does not contribute to the reduction of oncoming air resistance. Part of the engine is turned off in flight and serves as a useless ballast.



Hence the results. In terms of flight range, WIG is three or more times inferior to aircraft with the same payload. Given that the aircraft can fly anywhere in the world, regardless of the underlying terrain.

RPC does not need an airfield, but everyone needs an 100-meter dry dock for parking, inspection and repair. As well as maintenance of a garland of several jet engines suffering from constant water spray and inevitable deposits of sea salt on the compressor.

Ekranolet

Yes, hell with two! The Eaglet did not even have a barometric altimeter. The whole complex of its navigation flight instruments was designed to fly a few meters from the surface.

No altitude testing has ever been carried out. There were no willing suicides to get behind the wheel - the wing area for such a heavy machine is too small. Breaking away from the screen meant losing control of the car, which was “successfully” demonstrated during the crashes of both Eaglets.

Load

The carrying capacity of the heaviest ekranoplanes of Alekseev Design Bureau was 0,1% of the deadweight of the ocean linear container ship. And in its value is inferior even to transport aircraft aviation.

The transport capacity of the Eaglet Orlenok transport unit was three times less than that of the An-22 Antey military transport aircraft, which made its first flight in the 1966 year.

Do not be confused by the record of the “Caspian Monster”: 544 tons - this is its take-off weight, of which only about one hundred tons accounted for the payload. The rest is the weight of the fuselage and the “garland” of ten jet engines taken from the Tu-22 bomber squadron.

“Lun” dragged a good ballast of eight engines from the airbus Il-86.

“Eaglet” was also not easy. Its tail NK-12 had comparable power with four engines of the An-12 aircraft. But that is not all. In addition to the NK-12 from the Tu-95 strategic bomber, two engines were hidden from the jet Tu-154 in the nose of the car.



Needless to say, that according to the "payload" indicator the ekranoplan corresponded to the ancient An-12? Those who created such an apparatus triumphed over technology over common sense.

The question is - for what?

ECP was still twice as slow as conventional transport aircraft. Not to mention the supersonic bomber-rocket carriers.

nearly invisible

If radars distinguish mines, buoys, periscopes, and submarine retractable devices, how should the Xlum-ton “Lun” become invisible, with a wingspan of 380 and the height of the keel from the five-story house ?!

The same applies to the thermal and hydroacoustic background of this monster.

When detected from space, the main unmasking factor is not the sea object itself, but its wake. What is the wreck of the “Lun” ekranoplan, if the span of its wing exceeds the flight deck of the Mistral helicopter carrier?



And the power of impact of jet streams on the surface of the water and the disturbances caused by them are clearly visible in the following video:



missile carrier

The starting engine PKR “Mosquito” burns a ton of gunpowder in 3 seconds. From this, the carrier may have problems.

The destroyer is too big to pay attention to such trifles. When returning to the base, the salaga remove a layer of soot and paint the boards with fresh paint. But what will happen with flying ekranoplan? The ingress of powder gases to the motor “garland” leads to obvious consequences:

A) The risk of a surge and subsequent aircraft crash.

B) Damage to engines.

Plus the necessary damage to the fuselage structure by the fiery torch of the launch accelerator.

Combat aviation does not have this problem. Guided missiles are first separated from the nodes of the suspension. Their engines start in a second of free fall, at a distance of a couple of tens of meters from the carrier.

The heaviest ammunition launched directly from the suspension was a domestic unguided rocket C-24 with a mass of 235 kg (the so-called “pencil”). Pilots who flew in Afghanistan recalled that it was easy to get a surge and stop engines after starting the C-24. Apart from the obvious difficulties with balancing and stabilizing the flight of the aircraft after the separation of a powerful heavy rocket. Therefore, only the most experienced crews were allowed to use “pencils”.

A mock up of the Lun project was installed at the Sandy Balka training ground in the village of Chernomorsk. October 5 and December 21 1984 was held two start-up models of "Mosquito", equipped only with starting engines. The first launch was made from the right container of the nasal pair of launchers, and the second launch - from the left container of the tail pair of launchers.

After the first launch, the 9 tiles were damaged, after the second - 2. Two launches of ZM-80 missiles were conducted on the Caspian. The target was the BKSch project 436 bis. The first launch was unsuccessful due to crew errors. During the second launch, a two-launch volley was fired (with an interval of 5 seconds). Start was counted as successful.


Epilogue

On the basis of a set of indicators LOAD x SPEED x COST OF DELIVERY x SAFETY x HIDDEN the WV have no advantages over existing vehicles. On the contrary, they lose absolutely in all respects ordinary aircraft. Surpassing ships in speed, WIGs are inferior to them in 1000 times about loading capacity and at least 10-15 times in cruising range. In view of this, they are unable even partially to undertake the tasks of maritime transport. The combat radius of the “Moon” is not enough even for operations in the Black Sea, not to mention the pursuit of aircraft carriers in the Atlantic.

The use of ECP is unpromising even when solving a narrow circle of problems traditionally mentioned by fans of this type of equipment. If you seriously wanted to create a means to provide emergency assistance to the crews of ships in distress, the choice fell on vertically taking off amphibious aircraft (such as the Soviet project of the BBA-14 anti-submarine aircraft). Twice as fast, twice as fast reaction time as an WIG. At the same time, due to the vertical take-off and landing, such an amphibian could be used in the open ocean, with waves of 4-5 points. Here you have all the “Savior”.

As practice has shown, even such a tool was considered redundant. In reality, it is easier to send ships passing near the ship to the crash site and to reconnoiter the square with the help of coast guard airplanes and helicopters. Despite the relatively low speed (~ 200 km / h), helicopters can carefully examine the surface from a height, having detected and removed people from the drifting life raft.

Those who advocate the construction of these cattle houses, simply try to ignore the real facts about the operation of WIG. After comparing the parameters of “Luney” and “Orlyat” with conventional aircraft, there is no doubt about the uselessness of this type of technology. Repeated lag in all flight performance, efficiency and payload, exacerbated by the complexity of operation and the lack of any need for 500-ton machines flying over the water with the help of “garlands” of ten aircraft engines.
Author:
378 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Good cat
    Good cat 17 February 2016 06: 46
    36
    He began to read with interest, sort of like his own position with a person, trying to justify, and then looking, and the author Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad.
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 17 February 2016 08: 43
      35
      Yes, there were problems with airplanes at the dawn of aviation, with helicopters, with missiles, but everything was somehow solved, because they worked on problems, but low-flying ones just closed, and they don’t solve problems.
      The problem is one with Kaptsov; he judges too much about what he does not understand.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 03
        16
        If the calculations show that crap comes out, then it would be strange to continue to "solve" something.
        1. hhhhhhh
          hhhhhhh 17 February 2016 09: 29
          16
          Leonardo drew a helicopter, decided that he didn’t build nonsense.))))
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 17 February 2016 10: 49
            48
            Maybe Oleg just don’t like them, because not equipped with 100 mm armor and 16 inch guns? repeat
            1. 0255
              0255 17 February 2016 10: 57
              18
              Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Maybe Oleg will simply not like them, because not equipped with 100 mm armor and 16 inch guns? repeat

              Oleg Kaptsov used to scold F-35, now he praises. They wrote that Oleg Kaptsov once loved aircraft carriers, now he scolds. Previously claimed that the F-15 shot down in Lebanon and Yugoslavia, now it claims the opposite. So let's see what he says about ekranoplans later.
              1. Vita vko
                Vita vko 17 February 2016 12: 27
                +5
                The opponents of the development of aviation at the beginning of the 20th century argued in about the same way as the author of the article. It turns out that not all "dinosaurs" are extinct. It is scary to imagine how much damage such "dinosaurs" do to the development of modern technologies.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 17 February 2016 21: 46
                  +2
                  About the same as the author of the article argued opponents of the development of aviation in the early 20th century. It turns out that not all "dinosaurs" died out. It is scary to imagine how much damage such "dinosaurs" do to the development of modern technologies.


                  To put it mildly, not true. not to say directly - a lie.
                  Aviation at the beginning of the 20th century, with much smaller comparative investments, very quickly showed a huge practical result. 10 years - from the first flight to the PMV aircraft.

                  And here is the result? How old is this dead cow trying to milk? how much money is invested in this nonsense?

                  All right, Koptsov wrote: this cow was dead at the moment of birth.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 17 February 2016 21: 52
                    +9
                    Quote: AK64
                    How old is this dead cow trying to milk? how much money is invested in this nonsense?

                    And how many years has it been invested in F-35, Sivulf, Zimvolt, SDI and how much money is invested there?
                    You didn’t even bother to think for a second that even in civilian life, ekranoplanes can be undeniably useful and effective. A military application, taking into account new achievements, technologies and an arsenal, compared to the times when the same KM was created, you can confidently say. But everything new requires investments and technical base and scientific will.
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 17 February 2016 21: 58
                      -5
                      And how many years has it been invested in F-35, Sivulf, Zimvolt, SDI and how much money is invested there?

                      Do not lie!
                      No need to lie!
                      It was compared with aviation at the beginning of the 20th century - and continue to argue with this thesis.
                      And do not download like lice from thesis to thesis.

                      And when he managed to remember everything that he could remember (including the Egyptian pyramids) in one pile - this is an indicator of intelligence, and that's all.
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 17 February 2016 22: 03
                        +4
                        Quote: AK64
                        It was compared with aviation at the beginning of the 20th century - and continue to argue with this thesis.
                        And do not download like lice from thesis to thesis.

                        Yes, dear, it’s like you worm in a pan dodge and try to show the level of your intelligence in its absence.
                        It all starts with something, and as a rule, here you are smart people gorlopanat at every corner that this is all nonsense. The first is always expensive and problematic. But if this is not developed, it will remain expensive and problematic.
                      2. Grandfather Wood grouse
                        Grandfather Wood grouse 19 October 2018 19: 19
                        0
                        Common phenomenon: 1) this cannot be
                        2) yes all this nonsense
                        3) there is something in it
                        4) well, everyone knows that
                2. Riv
                  Riv 18 February 2016 17: 16
                  0
                  So, my friend! In order for the cow to give more milk, it must be milked more often. That's milked. And the fact that she is also dead at the same time - so the hay will gobble up less.
                  So it goes...
            2. Name classified
              Name classified 17 February 2016 13: 59
              +9
              Then - i.e. when the ekranoplan is equipped with armor - Oleg will become a loyal supporter of this idea - not only is the ARMOR, but also the ekranoplan is invulnerable to torpedoes!
            3. Malkor
              Malkor 20 February 2016 18: 50
              +2
              He also remarked: Kaptsov, as a political pro ... often changes his mind about the same thing.
        2. AK64
          AK64 17 February 2016 21: 41
          -3
          what Leonardo painted is precisely nonsense.

          But unlike Leonardo’s project, millions and millions of these papelos left with advice. Well, what is the result? And there is no result
      2. g1v2
        g1v2 17 February 2016 22: 26
        +9
        Well, let's not forget that the design created 45 years ago may well show characteristics completely different now. Then there were no such automation systems, the ability to calculate and accurately simulate the systems and physics of the apparatus using modern computers and so on. What was then doubtful now can be simple. The only question is - what about the fig? That is, why - is there a need for it? Is there a demand for such cars in mo and in civilian life? And finally, will all this pay off or is it entertainment at the state expense. If mo has a need for such devices, then for God's sake. If not, then the game is not worth the candle. Personally, I don’t see any particular advantages and need for ekranoplans, but maybe I’m just not looking there? Xs. request
    2. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 17 February 2016 09: 44
      +7
      The problem is one with Kaptsov; he judges too much about what he does not understand.
      As M. Zhvanetsky said:
      In our time, when harmful insects are destroyed by sterilizing males, we must raise the level of spore to an abstract height. Let's talk about the fall and rise of Hollywood without seeing a single movie. Let's face philosophers without reading their works. Let's argue about the taste of oysters and coconuts with those who ate them, to hoarseness, before a fight, perceiving the taste of food by ear, color to a tooth, stench in the eye, imagining a movie by name, painting by last name, country by "Film Travel Club ", the acuteness of opinions on the reader.
      laughing
      1. sso-xnumx
        sso-xnumx 17 February 2016 13: 25
        29
        Quote: Gomunkul
        perceiving the taste of food by ear, color by tooth, stink by eye,

        "Yesterday, again on behalf of the people,
        Comrade Pasternak was convicted.
        We didn’t read his poems,
        But without that it is clear to us that he is the enemy! "
        Not knowing some facts about the birth of ekranoplanes at the Alekseev Design Bureau, the author tries to quote A.A. Mironov: "Chief! Everything is lost!" As far as I know, the Ministers of Shipbuilding and Aviation Industry of the USSR pushed themselves away from this machine for a long time. One said that it was not an aircraft, the other said that it was not a sea or river vessel. Then the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPPS by its resolution approved the production for the Ministry of Justice. As a result, financing on a leftover basis, the Minister of the Aviation Industry Dementyev constantly refused to allocate the required metal rolling. They had to build what is called from the third grade. But! To build a flying and amphibious vehicle using aircraft technologies with the necessary margin of safety precisely because of the lack of the necessary titanium alloys, without having experience in testing such equipment with test pilots exactly the opposite) destroyed all the devices. The one who does nothing is not mistaken! Rostislav Evgenievich Alekseev, his blessed memory, tried and while he could supervise the work on his brainchild everything was more or less normal. After his removal from the finalization of the apparatus, everything collapsed. And now someone is trying to kill this topic again. I wonder if this someone was sent to us, or from us ???
        1. Gomunkul
          Gomunkul 17 February 2016 16: 52
          -2
          Not knowing some facts about the birth of ekranoplanes at the Alekseev Design Bureau, the author tries to quote A.A. Mironov: "Chief! Everything is lost!"
          That is exactly what I wanted to say by quoting M. Zhvanetsky.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 2329 Carpenter
          2329 Carpenter 9 September 2018 03: 43
          +1
          I've been thinking, ever since I learned about military ekranoplanes: ekranoplan versus an airplane, and ekranoplan versus anti-ship missiles ... What's the point? Where, on which TVD is the range of application of ekranoplan? Wouldn't it be expensive for a kamikaze mission?
    3. Kadavercianin
      Kadavercianin 17 February 2016 13: 39
      25
      AAAA, damn how many articles do not come across, almost the same everywhere: "An ekranoplan is not an airplane or a ship", - and then either: "it has a bunch of advantages over both", - or: "it has a bunch of disadvantages over both" and only in Special literature on ekranoplanes in black and white in the description and on the graphs indicate that they should not be compared with airplanes and in no case with ships, but you know with what:

      With hovercraft.

      Tadam !!! In comparison with these vehicles, ekranoplanes have really serious advantages. Mainly due to the fact that they do not have a rubber cushion that needs to be inflated all the time, which limits the possibilities for developing speed and maneuvering, etc., the ekranoplan has a screen instead. And yes the circuit is not perfect. But why, in most articles, ekranoplanes compare either with ships or planes, and not with a much closer class of vehicles?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2016 17: 02
        +4
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        you need to compare them not with airplanes and in no case with ships, but you know with what: With hovercraft.

        The ekranoplanes do NOT need to be compared with hovercraft.
        There are tasks - launching missile attacks on enemy naval groups, combating submarines, landing, rescue operations, etc. They are carried out by ships and aircraft, but not by hovercraft, because hovercraft are pure and exotic for all of these tasks.
        Therefore, the question is: who better copes with these tasks - ships / aircraft or ekranoplan? And is it worth replacing ships or planes that perform these tasks at present by ekranoplanes?
        But to argue that it is better as an attack ship - an air-cushion ship or an ekranoplan is akin to a dispute about whether it is better to hammer nails - with a music book or pork jelly?
        1. Kadavercianin
          Kadavercianin 17 February 2016 18: 41
          +3
          Sorry, I didn’t understand a bit. We are comparing ekranoplans, as a certain type of vehicle or tactics of using such a machine in modern military doctrine. This is a slightly more than different approach to comparing warm and soft.
          I described the ekranoplane from the point of view of the vehicle, what it is and what it is closest to.
          From a military point of view, I agree that talking about replacing ships with airplanes or vice versa, like replacing anyone with an ekranoplane, is actually stupid, each of these means performs its task.
          At the expense of ekranoplanes, they, in essence, like a vehicle / platform, are closest to hovercraft, and there are no such type of shock devices, there are true small Project 1239 Sivuch missile ships, but this is still that hybrid, so the tactics and application of ekranoplans will have to be practically invented from scratch, and at the same time proceed first of all from the real need and capabilities of the platform.
          Yes, and we must not forget that different types of ekranoplanes are there, capable of taking off higher or incapable (they, by the way, can differ quite a lot from each other), and if you create an anti-ship ekranoplan, the work will most likely be carried out practically from zero and a lot will depend on how you use it at all.
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 17 February 2016 20: 22
            +1
            SVP has a very significant advantage over the ekranoplan, namely they are much more economical.
            For an example I will specially take SVP Sormovich of development of Alekseev.
            We have a length of 29,2 m, a width of 11,33 m and a height of 7,8 m
            AI-20K aviation gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1690 kW (2000 electric power)
            the displacement of the vessel amounted to: full 37 t, empty 25,4 t
            crew of 3 people and could take on board up to 50 passengers.
            At a speed of 120 km / h.
            1. Kadavercianin
              Kadavercianin 18 February 2016 00: 50
              +1
              In fact, if you are interested, you can search, calculations, if I remember where I saw, I’ll throw off a link (book by the way of the 60s), where the ekranoplanes, just by calculations and experimental data come out much more economically than SVP, especially taking into account the payload, cruising speed and range move, and noticeably.
          2. AK64
            AK64 17 February 2016 21: 54
            -4
            I described the ekranoplane from the point of view of the vehicle, what it is and what it is closest to.
            At the expense of ekranoplanes, they, in essence, like a vehicle / platform, are closest to hovercraft,


            It does not "stand" in any way simply because hovercraft have only one purpose (apart from entertainment, of course): amphibians. That is, the ability to naturally climb out of the water onto the shore, and vice versa.
            SVP has no other appointments.
            This is their only advantage and it justifies their existence.

            So do something similar on the ekranolyte.
            We'll see how it goes?
            That's it.
            1. Kadavercianin
              Kadavercianin 18 February 2016 01: 03
              +2
              Take an interest in the SVP device, the boat itself essentially stands on the "screen", the engines pump air under the ship's hull, which is held and held by a rubber skirt, in fact there is a small gap with air between the hull and the surface, which significantly reduces friction, and also allows you to move on any relatively flat surface, without air injection, the amphibians will not come out of it.
              And now, in essence, the SPV screen is created by injecting air under pressure under the hull and partially held by a rubber skirt, the winged air is driven under the wings / hull but is retained due to the free flow during movement, both devices essentially use a similar scheme: not low planning on the screen without which they are not really able to move, the only difference is in the way it is supported.
      2. Archon
        Archon 17 February 2016 18: 53
        +6
        A hovercraft may hover even in place to land an airborne landing.
        And the ekranoplan is too fast for this. They still have different tasks and they need to be compared according to the tasks and the effectiveness of their implementation.
    4. VIT101
      VIT101 17 February 2016 15: 24
      15
      Quote: Sveles

      The problem is one with Kaptsov; he judges too much about what he does not understand.


      If you understand this issue more than Kaptsov, give the counterarguments of his position, prove that he is wrong, although he is 100% right! And with carrying capacity, and speed, and safety of operation and economy, ekranoplanes-monsters of military purpose are inferior to military aircraft. About the consumption of aircraft engines (6-10 pieces), there are no words at all. You can build several Tu-160. And the gauges in the Caspian Sea perfectly let surface ships.
    5. Full name
      Full name 17 February 2016 18: 42
      +5
      Yes, the author with enviable persistence produces articles on the same topic. This raises suspicions of his involvement. It's some kind of anti-lobby or klaka - I don't even know what to call it. How can one reason on the examples of clearly crude models about the fundamental futility of ekranoplanes in general as a class of aircraft? It is clear that ekranoplans, like other "hybrids", for example, seaplanes or convertiplanes, have a rather limited area of ​​application and disadvantages in comparison with "normal" aircraft. But this does not mean at all that it is necessary to put an end to this direction.
  2. Wheel
    Wheel 17 February 2016 09: 08
    13
    Quote: Good cat
    and then look, and the author Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad.

    Well, to understand that this is the work of Oleg Kaptsov, just read the title of the article. laughing
    1. dauria
      dauria 17 February 2016 10: 19
      19
      what is the writings of Oleg Kaptsov


      Are you ashamed of the "scribbling"? According to the article, what exactly is wrong? At least one task for an ekranoplan (civil or military) that cannot be solved by other means? In any takeoff weight range - from a ton to 700 tons? Any seaplane (or transport) with a normal full-fledged wing, how does an ekranoplane lose? Yes ничем . For half a century, has at least one country gone beyond assessment trials? No, nobody bought it. Alekseev lived and worked in my city, as a talented designer, respect for him. To try it was necessaryStupid not to try.
      But stubbornly not seeing a dead end is even dumber.
      1. n.kolesnichenko
        n.kolesnichenko 17 February 2016 12: 06
        10
        Have you seen the ekranoplan PERSONALLY? No? - then you shouldn't write about its "inferiority" !!! Do you at least try to understand in what conditions Alekseev had to solve the problems of creating an ekranoplan! Based on your logic, airplanes are a dead-end way - airships are more economical !! !
      2. lis-ik
        lis-ik 17 February 2016 13: 24
        +3
        In my opinion, the main dead end of this direction is a small radius of action, it is not suitable for the far sea zone, and inland seas and lakes are shot through through coastal complexes, this project was meaningless at the creation stage.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. dokusib
        dokusib 17 February 2016 15: 30
        +3
        DARPA is developing a project of a super-heavy ekranoplan for transoceanic transportation. In the photo of the layout is also a battery of eight engines. In the description, it was stated that a similar model losing slightly in speed c5 Galaxy will give a significantly higher carrying capacity comparable to the carrying capacity of transport and landing ships.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 17 February 2016 20: 02
          0
          Quote: dokusib
          DARPA is developing a project of super-heavy ekranoplan for transoceanic transportation

          This project has long been closed! smile hi
      5. esaull
        esaull 17 February 2016 18: 35
        +4
        You are talking nonsense with the author, the full take-off weight of the lun is 380 tons, the empty weight is 243 tons, the total lifting capacity is 137 tons, the KM take-off weight is 544 tons 240 tons the empty weight is 304 tons
        1. AK64
          AK64 17 February 2016 22: 07
          0
          You are talking nonsense with the author, the full take-off weight of the lun is 380 tons, the empty weight is 243 tons, the total lifting capacity is 137 tons, the KM take-off weight is 544 tons 240 tons the empty weight is 304 tons


          First, not "full" but "maximum". (is the difference, not the Kli?)
          And secondly, you, Sir, have forgotten the fuel for EIGHT Moon engines or TEN KM engines.

          Add fuel, and you will have a "payload"
    2. tomket
      tomket 17 February 2016 10: 40
      20
      Quote: Wheel
      Well, to understand that this is the work of Oleg Kaptsov, just read the title of the article.

      Oleg, again deuce! Amused about basic violations of the principles of aviation, and about colorful descriptions of accidents. In general, these accidents were disassembled and the point was not in the basic principles, but in the fact that the pilots had stable aircraft control skills, not SCREEN, because they were pulled up until they were torn off the screen, and what does the congenital ekranoplan flaws ask?
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 February 2016 20: 00
      +1
      Quote: Wheel
      Well, to understand that this is the work of Oleg Kaptsov, just read the title of the article

      And what is the conversation about, ekranoplanes or Kaptsov? He wrote everything correctly, even chewed for military ekranoplanes doubting the hopelessness! request
  3. Edvagan
    Edvagan 17 February 2016 09: 16
    +4
    in fact, I read a lot of articles about ekranoplanes, and I realized to myself that ekranoplanes combine both the advantages of water and air transport and disadvantages. here it is important to decide what more.
    By the way, about poor controllability and energy inefficiency of ekranoplanes had to read before. I think that specialists should express their opinions here, and, alas, I am not a specialist.
    1. avt
      avt 17 February 2016 10: 06
      12
      Quote: Edvagan
      in fact, I read a lot of articles about ekranoplanes, and I realized to myself that ekranoplanes combine both the advantages of water and air transport and disadvantages. here it is important to decide what more.

      Of course, there are NO flaws and the most important thing is NO ARMOR! I didn’t understand why Oleg got confused by such a long text comparing an ekranoplane with an airplane - it flies badly, then with an ocean liner - it takes a little load. I would simply write -Screens are useless because they are not armored.
      Quote: inkass_98
      ... At the same time, he never ceases to admire the obviously raw and uselessly versatile F-35 and the still "dark horse" Zamvolt.

      what Right! There is another significant drawback - ekranoplans do not take off vertically!
  4. smershxnumx
    smershxnumx 17 February 2016 09: 30
    +4
    And not a word about booking .... laughing
  5. Rus2012
    Rus2012 17 February 2016 10: 35
    +2
    Quote: Good cat
    I started reading with interest

    After comparing the parameters of the “Luni” and “Orlyat” with conventional aircraft, there is no doubt about the futility of this type of equipment.


    ... soon the author will get to A-40 type seaplanes ... :)))
    Also, in comparison with "land" aircraft, they lose in some way.

    It is worth recalling the connection with this - the Wright plane was also just a laughing stock in comparison with everything then available
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 February 2016 12: 14
      +4
      Quote: Rus2012
      ... soon the author will get to A-40 type seaplanes ... :)))

      And they already got to bmpd - when uv. eagle-rost has posted information about the tender for the Zavoiko hydro aerodrome in Kamchatka.
      Suddenly, it turned out that for amphibians, you must simultaneously have a full runway with a hard surface, and a full hydroaerodrome. That is, to bear the double costs of basing for an aircraft performing exactly the same tasks as a normal coast patrol.
      And no one remembered that the amphibian is inferior in TTX to a similar conventional plane without the possibility of landing on water. smile
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 17 February 2016 12: 37
        +8
        Quote: Alexey RA
        you must simultaneously have a full runway with a hard surface, and a full hydroaerodrome.

        ... :)
        A-40 / A-42 and Be-200 in Gelendzhik have been based "from the water" without a dry runway for over a quarter of a century.
        Definitely, the Kamchadals have oval dreams about flying.

        Of course, having dry GDP at hand is a good thing, but not to the same extent!
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 17 February 2016 12: 55
          +4
          Quote: Rus2012
          A-40 / A-42 and Be-200 in Gelendzhik have been based "from the water" without a dry runway for over a quarter of a century.

          Well, not that completely "from the water", but they don't need an airfield - yes.
          But also in the fact that, having arrived by plane, immediately transfer to a seaplane, I also do not observe any crime.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 17 February 2016 13: 12
            +7
            Quote: GRAY
            Well, not that completely "from the water", but they don't need an airfield - yes.

            Fine. In this case, how to ensure take-off in case of unrest (the hydroaerodrome is located at the exit of Avacha Bay and looks directly at the open sea)? Or when the bay froze (SW.mina030 wrote that it still freezes smile )?

            Moreover, the Komflot doesn’t have problems with hydroaviators - it has the potential to detect an unidentified submarine in such a square, and an urgent patrol must be sent there before it leaves. And he sincerely cannot understand: why the old IL-38 can do this, but the newest A-40, based on water, cannot? And what the hell *** then he such a hydroaero wonder? smile

            So you have to build a traditional runway. Otherwise, amphibians will remain expensive toys.

            But here's an ambush - as soon as we built this runway, the question immediately arises: what the hell *** are amphibians then, if you can base a cheaper Il-38 or another patrol officer on the basis of a regular airplane on the same lane without the possibility of take-off water.
            1. GRAY
              GRAY 17 February 2016 13: 46
              +5
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In this case - how to ensure take-off in case of excitement

              As well as the IL-38 in case of destruction of the concrete coating of the runway. smile
              Then the A-40 will be able to take off, but the IL-38 will not.
              In terms of ice, of course it’s unpleasant (and what thickness does it freeze there?), But it’s still better to have at least some possibility than not to have any.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 17 February 2016 13: 54
                +1
                It’s very simple: completely clear 3,5 km of ice for take-off of the EP missile carrier (100-150 meters wide) Moor the dock with an ekranoplane and bring it into the sea in tow (do not forget to clear this area from the ice or wait for good weather in summer). Moor off, anchor, sink the dock, drag EP into the water, pull it away from the dock. And take off! Business then a penny!
                Just don’t say that you have the Oriole or Sterkh RCC dragged, and even in a storm or on ice
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 17 February 2016 14: 51
                  +5
                  Monsieur knows a lot about perversions. good
            2. kotvov
              kotvov 17 February 2016 14: 07
              +3
              cheap IL-38 or another patrol officer based on a regular plane without the possibility of take-off from the water. ,,
              and they will be able to participate in rescue operations, since AMPHIBIA?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 17 February 2016 14: 50
                +4
                Quote: kotvov
                and they will be able to participate in rescue operations, since AMPHIBIA?

                AN-12PS to help us. The Soviet-made machine still provides a landing for a rescue boat with a crew.

                It’s too early for anyone to moor the A40 to the same submarine: a couple of blows on the waves - and rescuers will have to be rescued. And this means that we will have to build a system with the transportation of those rescued from the ship to the seaplane by water "a teaspoon per hour".
                Isn’t it easier to drop a boat with a crew + a set of life rafts that it will collect and tow to a ship in distress?
                1. Aqela
                  Aqela 7 March 2016 11: 30
                  0
                  It seems that the excitement on the lifeboats does not work? And if there are wounded or overcooling, then they do not need fast delivery to the hospital?
                2. Dmitry Leontiev
                  Dmitry Leontiev 21 October 2018 11: 37
                  0
                  Is there such a resettable rescue boat? In my opinion, in terms of rescue at sea, this is the best idea: the quickest help; - the plane, after all, flies faster than the ekranoplan, and has a much greater tolerance in weather. Such a finished thing should definitely be! This is a very technological thing (it should be light enough, while accommodating a large number of people, contain a rescue team, a power plant, an engine, a walkie-talkie, everything you need to provide assistance, a supply of provisions to wait for a rescue ship) that could really save life, getting to the crash site by some kind of transporter. Probably, it should look like a roomy and hermetically sealed rigid cockpit with an additional inflatable part deploying in the air. In short, the talk is clearly not about some ordinary boat, which could be dropped from an airplane by parachute, but about a serious technological contraption, which must first be created.
            3. Aqela
              Aqela 7 March 2016 11: 27
              0
              I partially agree with you, but why do you forget that you need not only to be able to take off, but also to be able to land. But the opportunity to sit down and go into a drift to search for a submarine or to pick up victims from the water is completely absent not only in the Il-38, but also in the "advanced" Orion ...
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 February 2016 13: 04
          +3
          Quote: Rus2012
          A-40 / A-42 and Be-200 in Gelendzhik have been based "from the water" without a dry runway for over a quarter of a century.
          Definitely, the Kamchadals have oval dreams about flying.

          He-he-he ... so there should be naval vehicles in Kamchatka. And they must be capable of performing a combat mission in any conditions. There should be no situations "we cannot fly to patrol because of the impossibility of taking off from the water due to unrest"So you have to have a normal lane in addition to the hydro.

          Yes, by the way ... EMNIP, the bay of the hydroaerodrome in Kamchatka is freezing. laughing
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 17 February 2016 13: 18
            +5
            Quote: Alexey RA
            He-he-he ... so there should be naval vehicles in Kamchatka. And they must be capable of performing a combat mission in any conditions. There should be no situations "we cannot fly out on patrol due to the impossibility of taking off from the water due to excitement."

            ... "every bird has its own six", is not it?
            It is unreasonable to demand "land" performance characteristics from the amphibian. As well as from "land" aircraft landing on water, let's say next to an emergency vessel (like the nuclear submarine "Komsomolets").

            By your logic - inna PGRK "Topol" and BZHRK, - since they cannot provide an instant start at the level of OS "miners". Moreover, if the adversary does not build them ...
            But, PGRK and BZHRK have their own advantages and advantages. Amphibians and ekranoplanes also have their own "+" where necessary.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 February 2016 13: 25
              +1
              Quote: Rus2012
              It is unreasonable to demand "land" performance characteristics from the amphibian. As well as from "land" aircraft landing on water, let's say next to an emergency vessel (like the nuclear submarine "Komsomolets").

              So why do we need this patrol amphibian? If all its tasks are performed by already existing cheaper machines that do not require double basing?
              Why do we need to land in the presence of the An-12PS, which regularly landed a boat with a crew?
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 17 February 2016 13: 47
                +4
                Quote: Alexey RA
                An-12PS, who regularly landed a boat with a crew?

                "... and where ... that boat and where ... that landing?" (c) Zhvanetsky
                In the meantime, the people of the crew of the submarine died from being in zero water and were unable to swim to the scattered rafts dropped from aircraft!
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 17 February 2016 14: 56
                  +2
                  Quote: Rus2012
                  In the meantime, the people of the crew of the submarine died from being in zero water and were unable to swim to the scattered rafts dropped from aircraft!

                  But for the collection of these rafts and their towing to the side of the submarine, a boat from the An-12PS set would be just right.
                  But alas ... it is difficult to expect positive results from a system that has not been used.
                  A year before the death of the submarine, a complex team consisting of representatives of industry and the Ministry of Defense, as a result of field supervision, examined the technical condition of the An-12PS systems in the Northern Fleet and identified a number of defects that the Ministry of Industry and Minaviaprom should eliminate by complaint. Despite the identified defects, there were no prohibitions on the use of the An-12PS complex. Moreover, the defects set forth in the act of architectural supervision did not prevent in March 1988 the successful conduct of two training landing of serial boats with crews of the Northern and Pacific fleets from An-12PS aircraft.

                  It is puzzling that the complex, based 500 km from the scene of the accident in the Norwegian Sea, was not put into operation and was not sent for rescue operations, although weather conditions in the area of ​​the accident made it possible.

                  At the bewildering request of the designer, the Navy Aviation Commander in early May 1989 informed the Ministry of Industry and Industry that the An-12PS complex was withdrawn from the duty forces of the fleet aviation. And this is instead of filing reclamation acts and informing the industry about the need for repair work within a year from the moment of the author’s inspection of the operating parts!
  6. PPD
    PPD 17 February 2016 11: 06
    +1
    Likely business speaks! WIGs have no armor! laughing
  7. Miklp
    Miklp 17 February 2016 11: 30
    +1
    Oleg Kaptsov, by definition, cannot have his position? This is inherent only to some "star" ??
  8. python2a
    python2a 17 February 2016 12: 07
    13
    The article was written by an amateur. The question of radar visibility is worth it! The higher the surface, the higher the detection range and vice versa, the closer to the surface. the smaller the detection range.
    And the author does not know the history of the creation of ekranoplanes. They were made of steel, not because R. Alekseev decided so, but because aluminum alloys were used only for the manufacture of aircraft, they simply were not allowed to use R. Alekseev.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 February 2016 12: 30
      +3
      Quote: python2a
      The question of radar visibility is worth it! The higher the surface, the higher the detection range and vice versa, the closer to the surface. the smaller the detection range.

      The problem is that all this is true for the case of "ship versus ekranoplan". But as soon as the plane comes into play - all the invisibility of the ekranoplan multiplies to zero.
      At the same time, due to the size of the ekranoplan, an AWACS aircraft is not required to detect it - the onboard Orion or Hornet radar will be enough. And the distance of its detection will be comparable to that for the RCA.

      And now let's recall how many potential adversaries have carrier-based and base aircraft.

      So ekranoplanes were hardly noticeable except for the Soviet Navy. smile
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 17 February 2016 12: 51
        +6
        Quote: Alexey RA
        At the same time, due to the size of the ekranoplan, an AWACS aircraft is not required to detect it - the onboard Orion or Hornet radar will be enough.

        ... this is true only for the case when the ekranoplane is comparable in size to floating vessels. ES can have other dimensions, for example, with the same hornet. That's when the task of detecting ES against the background of unstable waves and ripples of water, in fact a dynamic screen with a random law of reflection, becomes much more complicated, especially if you apply the Ufimtsev theory when constructing the body (and something else from the radio visibility of objects on the border of different spheres :)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 February 2016 13: 19
          0
          Quote: Rus2012
          ... this is true only for the case when the ekranoplane is comparable in size to floating vessels. ES can have other dimensions, for example, with the same hornet. That's when the task of detecting ES against the background of unstable waves and ripples of water, in fact a dynamic screen with a random law of reflection, becomes much more complicated, especially if you apply the Ufimtsev theory when constructing the body (and something else from the radio visibility of objects on the border of different spheres :)

          SDC to help us. This is at ordinary ship speeds the Doppler effect is small. And the ekranoplan flies at the speed of an airplane.
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 17 February 2016 13: 31
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And the ekranoplan flies at the speed of an airplane.

            But according to your opinion, the problem of detecting subsonic KR against the background of water is solved by 100% in your opinion? laughing
            Also fly at about the same altitude and speed parameters ...
            1. dauria
              dauria 17 February 2016 13: 56
              +1
              Also fly at about the same altitude and speed parameters ...



              You two have a strange argument. Well, firstly, the RCS of the RC is less, and secondly, with the SDC against the background of the surface, the range is always less than without the "bedding". Well, and most importantly, why the hell do you need an ekranoplan, if any aircraft can descend even 100 meters, it will already be against the "background of the underlying surface" even for an AWACS, even for a fighter. Or have you seen a loitering fighter at 90 m altitude?
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 February 2016 14: 58
              -2
              Quote: Rus2012
              But in your opinion, the problem of detecting subsonic KR against the background of water is 100% solved in your opinion? laughing
              Also fly at about the same altitude and speed parameters ..

              Ahem ... I’m embarrassed to ask - where did you see the CR of 73 meters long, 19 meters high and with a wingspan of 44 meters? belay
          2. Full name
            Full name 17 February 2016 19: 17
            0
            I see no obstacles. (C) Destroyers and planes are being built using stealth technologies.
        2. xtur
          xtur 17 February 2016 13: 46
          +2
          > this is true only for the case when the ekranoplan is comparable in size to waterfowl

          recently discussed an article about the Tu-160 in the role of a fighter - and in fact an arsenal aircraft. In one case, it turns out that large-sized planes are needed to carry out the BZ (at least to intercept the RC), and when it comes to ES, the question immediately arises of their size.

          KM at one time the price was like the Tu-160, having at times a large GP, although at a shorter range. It is necessary to somehow determine the counterarguments.
          1. PKK
            PKK 17 February 2016 19: 15
            +2
            I have lost interest in ekranoplanes. As a military engineer, you can immediately see what such a device is capable of. The CM was well loaded and put on duty. It is clear that the War will begin in a storm, when the aircraft carriers hiss in impotent rage. You can swim close to them. What is our hero KM? The same is tied to the pier. We will wait for good weather, "take off" if the DRG will allow, we approach the given point. There is no connection, disappeared after ionization, there is smoke all around, we shoot. KM is not such a formidable fighter, and a target that is great for enemy air defense, unless he can work as a rescuer.
          2. PKK
            PKK 17 February 2016 19: 15
            +1
            I have lost interest in ekranoplanes. As a military engineer, you can immediately see what such a device is capable of. The CM was well loaded and put on duty. It is clear that the War will begin in a storm, when the aircraft carriers hiss in impotent rage. You can swim close to them. What is our hero KM? The same is tied to the pier. We will wait for good weather, "take off" if the DRG will allow, we approach the given point. There is no connection, disappeared after ionization, there is smoke all around, we shoot. KM is not such a formidable fighter, and a target that is great for enemy air defense, unless he can work as a rescuer.
  9. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 17 February 2016 12: 31
    0
    and then look, and the author Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad

    Of course, because armor plates cannot be hung on an ekranoplan smile
  10. xtur
    xtur 17 February 2016 13: 29
    +2
    > I started reading with interest, sort of like a person's own position, trying to justify, and then lo and behold, and the author is Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad

    I immediately recognized Kaptsov by name, and decided to put a minus without reading the article. Then I read it, and realized that putting a minus was not mistaken. The article is full of simply false statements.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 17 February 2016 13: 38
      +3
      eg ? argue, otherwise it will be a shame for minus that
      1. xtur
        xtur 17 February 2016 13: 51
        +4
        For example - Kaptsov claims that EP violate the laws of nature. Honestly, I don’t understand how EPs fly in this case - probably only by God's will.

        I can cite the second striking "argument" of Kaptsov - that the KM payload was only 100 tons, although the entire Internet is full of articles that the KM GP was about half the total takeoff weight.

        PS. We all know very well that he is too partial in the articles. Knowing his style and his attitude to EP, I was sure that he would definitely make unforgivable statements, and I was not mistaken, unfortunately
  11. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 17 February 2016 14: 28
    +1
    And why the ECIP project is not developing, it seems that they even wanted to launch a series.
  12. aleks 62 next
    aleks 62 next 17 February 2016 14: 49
    +5
    .... I began to read with interest, sort of like a person’s own position, trying to justify, and then looking, and the author Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad ....

    .... The same thing .... See spring .... Aggravations began in someone .... Only one pearl: "...." Only one leg was found in the water, with a boot in camouflage. buried ”, .... repulsed all desire ... Kaptsov apparently does not know that in those days they did not wear camouflage .... Especially the flight crew .... In the photo of one of my old acquaintances (he was in the late 80s served in Kaspiysk, namely on the "Eaglet"), served in an ordinary "blue" ..... hi
    1. avt
      avt 17 February 2016 21: 28
      +5
      Quote: aleks 62 next
      .The same thing .... See spring .... Aggravations have begun in someone .... Only one pearl: ".

      Laurels Pikul do not give sleep ..... and Newton laughing I'm talking about the new two laws, where the plane should be light, and the ship should be heavy, naturally armored. Well, probably somewhere in Torquemada, this is about the heretic Alekseev who violated the laws of nature. wassat
  13. Dam
    Dam 18 February 2016 14: 06
    0
    And I got caught again. I read everything to the end with interest, and then look, and who are the judges? Write to the author at the beginning, please. I don’t even try to comment in fact, do not comment on nonsense
  14. Ivan52
    Ivan52 11 June 2016 23: 14
    0
    I barely read it, the author needs to offer a horse with a chaise and let him ride, all the benefits of manure, smell, ecology. As for this miracle, you need to bring it to mind and everything will be very beautiful. Imagine the priests are hijacking a ship and then such an apocalypse flies on them, and they on a speedboat at full speed no matter how they stand still, I think they will think about it.
  • Zigmars
    Zigmars 17 February 2016 06: 51
    10
    Quote: Good cat
    sort of like a person’s position, trying to justify

    Most appealing is the peremptory tone in these attempts to substantiate something laughing
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 17 February 2016 07: 17
      15
      Quote: Good cat
      He began to read with interest, sort of like his own position with a person, trying to justify, and then looking, and the author Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad.

      Quote: Zigmars
      Most appealing is the peremptory tone in these attempts to substantiate something

      As for the author, you have spoken out, but has something to say about the article?
      Can you give some tables, a comparative analysis, prove that this Kaptsov is wrong, we are not idle talk.
      1. avt
        avt 17 February 2016 10: 14
        +7
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Can you give some tables, a comparative analysis, prove that this Kaptsov is wrong, we are not idle talk.

        A helicopter, it’s a helicopter, flies much slower than almost any aircraft, aerobatics again can’t be twisted like an airplane, well, I mean
        Deadly danger inherent in the very idea of ​​flight on the screen. The basic principle of the aircraft is violated: the farther from the surface, the safer. As a result, pilots do not have enough time to level the car and take any measures in case of a contingency.
        pilot on a helicopter, too ... not comme il faut, but even practically the same, mortal danger. "Again, the helicopter takes less cargo than an ocean liner. Epilogue on helicopters completely coincides with
        According to the totality of indicators LOAD x SPEED x DELIVERY COST x SAFETY x CONFIDENCE ekranoplanes have no advantages over existing vehicles. On the contrary, they lose in absolutely all respects to conventional aircraft. Surpassing ships in speed, ekranoplanes are inferior to them by 1000 times in terms of carrying capacity and at least 10-15 times in cruising range. Therefore, they are not even able to partially take on the tasks of maritime transport. The combat radius of the “Moon” is not enough even for operations in the Black Sea, not to mention the pursuit of aircraft carriers in the Atlantic.
        Well, the point is to build helicopters! ?? Natural wrecking wassat Do you still need tables?
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 17 February 2016 11: 12
          0
          Quote: avt
          Well, the point is to build helicopters! ?? Natural wrecking

          what Maybe in the case of maritime movement - it is better to develop the SEC (hydrofoil vessels). Speeds are certainly not the same, not 300 or 500 km, but 150 km / h seems to be already achievable, plus I assume that you can seriously increase the carrying capacity and capacity.
          1. avt
            avt 17 February 2016 13: 46
            +3
            Quote: Corsair
            Maybe in the case of maritime movement - it is better to develop the SEC (hydrofoil vessels). Speeds are certainly not the same, not 300 or 500 km, but 150 km / h seems to be already achievable, plus I assume that you can seriously increase the carrying capacity and capacity.

            Nothing that the Doctor began with them, and only then moved on to ekranoplans ?? The SEC does not interfere with one another, they are also not sinless and have their own limitations, moreover, they fit into Oleg’s epilogue
            Quote: avt
            According to the totality of indicators LOAD x SPEED x DELIVERY COST x SAFETY x CONFIDENCE ekranoplanes have no advantages over existing vehicles. On the contrary, they lose in absolutely all respects to conventional aircraft. Surpassing ships in speed, ekranoplanes are inferior to them by 1000 times in terms of carrying capacity and at least 10-15 times in cruising range. Therefore, they are not even able to partially take on the tasks of maritime transport. The combat radius of the “Moon” is not enough even for operations in the Black Sea, not to mention the pursuit of aircraft carriers in the Atlantic.
            so then you fall under Oleg’s definition
            Those who advocate the construction of these shelters simply try not to notice point-blank real facts about the operation of ekranoplanes.
            , well, instead of ekranoplanes, you can easily insert paste the SEC, SVP. And most importantly, that unites them all - THEY ARE NOT RESERVED !!!! laughing
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 7 March 2016 11: 52
              0
              Yes, the lack of titanium armor on devices for which even aluminum was too lazy to allocate is a serious drawback ... belay
              The level of argumentation in the article goes through the roof. About the pilot’s boot in camouflage has already been said. About a barometric altimeter - too (although the question is: what for it is needed when flying up to 100 meters and even above water, where air humidity and other characteristics can change very quickly). Comparison of the KM carrying capacity with a sea container ship touches indecently. The author did not try to compare the volume of the payload in absolute and relative values, say, for a riverless motorized barge and his favorite battleship? And the Yak-52, An-2 and An-22 aircraft? request
              Hence the conclusion: the argumentation at the level of the conversation "whose pi-hsiung is longer", while the girls' satisfaction with these aggregates is not taken into account. Also, do not forget that pliers are much lighter than a sledgehammer, only one thing with another can be replaced very conditionally ...
              What am I doing? With argumentation you need to be careful. negative
              It is important to draw a conclusion about any tool not by the degree of its similarity with a completely different tool or equipment (say, compare a plane with a jack, a sledgehammer with a file), but to the extent possible, perform the necessary functions. The same point is not considered.
              By the way, a couple of tanks and a volley of missiles can be important to the landing just now, and not tomorrow, when transport will pull up at a speed of 20 knots ...
              Something like this ... hi
        2. dauria
          dauria 17 February 2016 14: 27
          -1
          Do you still need tables?


          Nah, not needed. What for? It would seem - what is easier? Running with drawings to the billionaire Potanin. So they say so, I’ll deliver a load of pineapples from the Ivory Coast 2 times cheaper. We’ll get rich both. Or to Shoigusch as we fly and instantly defeat everyone. Only Dmitry Ustinov, the late Dmitry Fedorovich, was not advised to meddle; he himself understood and kept the specialists with him. Do not forget, everything that we fly on now, ride and swim it with approved efforts. But the screen miracle is not.
          1. avt
            avt 17 February 2016 15: 21
            +2
            Quote: dauria
            . Only Dmitry Ustinov, the late Dmitry Fedorovich, was not advised to meddle; he himself understood and kept the specialists with him.

            And the great ones stumble. Here for the project 1143 and the Yak -38 do not want to say anything? wassat Well, in terms of the sagacity of decision making, if any
            Quote: dauria
            and kept specialists with him.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 February 2016 17: 25
              +1
              Quote: avt
              And the great ones stumble. Here for the project 1143 and the Yak -38 do not want to say anything? wassat Well, in terms of the sagacity of decision making, if any

              You can still recall the simultaneous production of three types of MBT. smile
            2. Aqela
              Aqela 7 March 2016 11: 56
              0
              If we take into account that Ustinov dealt with the development of the latest weapons since the 40s, then this kind of flaws and misses will come out much more.
        3. KKND
          KKND 17 February 2016 16: 22
          +2
          Well, the point is to build helicopters! ?? Natural wrecking wassat Do you still need tables?

          I did not understand anything in your analogies. Compare then the tank and the satellite or something.
          More specifically have something to say?
          1. avt
            avt 17 February 2016 20: 49
            +2
            Quote: KKND
            I did not understand anything in your analogies. Compare then the tank and the satellite or something.

            Oh really ? wassat Analogies of Oleg
            According to the totality of indicators LOAD x SPEED x DELIVERY COST x SAFETY x CONFIDENCE ekranoplanes have no advantages over existing vehicles. On the contrary, they lose in absolutely all respects to conventional aircraft. Surpassing ships in speed, ekranoplanes are inferior to them by 1000 times in terms of carrying capacity and at least 10-15 times in cruising range. Therefore, they are not even able to partially take on the tasks of maritime transport. The combat radius of the “Moon” is not enough even for operations in the Black Sea, not to mention the pursuit of aircraft carriers in the Atlantic.
            Specifically available and
            Quote: KKND
            More specifically have something to say?

            not required, but the passage
            The brainchild of Rostislav Alekseev violated the laws of nature. The aircraft should be as lightweight as possible. The ship must be strong (and therefore heavy) for safe walking on the waves. Combining these two requirements in one machine was not possible.
            especially in the part "violations of the LAWS OF NATURE" laughing none at all
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Can you give some tables, comparative analysis,

            does not require. At least one "law of nature" would lead. laughing
        4. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 17 February 2016 16: 52
          +1
          Quote: avt
          Do you still need tables?

          Tables may not be needed, but I agree with Kaptsov that a helicopter, an attack plane, and a transport ship are preferable as a rescue device.
          1. avt
            avt 17 February 2016 21: 21
            +3
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            but I agree with Kaptsov

            And with Alekseev’s violation of the laws of nature, about which Oleg wrote, too?
            Quote: KKND
            Precisely Kaptsov is wrong but he is "Kaptsov" !!!!! 11111

            God be with you! Oleg - Newton of our days! I do not know what fell on his head, but here is the "new law of nature" he deduced, violated by Alekseev, or rather TWO laws: First -
            Quote: avt
            The aircraft should be as lightweight as possible.

            The second -
            Quote: avt
            . The ship must be strong (and therefore heavy) for safe walking on the waves.

            wassat I am the sinful Az humbly add what Oleg kept silent about - not only
            Quote: avt
            (and therefore heavy)

            and also armored!
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 17 February 2016 21: 38
              +1
              Quote: avt
              I am the sinful Az humbly add what Oleg kept silent about - not only

              Quote: avt
              and also armored!

              Maybe a person wanted to tie, but you ...
            2. Aqela
              Aqela 7 March 2016 12: 00
              0
              Quote: avt
              The aircraft should be as lightweight as possible.

              Again, some nonsense comes out ... The airship, according to this logic, is much more profitable than an airplane, because it is somehow lighter than air ... laughing At the same time, the most profitable design will be for the hot air balloon with its basket of willow or bamboo twigs and a ball of dense but lightweight fabric ... fellow
      2. KKND
        KKND 17 February 2016 16: 18
        -3
        Precisely Kaptsov is wrong but he is "Kaptsov" !!!!! 11111
      3. tomket
        tomket 18 February 2016 00: 32
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        prove that this Kaptsov is wrong, because we are not idle talk.

        To prove to every Kaptsov’s article that he’s wrong, thank you, don’t get so much time.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 18 February 2016 11: 23
          0
          Quote: tomket
          To prove to every Kaptsov article that he is wrong

          It seems like we are discussing articles. For example, in the post above, you bring some arguments about the pilots, trying to justify.
          Statements like "I started reading with interest, it seems like a person has his own position, trying to justify, and then lo and behold, and the author is Oleg Kaptsov, and somehow it became sad." remind:
          -Don't read but despise.
    2. inkass_98
      inkass_98 17 February 2016 07: 41
      19
      I have the impression that Oleg stands up for the cessation of any technical progress and a return to the days of armaments at the maximum of WWII. At the same time, he never ceases to admire the obviously raw and unnecessarily versatile F-35 and the still "dark horse" Zamvolt. Here is such a paradox, to say the least - a split personality.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 06
        -17 qualifying.
        I feel like you wrote nonsense.

        Regarding the F-35, then its super-duper helmet doesn’t want to repeat anything either, apparently, because the pilot should not turn his head while implementing the methodology of the Second World War, through cutting-edge technologies, but have a tactical map in front of his eyes.
        1. hhhhhhh
          hhhhhhh 17 February 2016 09: 34
          +3
          F-35s are made not for progress, but for making money.
        2. Generalissimo
          Generalissimo 17 February 2016 15: 29
          0
          How are Google glasses inferior to him? And what are they for the price?
      2. srha
        srha 17 February 2016 10: 34
        +3
        Quote: inkass_98
        I have the impression that Oleg advocates the cessation of any technological progress.
        I think that is not the right impression. Since to resist the "progress" in bast shoes, while there are sneakers that are superior in their characteristics to bast shoes, there is a real struggle for progress.
      3. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich 17 February 2016 11: 11
        10
        He just makes money. In addition, he makes fools of people. Entire design bureaus worked on these machines. And then came Kaptsov, the most intelligent and outstanding designer in the world, called all and all inventions useless. Kaptsov shreds on everything that has not been done in America and in the West. Ordinary bloke he.
        1. Dam
          Dam 18 February 2016 15: 16
          0
          Very correct IMHO definition. I will not write my opinion further because they will again be banned. Just PARANOJA
      4. Aqela
        Aqela 7 March 2016 12: 08
        0
        Yeah. Ruggio Berdan comes out much more reliable than the M-16, and what a saving in cartridges! (General Dragomirov in support!). fellow And isho Putilov’s armor instead of any radars and missiles there! Yes, and speed does not hurt, and it is needed (Admiral Popov votes for!). good
        Urrrya! For the king’s priest !!! fellow soldier
        I mean, the adoption of absolutely any new system is a balance between benefit and uselessness, and sometimes harmfulness ... It looks like a tanker is noisy and hot, and it even smells of diesel fuel, but this is not a reason for the revival of cavalry divisions with their eco-friendly horses and free wind in the free steppe.
    3. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 17 February 2016 12: 35
      +4
      I agree. Take those at least this:

      And the power of impact of jet streams on the surface of the water and the disturbances caused by them are clearly visible in the following video:

      And the author is not embarrassed that the video shows that the wake trace is clearly visible only during take-off, and on the march it is negligible.
  • davas72
    davas72 17 February 2016 06: 52
    16
    Someone really wants the work on this topic to be completed completely and permanently. It’s so calmer to live. Who cares ?!
    1. ICT
      ICT 17 February 2016 07: 24
      +5
      Quote: davas72
      Who cares ?!


      to all ordinary people, technicians, pilots (who in the union never received flight allowances because they were sailors), landing,

      the point is that the technique is complicated, but at this stage of the development of technology, many problems can be solved easier, but still the effect will be a little more than zero,


      in general, the same song as with the blacks, somewhere one big +, but in the end a bunch of little things with small minuses, put on such projects X

      everything is very simple, nor any masses are just a business
      1. Generalissimo
        Generalissimo 17 February 2016 18: 04
        0
        Why is it so complicated? An ordinary flying boat, only with a trimmed wing so that it does not shake at low altitude.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 February 2016 20: 38
      -1
      Quote: davas72
      . Who cares ?!

      Those who are friends with the head, and not gagging in vain about whatever boom boom!hi
  • Kos_kalinki9
    Kos_kalinki9 17 February 2016 06: 53
    +3
    Despite at a relatively low speed (~ 200 km / h), helicopters can carefully view the surface from a height, detecting and removing people from a drifting liferaft.

    Author, are you Russian? Probably thanks to the relatively low speed.
    1. ICT
      ICT 17 February 2016 07: 25
      -9
      Quote: Kos_kalinki9
      Author, are you Russian?



      write the article yourself, and then we will hand it over to the Russian teacher in the editorship
    2. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 07: 37
      +4
      Quote: Kos_kalinki9
      Due to the relatively low speed.

      In my opinion, this is just a comparison of ekranoplanes and rescue helicopters

      Despite relatively low speed (~ 200 km / h), helicopters can carefully examine the surface from a height, detecting and removing people from a drifting liferaft.

      What is the undoubted advantage of a rescue helicopter over a low-flying ekranoplan.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 17 February 2016 07: 51
        +9
        I tried in vain to explain that the Eaglet and MI26 have the same carrying capacity. Only one carries 20% of the weight, and the other 80% - do not want to understand and that's it
        1. aleks 62 next
          aleks 62 next 17 February 2016 15: 24
          +2
          .... I tried in vain to explain that the "Eaglet" and MI26 have the same carrying capacity. Only one carries 20% of the weight, and the other 80% - do not want to understand and that's it ...

          .... And do not try to explain .... According to weight statistics, the mass of an empty aircraft is approximately 50% of the maximum takeoff (plus or minus 5% approximately) ... This is without taking into account kerosene .... A fully fueled aircraft will not take more than 25-30% of the load .... These are the laws of aircraft statistics .... For example, the TU-22M3 having (everything is roughly, digging into the exact numbers is just too lazy) with a "dry" weight of about 50 tons, filled "to the eyeballs" about 60 tons , has a very small payload - about 5-6 tons (somewhere on the level of Tu-16) - this is the maximum ..... Syria showed this when they flew almost to the maximum range and carried only 9-12 FAB-250 .. ... This weight distribution applies to helicopters as well ... hi
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 February 2016 15: 52
            -2
            This weight distribution also applies to EP. Although it weighs 4-5 times more with the same load capacity hi Where is the benefit?
            1. Arikkhab
              Arikkhab 17 February 2016 20: 32
              +1
              ekranoplan - for example, KM - the ratio is somewhat different -
              Net WIG weight: 240 000 kg
              Weight maximum take-off: 544 000 kg
              Payload: 304 000 kg
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 17 February 2016 20: 41
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Only one drags 20% of the weight, and the other 80% - do not want to understand and that's it

          And one more small nuance smile The Mi-26 can freeze anywhere, and the ekranoplan just slip past! hi
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol 17 February 2016 11: 57
        0
        Belief in miraculous weapons, apparently did not die with Hitler. The whole forum is still infected with it. Faith in the Wunderwaffe !!!
        You do not believe in ES, but believe in battleships, Taoist does not believe in LC, believes in EP, Alex is inclined to small EPs, etc.
        It seems like I'm the only one who argues that neither one nor the other is a good prodigy No.
        1. xtur
          xtur 17 February 2016 14: 06
          +2
          > You do not believe in ED, but you believe in battleships, Taoist does not believe in LK, believes in ED, Alex is leaning towards small ED, etc.
          It seems like I'm the only one who argues that neither one nor the other is a good prodigy

          Electronic warfare is a new and suitable weapon class that is indispensable specifically for the conditions of the Russian Federation - the presence of several loosely coupled naval theater of operations that impede maneuvering by forces. At one time, there was a large Ty-22 * fleet, thanks to which it was possible to perform such an inter-theater maneuver with firepower, but now this role is only for strategic aviation, which is not enough even to fulfill its main mission.

          An example of a KM is its GP, the ratio of GP to the total take-off weight, its price suggests that at the price of one RTO and its firepower, EP has incomparable mobility.

          Specifically, for the conditions of the Russian theater of operations, it is incomparably more expedient to have a large fleet of electronic weapons than the fleet of any RTOs firing "Caliber" at Syria and elsewhere.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 February 2016 14: 17
            0
            Force maneuver? Try to transfer such EP-missile carrier along the inland sea routes (SF-BF-ChF-Caspiy). Tear it apart and load it onto barges? I don’t even speak about the SF-TOF stage.
            Autonomy ES in comparison with the ship is zero. Who will provide the central bank? Aviation and fleet? What for is he so beautiful then needed? If there is a central control unit, it is enough to launch missiles, and not to remove the ES from the dock
            1. xtur
              xtur 17 February 2016 14: 41
              0
              > Maneuvering forces?


              In terms of price, both GP / VI KM are comparable to RTOs, of which there are many in the Russian Federation, and are going to become even larger. There is no dispute at all and cannot be, if you don’t specifically bump into it - if the RTOs are recognized as useful, then KM type electromagnets will be at least as useful
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 February 2016 15: 53
                0
                So what’s there with maneuvering forces between the theaters of the VD? Does not exceed ? Yes, he will not even pass the Straits, unlike the RTOs, which will be on duty for another month in the Mediterranean
        2. Pajamas
          Pajamas 17 February 2016 14: 28
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Belief in miraculous weapons, apparently did not die with Hitler. The whole forum is still infected with it. Faith in the Wunderwaffe !!!
          You do not believe in ES, but believe in battleships, Taoist does not believe in LC, believes in EP, Alex is inclined to small EPs, etc.
          It seems like I'm the only one who argues that neither one nor the other is a good prodigy No.


          Vundekrvafly push the design idea in front, I think it’s not worth arguing with this, for example, according to AN-14Sh (an aircraft with an air-cushion landing gear), interesting solutions were worked out that allowed to minimize soil erosion and strong dust formation, and this is in the 80s, now there are new materials and the idea of ​​creating ballscrews for heavy transport aircraft could be realized, it’s a pity that all this was cherished together with Antonov’s design bureau.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 February 2016 14: 49
            0
            Pushing, pushing. EP 80 years! And nothing has changed. Look at the way aviation has traveled in 80 years
          2. Bayonet
            Bayonet 17 February 2016 20: 53
            +2
            Quote: Pajama
            which minimized soil erosion and heavy dust formation

            Have you ever seen a hovercraft on loose ground? Say "minimum dust formation"? laughing CDG overlooks the beach.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 07
      +3
      What yes, it does not make it very clear that the ekranoplane pilot with 6 meters of altitude will be considered at a speed of 300-400 km / h.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 February 2016 06: 54
    +4
    Here I agree with the author. Too many characteristics are tied up in this tangle of contradictions. Yes, it looks powerful ... But if you dig into what kind of sacrifices this or that quality is achieved, then really, isn't it better to have more exploited and cheaper means of delivery (cargo, weapons) than undeveloped and very ambiguous expensive "toys" ...
    At the moment, we have not had the former USSR, when it was possible to promote various ideas in the wake of any financing. And not America with its banal wrapping of candy wrappers.
    Of course, the author again in his own way painted the problem, but as it is. That's why it’s a plus, since I myself think that there should always be a balance in characteristics, without distortions in any direction or conventions of use. The plane should fly, the ship should ... mmm ... sail. And the concept of ekranoplan, the proposed application at the border of two grids, has sooooo many pitfalls. The number of positive x-ks for successful use should quantitatively and qualitatively perceive the number of negative ones. And here is the question. Personally, my opinionhi
    1. hhhhhhh
      hhhhhhh 17 February 2016 09: 41
      +2
      The iPhone is also on "on the border of two environments" - TV and phone)))
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 17 February 2016 09: 50
        0
        And also at the border of the camera, music player and GPS navigator.
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 17 February 2016 11: 20
          +3
          Quote: hhhhhhh
          The iPhone is also on "on the border of two environments" - TV and phone)))

          Quote: Vadim237
          And also at the border of the camera, music player and GPS navigator.

          At the same time, note that almost any modern cameras and televisions separately show TV programs and take pictures better, because they are deliberately sharpened for these cases, and are not "5-in-one combines", which are still worse by the characteristics of individual functions. Of course, it's fun to watch a clip, a video at 5 inches, but a movie at 40-50 inches is much more interesting and convenient.
          And marketing buns and noodles for customers’s ears make their sales.
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 17 February 2016 11: 42
            0
            Quote: Corsair
            the characteristics of individual functions are still worse

            throw your smartphone, buy siemens with 265-bit polyphony
            Quote: Corsair
            And marketing buns and noodles for customers’s ears make their sales

            If they were able to put the Internet, GPS and application store in a 100-gram device (programs for all occasions - quick access to bank accounts, sports pedometers, accelerometers, calculators, etc.), then it’s ALREADY NOODLE

            CAMERA - a separate conversation. The phone can not fight for the quality of images with a SLR with a set of interchangeable lenses. But no one takes pictures for magazine covers with a telephone. in normal life, 8 MP with automatic stabilization is enough for the eyes, more is not required. There are even panoramic modes.
    2. GRAY
      GRAY 17 February 2016 10: 31
      10
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The number of positive x-ks for successful use should quantitatively and qualitatively perceive the number of negative ones. And here is the question. Personally, my opinion

      The commercial use of large ekranoplanes is complicated by the fact that they compete with ships as trucks, and they lose as carriers of passengers with aircraft - in the article, everything is written correctly about this. However, this statement does not apply to small class cars; in Crimea, for example, they are quite successfully working for themselves.
      But the military aspect of the author vainly groaned.
      Is it dangerous to launch rockets? And it is generally dangerous to launch rockets, from any carrier, and without any carrier either. The anti-ship missiles were even launched from a helicopter (with an accelerator) and quite successfully. For some reason Oleg remembered "Mosquito" - a hefty fool.
      - And why not R-7? On it Gagarin flew into space, she even more.
      I would like to see ekranoplanes armed with Onyx and Caliber in the ranks.

      Stealth is also mentioned neither to the village nor to the city. How is things going with stealth on the Tu-160?
      - No way.
      However, the concept of using it is the same - to strike from a maximum distance and quickly leave the danger zone.
      An ekranoplan armed with anti-ship missiles will act similarly, in addition, it is less dependent on infrastructure, unlike airplanes, and this is also a plus.

      With cruise missiles, the ekranoplan also looks attractive - for some reason, many figures like to draw circles on the map, thus defining the reach radius for cruise missiles; but for some reason it doesn’t occur to them that in order for this radius to increase the carrier (for example, RTOs) it’s enough to move a couple of hundred kilometers and the faster it does, the more quickly it will use weapons.
      From this point of view, an ekranoplane as a carrier outperforms ships and partially against aviation because he does not need an airfield.

      Regarding the difficulty in managing: now, after all, is the 21st century in the yard. It is quite possible to entrust flight safety to electronic control systems that simply will not allow the machine to go into dangerous conditions, and in an emergency will take control.

      Here the question is more about money ...
      1. 1rl141
        1rl141 17 February 2016 11: 19
        +4
        Quote: GRAY
        Regarding the difficulty in managing: now, after all, is the 21st century in the yard. It is quite possible to entrust flight safety to electronic control systems that simply will not allow the machine to go into dangerous conditions, and in an emergency will take control.


        It is possible that the time of ekranoplan has not come yet. When it will be controlled by a high-speed computer, and the ekranoplan itself will be hung with all sorts of sensors, then it will become safe. May be...
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 17 February 2016 12: 23
          +6
          Quote: 1rl141
          It is possible that the time of ekranoplan has not come yet. When it will be controlled by a high-speed computer, and the ekranoplan itself will be hung with all sorts of sensors, then it will become safe. May be...

          In large aviation, this has all been implemented for a long time, but hardly anything similar was developed for ekranoplanes. There will be technology - there will be systems.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 17 February 2016 12: 46
        0
        Quote: GRAY
        For some reason Oleg remembered "Mosquito" - a hefty fool.
        - And why not R-7? On it Gagarin flew into space, she even more.
        I would like to see ekranoplanes armed with Onyx and Caliber in the ranks.

        Wouldn't it be easier to have instead of an ekranoplan 2 links of more high-speed, maneuverable and multipurpose aircraft with the same Onyx?
        Or religion does not allow planes to fly on CF? smile
        Quote: GRAY
        An ekranoplan armed with anti-ship missiles will act similarly, in addition, it is less dependent on infrastructure, unlike airplanes, and this is also a plus.

        More dependent. Airplanes can be based at any airport (at the same Murmansk, EMNIP, 4) - both at the coast and deeper. And in a few days to transfer them even to the other end of the country.
        And the ekranoplan is tied to a basing point with a dock.
        Quote: GRAY
        From this point of view, an ekranoplane as a carrier outperforms ships and partially against aviation because he does not need an airfield.

        Will we base on an unequipped beach? Charming ... the results of such a concept are now rotting in the bays around our bases.

        By the way, aviation can be massaged by quickly transferring additional formations from quiet areas. But how to organize the transfer of the ekranoplan from the Pacific Fleet to the SF ... and how long will it take?
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 17 February 2016 13: 21
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Airplanes can be based at any airport

          Thieves will destroy the strip and that's it - sit a smoke.
          aviation can be massaged by quickly transferring

          If the airfields are intact, then of course you can.
          Will we base on an unequipped beach?

          In pre-prepared shelters. soldier In addition, you can also prepare reserve sites on the coast, because it is easier than building an airfield or port.
          But how to organize the transfer of the ekranoplan from the Pacific Fleet to the SF ... and how long will it take?

          No way. As, however, with the ships, in wartime, nothing like this can be done.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 17 February 2016 13: 30
            -1
            Quote: GRAY
            Thieves will destroy the strip and that's it - sit a smoke.

            Thieves will destroy the dock - sit smoking. smile
            Here are just runways (including segments of federal highways) much more than docks.
            Quote: GRAY
            In pre-prepared shelters. soldier In addition, you can also prepare reserve sites on the coast, because it is easier than building an airfield or port.

            Temporary runways for aircraft already exist - sections of federal highways.
            In September 2015, Belarusians planted MiG-1, Su-29 and An-25 on M26.
          2. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 17 February 2016 18: 34
            0
            How much time will it take, how much he will need to fly at a speed of 500 km / h this distance. They can rise from the screen up to 3000m
        2. GRAY
          GRAY 17 February 2016 13: 25
          +8
          And the ekranoplan is tied to a basing point with a dock.

          Really?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 February 2016 13: 42
            -3
            Does your picture demonstrate that less than 5% of the world coast or its worthless payload with a huge mass is accessible to the Eaglet?
            1. GRAY
              GRAY 17 February 2016 14: 08
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Your picture shows

              What ekranoplan can in an unequipped coast. The fact that he should be homeless, I did not write.
            2. Generalissimo
              Generalissimo 17 February 2016 15: 31
              +1
              Does the MiG-31 have any payload?
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 February 2016 14: 03
            0
            By the way, what happened to the Eagles without a developed network of basing centers and Moscow Region? Destroyed the Masons and the Americans, who staged a worldwide conspiracy? Or did they stupidly rot from salt and moisture, without even flying properly?
            1. Generalissimo
              Generalissimo 17 February 2016 18: 36
              0
              Who else? C ships from salt and moisture is how?
          3. Bayonet
            Bayonet 17 February 2016 21: 00
            -1
            Quote: GRAY
            Really?

            Truth. And here is how? Not all beaches have a smooth beach.
            1. Generalissimo
              Generalissimo 19 February 2016 15: 26
              0
              He does not sit on the sand. KVP does it creep out here?
      3. sa-ag
        sa-ag 17 February 2016 19: 09
        0
        Quote: GRAY
        it’s enough to move a couple of hundred kilometers and the faster he does it, the more quickly weapons will be used.
        From this point of view, an ekranoplane as a carrier outperforms ships and partially against aviation because he does not need an airfield.

        And the plane will do it even faster, and yes the EP still needs infrastructure, it's not a hovercraft that can crawl ashore in any convenient place
    3. mvg
      mvg 17 February 2016 20: 19
      +1
      Rurikovich, you or it belay or is it a fake from your account? Have you praised Oleg? Incredible ... :-)
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 17 February 2016 06: 55
    +4
    Unlike the Good Cat, I was immediately alerted by the pretentious title of the article and I immediately decided to find out who the author was. That is why I read it already "being built and armed." However, the photos are not bad, I have not seen many of them before.
  • venaya
    venaya 17 February 2016 06: 55
    20
    Anyone who personally experienced the feeling of the effect of the screen effect cannot get rid of the idea of ​​using it to increase the economy of movement in off-road conditions. Rostislav Alekseev himself, dealing with issues of increasing the speed of surface ships, came to the conclusion that this effect is more promising than the hydrofoil vessels that he himself developed. I admit that in some ways he could be mistaken, but I consider it unreasonable to throw out this principle of movement, otherwise we can come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to use an air cushion. I believe that deeper developments are needed here, at least on a theoretical level. There are ideas and it is advisable to refine and implement them.
  • Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 17 February 2016 07: 03
    22
    It is most likely wrong to hack ekranoplanes as a whole. First of all, in these matters, gigantomania is absolutely inappropriate, which can be traced in our country absolutely everywhere. American "Hovercraft" fly and fly well, and the ESKA-1 also flew during the Soviet period, they even drove for vodka. Everything on piston engines! Consumption like a conventional car. Nor did the "Ekip" scheme with the blowing of the boundary layer of air say its last word. By and large, this is not even an ekranoplan, but an ekranolet with a very decent ceiling. Something like this. There should be a supporting body, and not a pathetic semblance of an airplane scheme.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 07: 34
      +2
      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      Everything on piston engines! Consumption like a regular car.

      What is so surprising
      the ESKA-1 payload is only 200 kilograms. Only drive for vodka
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 09
      0
      You cannot build serious technology on all of this.
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 17 February 2016 09: 14
      +5
      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      Everything on piston engines! Consumption like a regular car

      On the Yak-12 for the same vodka at the same fuel consumption it is also very nice to drive. Also, the run and mileage of all 60-70 meters. I'm not talking about the more modern Cessna, which are also piston and opposed. More economical.
  • Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 17 February 2016 07: 06
    +9
    Hence the results. In terms of flight range, ekranoplanes are three or more times inferior to airplanes at the same payload. Moreover, airplanes are able to fly anywhere in the world, regardless of the underlying terrain.

    KG / AM.
    Just KG / AM. This is no way (whoever moves even one gyrus - may he understand the deceit and one-sidedness of this comparison, which completely sweeps out the advantages of ekranoplanes that are inaccessible to airplanes).

    PS Just wondering if ekranoplanes were made ARMORED (or even better - in the USA), then our respected author would have the same point of view, or would he start licking the product of "advanced technical thought"?
  • Fast_mutant
    Fast_mutant 17 February 2016 07: 06
    +5
    So, it seems, they made the planes exactly according to the carried weight ... And such a number of engines were needed only in order to "climb" onto the screen. then quite an economical flight. and the lifeguard is not bad! it is stronger than an airplane, which in the slightest excitement will simply "break" ... So it's too early to write off the old people. The Wright brothers, too, did not seem to have built Mriya, but look how their invention was completed. And the ekranoplan should be dealt with, as it is promising. It's damp so far, but time, research, new materials, and you look all the problems have been solved! I think so!
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 07: 41
      +1
      Quote: Fast_mutant
      ... And such a number of engines was needed only in order to "climb" onto the screen.

      But drag them all the same will have the whole flight

      the mass of each NK-86 engine (from an IL-86 airliner), together with fuel valves and a nacelle, is 4 tons. The moon had eight of them !!!

      plus, the problem with balancing is 32 tons, concentrated in the bow, at the maximum distance from the central heating station. Than it is necessary to weight the tail. The sea monster becomes even heavier and eats even more fuel. But what for is all this necessary?
      1. pimen
        pimen 17 February 2016 09: 10
        0
        ekranoplanes, indeed, a very energy-consuming output to the screen. Due to the low position of the small wing at start, they lose even to seaplanes. Probably it would be wiser to wing, and instead of starting engines, you can probably use starting boosters
      2. Fast_mutant
        Fast_mutant 17 February 2016 22: 11
        +1
        This is because the moves were staged on the "what was" principle. And we need specialized ones. There are nk-86, which are filed for 24/365 operation, but are needed with a small resource and draft (like engines of formula 1). then you will need not 2 marching and 6 "screen" ones, but 2 + 2. That's weight loss. As a specialty, I am an electronics engineer, not a minder, but I think that it is possible, with a decrease in the resource, to "inflate" the power with the coefficient. 2-3. Even with the use of a different fuel. Well, they take off the scrap power on dragsters from small, in general, engines! And leave the marching engines for the resource ones? How is this option? In my opinion, quite acceptable.
        1. pimen
          pimen 18 February 2016 04: 19
          0
          this option is also possible, 2-4 resettable launch boosters (steam - for takeoff), which at the same time will be part of the common tanks, can be added, but it is better to add a folding highly located wing in pair to the main
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 10
      -2
      Does the word gyro say anything to you? If not, then such devices were also there, then they died out. But something no one is sad.
      1. pimen
        pimen 17 February 2016 09: 26
        +2
        what does gyroplane have to do with it? But, for example, they are trying to attach a pushing screw to a helicopter even now
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 February 2016 09: 53
          0
          And in this area have achieved significant positive results - to be a high-speed helicopter.
      2. 1rl141
        1rl141 17 February 2016 11: 24
        +3
        Autogyros did not die out. If you have a couple of extra millions, you can buy it for yourself. These are not used for aviation throughout the country. And for private individuals they are manufactured and sold. Just fly for fun. And safer than a simple helicopter. Falling on a gyroplane when the engine is stopped is almost impossible.
      3. Bayonet
        Bayonet 17 February 2016 21: 17
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        Does the word gyro say anything to you? If not, then such devices were also there, then they died out. But something no one is sad.

        Not at all, they have not become extinct, but they have their own niche - small cars, mostly for personal use.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 07: 31
      0
      Quote: qwert
      that in the late forties in many countries they talked about the futility of helicopters, considering them worthless exotic.

      In many countries - can you list?
      or invented by myself

      The first serial single-rotor helicopter (USA, 1942) - Sikorsky R4. Since 1943, pilot operations in the US armed forces began for Sikorsky helicopters, and in the UK next year. Since April 1944 helicopters R-4B (army designation) began to be used by US Army aviation directly in the fighting: first in Burma, and then in China and the Pacific Islands to evacuate wounded soldiers, shot down pilots, supply surrounded units and ships, communicate, monitor and adjust artillery fire.
      Quote: qwert
      what kind of apparatus is this, speed is small, height is also

      Takeoff from any "patch"
      Transportation of non-standard, oversized cargo on an external sling

      the benefits of helicopters are priceless
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 17 February 2016 21: 28
        +1
        Quote: BENNERT
        In many countries - can you list?

        In Germany, they also built and used. At the end of 1942, the Germans in the Mediterranean Sea turned the captured Yugoslav Zmaj hydro-aircraft with a displacement of 1 tons into the world's first helicopter carrier Drache. Based on it, FI 870 was used in the anti-submarine defense of naval convoys.
        Focke Achgelis Fa.223 Drache - the first mass-produced transport helicopter.
        Designed by the German company Fokke-Ahgelis in the late 30s of the last century on the basis of the Focke FA-61 helicopter. The first free flight took place on August 3, 1940. The Fa 223 series production began with Focke-Achgelis at the Delmenhorst plant in 1942. Of the 30 pre-production Fa 223 helicopters, the plant in Bremen managed to produce only 10 machines - the rest were destroyed during the bombing at different levels of readiness. In total, about 18 cars were built.
        LTH
        power plant: one 9-cylinder star-shaped PD BMW 301R with a power of 746 kW,
        rotor diameter: 12.0 m,
        fuselage length: 12.25 m,
        height: 4.35 m,
        width with rotary screws: 24.5 m,
        take-off weight: 4310 kg,
        empty weight: 3175 kg,
        maximum speed: 175km / h,
        cruising speed: 120km / h,
        ceiling: 2010 m,
        range with PTB: 700km
    2. ICT
      ICT 17 February 2016 07: 36
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      But no, they found their niche.


      a clear vertical take-off, as soon as the engineers came up with a miracle, the rotor everything fell into place,

      here (ekranoplan), the same hemorrhage as with an airplane or worse, and winning over a ship only in speed results in one big sadness crying ( lol )
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 17 February 2016 07: 38
      +4
      first ekranoplan - 30s. For a long time, they are looking for their niche and become winged. It took an airplane and helicopter less than 10 years request
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 17
      +3
      To build a shed in 500 tons with 10 engines to transport the same cargo that can be transported to the Il-76, yes, that's a great idea. Despite the fact that the airfield can be built anywhere, and the water is, as it were, in the seas and oceans. But in the ocean it’s easier to dump everything on the ship and take it slowly. It turns out MUCH cheaper. Actually, that's why everyone carries ships, who needs urgency to have an airplane.

      The niche of the helicopter is actually VERY narrow and it is more expensive to operate than aircraft. If there is an opportunity to make an airfield, then any "cornman" makes a turntable. Therefore, helicopters live mainly in the army, in the Ministry of Emergencies, and where you need not speed, but the ability to hang.

      And the ekranoplan is essentially a low-flying aircraft that does not have any advantages over a conventional aircraft.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 17 February 2016 09: 28
        +4
        Despite the fact that the airfield can be built anywhere, and the water is, as it were, in the seas and oceans.

        The only problem is that Il-Xnumx cannot sit down everywhere. And water in general is also in rivers. Where the EPC can sit.
        Therefore, helicopters live mainly in the army, in the Ministry of Emergencies, and where it is not speed that is needed, but the ability to hang.

        Residents of the tundra and the server, as well as the highlands, will not agree with you.
        And the ekranoplan is essentially a low-flying aircraft that does not have any advantages over a conventional aircraft.

        Nothing like this. The plane does not use the screen effect, it is generally evil for him.
      2. forumow
        forumow 17 February 2016 09: 57
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        The niche of the helicopter is actually VERY narrow and it is more expensive to operate than aircraft. If there is an opportunity to make an airfield, then any "cornman" makes a turntable. Therefore, helicopters live mainly in the army, in the Ministry of Emergencies, and where you need not speed, but the ability to hang.

        I agree! The niche of the helicopter where it is out of competition is a flying crane. The efficiency of a large rotor in hover mode is undeniable! In the same place where the cruising mode is the main one, and hovering only on the VP mode - the convertiplane is ideal. With their implementation, there are still difficulties, mainly related to their high cost, but over time they will be resolved.
    5. RPG_
      RPG_ 17 February 2016 09: 57
      0
      Only so far no one has come up with a niche for them, because they are so far useless.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 17 February 2016 10: 02
        +2
        Quote: RPG_
        Only so far no one has come up with a niche for them, because they are so far useless.

        Apparently, according to the logic of the author and the Bison, the hovercraft is also rubbish.
        And about the areas of application ... Lun was used as a transporter in those days and quite successfully. And if we talk about today, then with the use of stealth technologies and new engines that could accelerate the ekranoplan to aircraft speeds, as well as lay a good carrying capacity, ekranoplan can be used in many ways.
        By the way, in "civilian life" such machines will be very relevant.
  • qwert
    qwert 17 February 2016 07: 24
    +4
    And by the way, second-hand lifting engines were installed on the ekranoplanes, naturally after a bulkhead and repair, but the cost is still not the same as the new one. As far as I remember, those that were not allowed for installation on aircraft.

    And further. I think it’s not right to minus become Kaptsova. Still, we evaluate the articles by the quality of the presentation of the material, and not by the opinion expressed. Yes, the author’s opinion is always peculiar, to say the least, but Oleg’s articles are interesting.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 7 March 2016 12: 27
      0
      Personally, I am minus any articles specifically for the quality of the presentation of the material and for the level of argumentation in the volume of disputes in the kindergarten sandbox.
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 17 February 2016 07: 26
    0
    I started reading and immediately realized that Kaptsov’s opus turned out to be so. Judging by the articles of this author, only armored battleships have the right to live on the sea, and only those that were created according to his plan.
  • Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 17 February 2016 07: 28
    +4
    Quote: qwert
    After reading the title of the article, I immediately realized that the author would be Oleg Kaptsov, and I was not mistaken.))) And about the uselessness of ekranoplanes ... I just recall that in the late forties in many countries they talked about the uselessness of helicopters, considering them to be worthless exotic. Like, what kind of apparatus is this, speed is small, altitude is also, flight range is not at any gate, fuel consumption is large. If you compare with airplanes, and especially in the era when jet aircraft was flying, with its jerk in all respects, helicopters should have been forgotten. But no, they found their niche. The same and ekranoplans. Do not measure them with ships and planes. Like helicopters, they are indispensable and unsurpassed in their niche.

    I would also add that it was not in vain that when the USSR collapsed, the Americans were so interested in the developments on our ekranoplans (especially on the KM and the Moon). And a little later (well, then it was fashionable to sell the homeland), they suddenly had their own small breakthrough in the design of ekranoplanes.
    Americans are practical guys. If they are so interested in this supposedly unnecessary technology, then it is "well, for good reason."
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 February 2016 21: 37
      0
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      If they are so interested in this supposedly unnecessary technology, then it is "well, for good reason."

      Yes, I was interested, but then we figured it out, analyzed it and made sure that they don't need heavy ekranoplanes. An example is the design of a heavy transport ocean-going WIG craft "Pelican". The project was closed.
  • Signaller
    Signaller 17 February 2016 07: 28
    +1
    I read and understood one thing. Work and work still need. Bring to perfection. So far, even though they have begun testing new ones and bringing the old ones to production tests. Good luck. He who does nothing does not make mistakes. Good idea-Sure-bring.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 07: 48
      -1
      Quote: Signaller
      A good idea

      What is she good at?
  • surrozh
    surrozh 17 February 2016 07: 31
    +7
    It is not clear who to believe - the previous articles on "VO" from ekranoplan manufacturers or this author. Manufacturers talk about composite materials, a third of the cost of transportation from the helicopter price, high carrying capacity and safety, maintainability, efficiency, speed of transportation, the uselessness of airfields - and here everything is the other way around, collected disasters during the tests of 1964 - 1972, video 2015 - again a test flight. According to the author, there is no need to fly into space - there are many victims, money and accidents. Actually, I thought that the article would be about booking ekranoplanes, the author (if this is the same one) turns out to be more interesting.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 07: 50
      -2
      Quote: surozh
      third of the cost of transportation from the helicopter price, high carrying capacity and safety, maintainability, economy, speed of transportation

      What prevents to give a comparative table of performance characteristics of aircraft and ECP
      1. Nexus 6
        Nexus 6 17 February 2016 08: 37
        +1
        Here and bring !!! And then, excuse me, but the article gives off "yellowness". Naturally, having thrown in such a topic, you can expect that all this will be in the comments. But why bother? Kohl swung, hit it.
        PS
        And the fact that with ekranoplpny everything is far from being so unambiguous as enthusiastically shown in science pop films is understandable. And in the USSR, I suppose, they were not fools in the ministries who allegedly "chopped down" everything "reasonable, kind, eternal"!
        That's just the research is ongoing, and not only with us ... So there is potential? Which one?
        In short, the article is a typical stuffing.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 17 February 2016 11: 07
          +1
          Quote: Nexus 6
          Here and bring !!! And then, excuse me, but the article gives off "yellowness".

          And what to bring, the Mi-26 weighs 40 tons and carries 20 tons, EKP Eaglet weighs 140 tons carries 20 tons, the speed difference is 100 km. 20/140 = 0,14; 20/40 = 0,5; 0,5 / 0,14 = 3,6.
          400 / 300 = 1,3.
          The Mi-26 has an advantage of mass-carrying capacity of 3,6 times, it loses EPC in speed by 1,3 times.
          The calculation is approximate, the exact will not differ much, + -0,2
          1. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 17 February 2016 15: 36
            0
            Both at what range?
          2. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 17 February 2016 15: 38
            +1
            And why compare the largest helicopter with one of the smallest ekranoplanes?
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 17 February 2016 21: 42
              +1
              Quote: Generalissimo
              And why compare the largest helicopter with one of the smallest ekranoplanes?

              Eaglet? Not so small!
              Wingspan - 31,50 m
              Length - 58,10 m
              Weight:
              empty aircraft - 120000 kg
              maximum take-off - 140000 kg
              1. Generalissimo
                Generalissimo 18 February 2016 19: 01
                0
                For ekranoplan small.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 18 February 2016 12: 18
              0
              Quote: Generalissimo
              Both at what range?

              Quote: Generalissimo
              And why compare the largest helicopter with one of the smallest ekranoplanes?

              1. About the "Eaglet" if you specify the empty mass of 120 tons, the maximum is 140 tons, it turns out that he could only transfer his carcass to a distance of 1500 km without a payload.
              2. Compare KM and An-225.
              1. Generalissimo
                Generalissimo 18 February 2016 19: 05
                0
                It turns out that the fuel is not taken into account. Wikipedia writes about 28 tons. About the lack of payload does not write. How much fuel does the Mi-26 take its maximum load, where is it located, and how far can it carry it?
                With seaplanes, this is always easier.
                Why can the ekranoplan carry 2,5 times more paratroopers than the Mi-26?
          3. esaull
            esaull 17 February 2016 16: 27
            +2
            What nonsense are you talking about, respected KM, take-off mass 544 tones, empty weight 240 tons, cargo weight 304 tons
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 17 February 2016 16: 43
              -3
              544-304 = 240. well done, great, sit down - TWO!
              1. esaull
                esaull 17 February 2016 18: 37
                -1
                are you math bad?
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 17 February 2016 18: 57
                  -3
                  Do you have 10 engines breathing air and dragging 300 tons of cargo without equipment and crew? This is not a load.
            2. Alex_59
              Alex_59 17 February 2016 21: 25
              0
              Quote: esaull
              What nonsense are you talking about, respected KM, take-off mass 544 tones, empty weight 240 tons, cargo weight 304 tons

              take-off mass minus empty mass is NOT equal to cargo mass. For example, IL-76MD take-off weight 190 tons, empty mass 88 tons. According to your load capacity of the IL-76MD 190-88 = 102 tons? This is something new, because in reality it was 47 tons in the early and 50 tons in the later MDs.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 February 2016 05: 31
                -1
                Yes, they do not care. two plus two equals four and niipet
      2. Fat
        Fat 17 February 2016 17: 31
        0
        Quote: BENNERT
        What prevents to give a comparative table of performance characteristics of aircraft and ECP

        At the same time, a comparative table of the apparatus and disasters produced. Also useful data. Desirable over the years
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 21
      0
      From space, my dear human being, there is a practical return. At the same time, manned flights are indeed of little use now, since it is easier to send a robot to fundamentally new engines that can reduce at least interplanetary flights to several days, there will be no sense in sending a couple of people to Mars.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 February 2016 21: 39
      +1
      Quote: surozh
      It is not clear who to believe - the previous articles on "VO" from ekranoplan manufacturers or this author

      Do you believe in advertising - "one drop is enough" or "MIG and the head does not hurt" wink
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 17 February 2016 07: 34
    +6
    For once and for all I completely agree with Oleg. Didn't even need to mention aerodynamics? And about the underlying surface, which "does not matter" (though only for the layman)?
  • Maegrom
    Maegrom 17 February 2016 07: 41
    -1
    For the first time among the articles I read, Oleg’s arguments are not only considered an exercise for a logical dispute, but also quite substantiated in almost all respects. Although, of course, experts know better.
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 17 February 2016 07: 46
    +4
    This debate about the need and effectiveness of ekranoplanes has already been raised. And they came to two inputs:
    a) At that technical level, the construction of ekranoplanes was a breakthrough, but they could not fully implement "as it should". There were simply no necessary materials, engines, calculations. Nevertheless, we gained unique experience in operating large EKPs.
    b) It is foolish to compare the ekranoplan with an airplane or a ship. This is a separate form of transport, which in some conditions is simply indispensable.

    I will not argue further. To cite the facts, too, everything is either in the article, or on the internet, or in the old dispute. Whoever needs to find it.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 17 February 2016 07: 48
    +8
    We are waiting for the following articles:
    1. Aircraft crash and eat fuel - they are useless.
    2. The ship is like a floating coffin.
    3. Coffins on wheels and in armor.
    4. Man unnecessary relic - shoots inaccurately, eats and finally ....
  • Ozhogin Dmitry
    Ozhogin Dmitry 17 February 2016 07: 50
    -4
    Hesitated, then ekranoplans are needed, then they are not needed! Decide there all together, then write!
  • Vadim12
    Vadim12 17 February 2016 07: 52
    +2
    Most likely, the article is custom-made in order to convince readers how everything is very dangerous and scary. So God forbid, Russia has not resumed production of combat ekranoplanes, which are not afraid of mines and torpedoes, and weapons can deliver a lot. The 1600 kg customer is located in Washington.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 08: 10
      +1
      Quote: Vadim12
      ekranoplanes that are not afraid of mines and torpedoes

      But they can be shot from an aircraft gun
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 17 February 2016 08: 35
        +2
        Put on the ECP automatic anti-aircraft installation, the carrying capacity allows. Try it, shoot it.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 17 February 2016 08: 49
          0
          Before arguing about anti-aircraft guns, answer the main question - what are the advantages of this stuffed animal over the Tu-22M

          and with impunity to dump the moon will not become a problem. You can’t put a Zrk on it. Beat at least Mavrikom with 10 km.


          By the way, the mass of the lightest 20-mm Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS installation, with integrated FCS and a swivel gun mount. is five tons.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 17 February 2016 09: 05
            +2
            what are the advantages of this stuffed animal before Tu-22M

            Firstly, I already answered above that it is pointless to compare EPC with an airplane. Different cars, different purposes. Just because they have wings does not mean that they are of the same class.
            Secondly, I was talking about an anti-aircraft gun, and not an air defense system.
            and with impunity to dump the moon will not become a problem. Zrk not put on him

            Thirdly, someone with a load capacity of tens of tons, can not allocate several tons to protect against such vagrants?
            Beat at least Mavrick with 10 km.

            It is also necessary to capture it against the background of the sea, at a speed of 300-400 km / h. EW equipment has also not been canceled.
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 17 February 2016 09: 38
              -3
              Quote: Wedmak
              Different cars, different purposes.

              What is the difference between the purpose of the moon from the Tu-22M?
              Quote: Wedmak
              It is also necessary to capture it against the background of the sea, at a speed of 300-400 km / h

              A known case of helicopter damage using a laser-guided KAB
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 17 February 2016 09: 54
                +4
                What is the difference between the purpose of the moon from the Tu-22M?

                That one Tu-22M carries only 2 X-22 missiles, and Lun - 6 Mosquitoes? Remember, Lun was for the most part an experimental prototype, not a combat serial ECP.
                1. Bennert
                  Bennert 17 February 2016 10: 14
                  0
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  That one Tu-22M carries only 2 X-22 missiles, and Lun - 6 Mosquitoes?

                  Tu-160 carries 12 X-55 cruise missiles

                  at the same time, it has a takeoff weight of 100 tons less than the "Lun"
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 17 February 2016 10: 18
                    +4
                    Quote: BENNERT

                    Tu-160 carries 12 X-55 cruise missiles

                    at the same time, it has a takeoff weight of 100 tons less than the "Lun"

                    And what about the cost of a moon compared to a swan? For the same moon, you need a runway? How else can a swan be used (indeed any attack aircraft), except as a weapon carrier?
                    1. Bennert
                      Bennert 17 February 2016 10: 29
                      +1
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      And the cost of the moon in comparison with the swan?

                      empty moon weight 248 tons
                      empty swan weight 110 tons

                      138 tons of saved materials, guess how it affected the cost
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      For the same moon you need a runway

                      Does Swan need a 100-meter dry dock?

                      Swan is 5 times faster than ekranoplan
                      1. Aqela
                        Aqela 7 March 2016 12: 41
                        0
                        For Lun, however, the materials were applied in a simpler and cheaper way. Even the engines, if I’m not mistaken, are from the decommissioned ones (the stump is clear that the used one is less reliable, less stable, it may not give out 100% power). This is a time.
                        For Swan, as for any such machine, a hangar is desirable, the dimensions of which are quite comparable to a dry dock. This is dvas.
                        Typically, a dry dock is used to perform certain maintenance tasks on the machine, well, like a pit and a set of equipment in a car workshop. This is necessary for each experimental vehicle or a record one (as in Formula 1), but for a production one there may be one for several pieces, say, a squadron. This is tris.
                        By the way, I remind you that the French Leclerc tanks are busy in a special trailer with air conditioning and a bunch of auxiliary equipment. And this is a production car!
                    2. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 17 February 2016 10: 43
                      +2
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      And the cost of the moon in comparison with the swan?

                      Well, you stick on Lun the equipment for the prelaunch preparation of X-55 missiles, thermostat equipment for nuclear warheads, the navigation system for accurate positioning at the time of launch and the price will not differ significantly. Is that a little bit.
                    3. opus
                      opus 17 February 2016 19: 43
                      0
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      And the cost of the moon in comparison with the swan?

                      1. The approximate cost of one Tu-160 in 1993 was $ 250 million
                      2. There is no exact data on "Lun", but the cost of the "Rescuer" project is about $ 90 million

                      If you translate into tons of take-off weight, it is likely that the ekranoplane will lose (and if you apply speed and range = 100%)


                      WIG is not a cheap pleasure

                      The costs of the Central Design Bureau and the pilot plant in the amount of 300 million rubles ONLY to bring to
                      flight status <Eaglet>
                      Cost only dismantling and transportation "Lunya" amounted to 80 million rubles in 2014

                      The ekranoplan crew consisted of 7 officers and 4 contract soldiers (warrant officers). Its autonomy is 5 days.

                      Thermal protection of the fuselage from hot gases when launching rockets: made of the same materials as our Buran




                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Does the same Lunya need a runway?

                      Unlike the "Eaglet", the "Lun" does not have a chassis, only a hydro-ski

                      therefore, he cannot climb ashore on his own. Therefore, he needs a dry floating dock.

                      This dock is towed out into the bay, then plunged several meters (it is possible to dive up to 10 meters) and then the floated ekranoplane is under its own power.
                  2. Fat
                    Fat 17 February 2016 18: 01
                    0
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    Tu-160 carries 12 X-55 cruise missiles
                    at the same time, it has a takeoff weight of 100 tons less than the "Lun"

                    I wonder if the Tu-160 would fly into the air if it was made of steel?
                    1. opus
                      opus 17 February 2016 20: 34
                      0
                      Quote: Thick
                      I wonder if the Tu-160 would fly into the air if it was made of steel?

                      would rise.
                      Normal take-off weight - 267600 kg
                      Landing weight - 140000-155000 kg
                      Empty weight: 110000 kg

                      Thrust-weight ratio - 0,36 (V-1V - 0,25)

                      The main materials of the TU-160 airframe (product 70) - titanium - alloy OT-4 (central fuselage carrier beam 12.4 m long and 2.1 m wide, only up to 20% of the mass of the glider), aluminum heat-treated alloys V-95-T2, AK-4 and VT-6, steel alloys and composite materials (approx. 3% of the mass of the structure)


              2. sso-xnumx
                sso-xnumx 17 February 2016 16: 28
                +1
                Quote: BENNERT
                A known case of helicopter damage using a laser-guided KAB

                In the history of the Second World War, a case of the defeat of a German dive bomb by a 120 mm mortar mine is known. Without any laser guidance. What are you talking about old weapons and experimental devices and mock-ups (KM). So everything in the world can be cheated. Not a word about new materials and technologies. Have you forgotten about the mortar launch? Calculating the mathematical model of the ekranoplan in various flight modes is not so difficult now. Alekseev was not able to do this. Now this opportunity is and needs a person who can realize all this. Although I think you and the new devices will criticize how good they would not be.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2016 11: 24
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              Thirdly, someone with a load capacity of tens of tons, can not allocate several tons to protect against such vagrants?

              Nothing will work that way. The ekranoplan is easily knocked down by any air-to-air missile. And countermeasures do not provide acceptable protection
              Quote: Wedmak
              It is also necessary to capture him against the background of the sea

              Generally no problem, a modern radar that fighter that AWACS will catch instantly. It was in the 80s of the last century that there were problems (as well as with defeat, because the rockets existing at that time did not work very well on ultra-low), but now there are no such problems.
              Quote: Wedmak
              EW equipment has also not been canceled.

              Yes, but today there is no EW guaranteed deflecting EWM today
              Quote: Wedmak
              Different cars, different purposes.

              I still don’t understand what military purpose the ekranoplan might have. Impact? No. Transport or amphibious transport? No. Intelligence service? Three "ha!"
              And then what?
              1. Simple
                Simple 17 February 2016 21: 39
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                Nothing will work that way. The ekranoplan is easily knocked down by any air-to-air missile. And countermeasures do not provide acceptable protection

                Not easy, and not every:
                -Bottom line of defeat 5-15 m
                - as a rule, nganasan is indicated for a helicopter
                -rlgsn rvv will just go crazy with such a goal.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 February 2016 08: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Just
                  The lower boundary of the lesion is 5-15 m

                  Lunya has a height of almost 20 meters + a screen.
                  Quote: Just
                  rlgsn rvv will just go crazy with such a goal.

                  I see absolutely no reason for madness.
                  1. Simple
                    Simple 18 February 2016 15: 14
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Lunya has a height of almost 20 meters + a screen.

                    That's right ... on the keel.
                    5 meters screen.
                    RVV application range (see below) from 800 m-up to 25 m .. belay
                    especially for you, everything is in the table, shoby do not "take a steam bath".

                    trouble.

                    You will nevertheless familiarize yourself with the RVV flight profile, before writing the notorious ah ..
                    And the effect of the underlying surface on the interception of targets on the PMW
                    The methodology for the use of fighters (USSR, Vietnam) against the aircraft of the United States, the results of the Israeli-Arab wars, that the pulse radar Tu-128-4, MiG-25P-40 turned out to be unsuitable for detection, direction finding and guidance on low-flying targets against the background of powerful reflections of its own signal from the underlying surface.Principle of Doppler frequency shift, MiG-23M with Sapfir-23M radar and K-23 missile, monopulse method of radar signal processing, conical scanning method in RGS of AIM-7E missile, etc.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I see absolutely no reason for madness.

                    Well, you're not a GOS?
                    or already?
                    ==================================
                    to assert "any" and "easy" - can only be a blogger who has seen RVV only in a blog, let alone the application ...
  • Belousov
    Belousov 17 February 2016 07: 55
    +4
    Armored? No. Built in the USA? No. Does the US have a technological advantage in the industry? Even after the sale of Soviet developments, no. Conclusion - ekranoplans are catastrophically dangerous for all progressive mankind and they should be fixed. (O. Kaptsov)
    So this article should briefly look like.
    1. Generalissimo
      Generalissimo 17 February 2016 15: 52
      0
      The following article will be about the dangers of verticals. Stopudovo.
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 01
      0
      Good, fit resume! good fellow laughing
  • candidate
    candidate 17 February 2016 08: 21
    0
    . ... It's a pity, but the author got lost
    I mixed everything in a bunch
    Or he overworked
    Ile blundered ...
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 02
      0
      Ага.
      And a brain boil
      Does not bring to the basics.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 17 February 2016 08: 30
    +2
    Is the uselessness of this article on the site considered? Now, if the ekranoplan had a 300mm armored belt, then Oleg would be pleased with these machines!
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 17 February 2016 09: 27
      +1
      If the ekranoplane had an armored belt 300 mm and still flew kilometers 400 per hour, then the military would have been very pleased with it. So your irony is obscure.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 04
        0
        The irony is that it is not about satisfaction of the military, but about satisfaction of citizen Kaptsov.
  • Chukcha
    Chukcha 17 February 2016 08: 46
    0
    I am sure ekranoplanes have their own niche. But searching for this niche can take a long time.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 17 February 2016 09: 48
      +5
      Quote: Chukcha
      I am sure ekranoplanes have their own niche. But searching for this niche can take a long time.

      Rostislav Evgenievich Alekseev is apparently a stupid and not far-sighted person, according to the author of the article. His arguments are the opinion of a person who does not understand the subject of ekranoplanes at all, but eagerly criticizes her.
      For a minute, let's imagine an ekranoplan with a speed of, say, 1000 km, and with a range of a couple of thousand km. At the same time, taking into account stealth technologies, new weapons and many other things that at the time of KM, Lunya and Orlenok were not even heard of. then it would be to hear the "expert" opinion of the author with his "murderous" conclusions.
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 17 February 2016 09: 52
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        For a minute, imagine an ekranoplane with a speed of say 1000 km, and with a radius of action of a couple of thousand km. Moreover, taking into account stealth technologies, new weapons

        Will he have any advantages over the Su-34?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 17 February 2016 09: 55
          +3
          Quote: BENNERT
          Will he have any advantages over the Su-34?

          Yes, for example, carrying capacity and the ability to move everywhere where there is water, and this is two-thirds of the entire Earth’s surface. And the SU-34 is tied to airfields and its carrying capacity and its scope are not even comparable in comparison with the ekranoplan.
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 17 February 2016 10: 17
            -2
            Quote: NEXUS
            and, for example, carrying capacity

            Link Dryers - 32 tons of combat load

            it's more than Lun could raise
            Quote: NEXUS
            and the ability to move everywhere where there is water, and this is two-thirds of the entire surface of the Earth

            the flight of the Su-34 is independent of terrain. It can move over 100% of the earth’s surface.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 17 February 2016 10: 24
              +3
              Quote: BENNERT
              Link Dryers - 32 tons of combat load

              And why are you comparing one Lun to the SUShek link? Why not to the whole squadron?
              Quote: BENNERT
              the flight of the Su-34 is independent of terrain. It can move over 100% of the earth’s surface.

              I repeat, the planes are ATTACHED to the AERODROMOM. And the ekranoplanes do not need this.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 17 February 2016 10: 27
                +4
                YYYY .... one to one posts belay laughing
              2. Bennert
                Bennert 17 February 2016 10: 45
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                why are you comparing one Lun to a link of SUSHEK?

                propose comparing a 40-ton front-line bomber and a 380-ton EPC one on one?

                instead of one Moon you can build at least a link of Sushki
                Quote: NEXUS
                I repeat, the planes are ATTACHED to the AERODROMOM. And the ekranoplanes do not need this.

                do not scream, wake everyone in the morning

                Ekranoplanes are tied to naval bases, what's next
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2016 11: 32
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                I repeat, the planes are ATTACHED to the AERODROMOM. And the ekranoplanes do not need this.

                Yes, they are tied to 100-meter docks. But here's the thing - we have airfields, and a lot, because civil airfields can be used as a jump airfield. But heaps of 100-meter docks we do not have
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 17 February 2016 21: 43
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But heaps of 100-meter docks we do not have

                  How many years of development has aviation counted, and how many are winged wing development? In your opinion, it turns out that all this does not need to be developed, because only everything is at the very beginning.
                  You propose to wait until the same mattresses or the Chinese will master the technologies, topics and find application well enough, and then we will "scratch the pumpkin" and suddenly remember that we were the pioneers, and we will stubbornly catch up with everyone, screaming, "how could we miss such a thing" ?!
                  1. Großer feldherr
                    Großer feldherr 17 February 2016 22: 28
                    -3
                    No, this topic does not need to be developed for other reasons, which are often called expediency. aviation became popular even before its appearance, as soon as people realized that it was possible, designers around the world immediately appeared trying to make their first flight, after a few years, aviation took an active part in the world war.
                    But you should not wait for the weather near the sea, as well as hope that the leading technological powers will lag behind us. The union was at about the same level as the west, but now we are catching up, it is time to realize this.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 17 February 2016 22: 38
                      +3
                      Quote: Großer Feldherr
                      No, this topic does not need to be developed for other reasons, which are often called expediency.

                      And what is the inexpediency of ekranoplanes, did you immediately determine? Did you "dig" and study this topic so deeply? Or does it just seem so to you and you speak about your personal opinion?
                      Let us recall the invention of machine guns and, in particular, the Maxim machine gun. Do you know its cost at that time? Or the invention of the first tanks? How many smart people were against such "adventures". Smart people of that time spoke expensively, inexpediently. There are a lot of examples. But when the Chinese, mattresses, Koreans begin to build them in large quantities and define their niche and application for them, we will remember Alekseev and, realizing ourselves, will, as usual, stubbornly and heroically catch up with the West.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 18 February 2016 05: 48
                        +1
                        compare: what path has a machine gun, aviation and EP been in 80 years! "budding" lol
                    2. efendia
                      efendia 18 February 2016 07: 59
                      0
                      Well, yes, and it is not necessary to develop civil aviation, it is better to buy it from "Western friends". Why bother ourselves if there is a Boeing and an airbus.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 February 2016 08: 19
                    0
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    You suggest you wait until the same mattresses or the Chinese master the technology, topics and find application quite well

                    Well, why? You can save the design bureau, you can (and should!) Set tasks for them, even if they knowingly are undecided now and let their well-trained foreheads wrinkle themselves, and the paper-cutters on culmans translate :))) Just until the technologies ripen, be limited to R&D
                    1. Aqela
                      Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 33
                      0
                      According to this logic, the Wright brothers had to wait for the start of industrial smelting of duralumin. About the development of Mozhaisk with a steam engine in general then do not remember ...
                      Technology development increases efficiency, while the inventions themselves are made at the old level of technology. Compare the Maxim machine gun on the gun mount of the field gun and the Kalashnikov machine gun under the same cartridge and also with tape power. There is a difference?
                      Old machine gun
                  3. Aqela
                    Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 25
                    0
                    Radio Popov and the Cherepanovs steam engine are a good example of this.
                2. Aqela
                  Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 24
                  0
                  An argument at the level "I did not drink cognac, so there is no such drink at all!"
                  And you do not know that when taking equipment into service, the appropriate infrastructure is made for it in the places of basing?
                  And in general, before the adoption of the T-64 / T-72 / T-80 tanks, shells for the 125-mm smoothbore gun were not issued at all. Is this a reason not to start producing tanks? belay
              4. Aqela
                Aqela 7 March 2016 13: 18
                0
                I think it would be even more interesting to compare the carrying capacity not of the Su-shek link, but of the entire bomber and transport aircraft of Russia and the entire fleet of ekranoplanes again in Russia. I believe that the picture would be even more impressive! fellow
                BENNERT somehow does not take into account that at maximum bomb load the radius of the aircraft is significantly reduced. So in real life, the load is noticeably less. In addition, the useful area of ​​application of various aviation systems is far from 100%, because represents a number of points - the location of the airfield with a suitable runway + maintenance (a modern jet bomber is not Po-2, cannot be prepared for departure on a rural field) + radius of action at the required load with and without hanging fuel tanks. Those. not just not 100%, but not even 50% ... sad At the same time, an ekranoplan-amphibian, having flown too far, having spent fuel, can quite sit on the water and wait for a tanker to refuel.
                By the way, about the excitement and other troubles. And what, all planes can take off and land in any weather
            2. Wedmak
              Wedmak 17 February 2016 10: 26
              0
              it's more than Lun could raise

              And why do you compare the link SUShek and one Lun? And if Lun were revived in a modern guise, and instead of Mosquitoes would he have Caliber?
              Or something like a MLRS? To attack the coast, it’s the most: flies over the horizon, releases a bunch of rockets and hides just as quickly. Not a single coastal battery can react.
              the flight of the Su-34 is not dependent on the terrain.

              But it depends heavily on the availability of airfields.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2016 11: 34
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                And if Lun revived in a modern guise

                He is well in the afterlife, why get him out of there? :)
                Quote: Wedmak
                Or something like a MLRS? To attack the coast, it’s the most: flies over the horizon, releases a bunch of rockets and hides just as quickly. Not a single coastal battery can react.

                Aviation will do better.
                1. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 17 February 2016 19: 39
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Aviation will do better.

                  EP to some extent low-flying aircraft.
                  M. b. single-mode - flies on the "screen" because of this, in front of conventional aircraft has a large carrying capacity. M. b. dual-mode - to go to the height. Then, in terms of characteristics, it approaches amphibians.
                  As for the bulkiness and large "dry" mass - KM and Lung were produced in the era of "metal" aviation. So what, when using composites, carbon plastics ... even titanium - even my grandmother said in two what the performance characteristics of EP and amphibians would be. All new hull materials are not afraid of water, so "luminium" vis "cast iron" - remained in the last century.
                  And regarding the application - "mobile weapon platform" - the same long-range missile launchers, or a mobile air defense line with a long-range range of 400-800 km with target designation.

                  As well as PGRK, BZHRK and DA are capable of creating at the right time the "effect of uncertainty" in the foe. ChiTD.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 February 2016 09: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    EP to some extent low-flying aircraft.

                    Fully:)
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    M. b. single-mode - flies on the "screen" due to this, in front of conventional aircraft has a large payload.

                    Let's get a look. WIG Lun - empty weight - 243 tons, carries 6 "mosquitoes" of 4 tons each = 24 tons in total
                    Tu-160 - 110 tons, ammunition - either 12 X-55SM (at 1,455 tons / unit) or 24 X-15 (1,1 tons / unit) i.e. 17,46-26,4 tons
                    At the same time, the Tu-160 flies at a cruising speed of about 850 km / h, the maximum is 2200 km, the Lun is at most 500. The practical range for the Lun is 2000 km, and for the Tu-160 is 12300 km.
                    Conclusion. The Tu-160, being two times lighter than the Moon, carries a combat load comparable to that of the moon six times more than the Moon, and does it twice as fast.
                    Where is the break? :)
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    So, when using composites, carbon plastics ... even titanium - the grandmother said in two what the performance characteristics of EP and amphibians would be

                    And what kind of performance characteristics of the aircraft will be when applying all of the above - it’s scary to imagine :))) The Tu-160 and the lunar are peers, so if both of them are converted to a new modern technological base, the gap will remain
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    And regarding the application - "mobile weapons platform"

                    Nothing that the Tu-160 will cope with this task an order of magnitude better? Nothing that the Tu-160, standing in the center of Russia, is capable of organizing itself in a few hours to strike at ANY theater? How can this be compared with the moon, with its hardly 1000 km of combat radius?
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    As well as PGRK, BZHRK and DA are capable of creating at the right time the "effect of uncertainty" in the foe. ChiTD.

                    The adversary will not know what to laugh at first?
                    Conventional mine ICBMs in the center of Russia are practically unattainable for a disarming strike. No, let's roll the BZHRK ... all the more so since no one will roll them in fact - they will be in the bases. Three times worse protected than mine. But money for development and maintenance will go away - a lot.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 February 2016 12: 05
                      +1
                      There is a minus, fine laughing
                      And will there be a counter-argument?
          2. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 17 February 2016 13: 22
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            wherever there is water

            Ekranoplan (from the screen + [aero] plan; in the official Soviet classification, a dynamic hovercraft) is a high-speed vehicle, an apparatus flying within the aerodynamic shield, that is, at a relatively small (up to several meters) height from the surface of water, land, snow or ice.
            1. opus
              opus 17 February 2016 22: 23
              0
              Quote: ShadowCat
              land, snow or ice.

              try to take off on an ekranoplane with
              Quote: ShadowCat
              land, snow or ice.

              Runway strip (
              Quote: Wedmak
              highly dependent on the availability of airfields

              or skis (and the regiment to clear the rammer) or skates (and the regiment to fill, clean) = needed
              = circle closed
          3. opus
            opus 17 February 2016 22: 20
            -1
            Quote: NEXUS
            and the ability to move everywhere where there is water, and this is two-thirds of the entire surface

            The trouble:
            floodplains
            coastal zone of the seas / oceans
            ALL THESE are places of accumulation / residence (habitat easier) birds




            PIPE DO WIG.
            / or only in winter on the rivers
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 17 February 2016 22: 28
              +2
              Quote: opus
              ALL THESE are places of accumulation / residence (habitat easier) birds

              The aircraft also have a problem with birds. And the second, where did you get the idea that it is in such places that the ekranoplanes will be based or moved?
              I repeat, ekranoplans is a completely unexplored topic, and therefore the application has not been studied or determined either. What Mosquitoes have attached to them, it means finding solutions for the effectiveness of the application. This was the BEGINNING! But if it is not developed and not studied, then everything will remain at the level of the 70s and memories of the Moon, Orlyonok and KM.
              1. opus
                opus 18 February 2016 02: 25
                -1
                Quote: NEXUS
                And the second, where did you get the idea that it is in such places that the ekranoplanes will be based or moved?

                and where should they be based if not on the coast (moreover, a canopy, a marshy estuary? 0 seas / oceans?

                all the creators of the ekranoplanes said they would fly along the riverbed, there the birds died ...
                Quote: NEXUS
                In LA, too, there is a problem with birds.


                when taking off. above 3 km and you rarely see an eagle.
                Quote: NEXUS
                I repeat, ekranoplanes is a completely unexplored topic, and therefore, their application is also not studied and uncertain

                During experimental flights in 1932 at a low altitude over the North Sea of ​​the heavy Dornier Do X twelve-engine aircraft, whose wing had a significant chord, a decrease in aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption was noticed.

                In 1935, the Finnish engineer T. Kaario built the first experimental ekranoplan - a towed vehicle using a snowmobile. At it, Caario studied the possibilities of using the screen effect.

                One of the first domestic theoretical works related to the study of the screen effect is the work of B.N. St. George's "Influence of the earth on the aerodynamic properties of the wing".

                In the 1930s V.V. Golubev, Y.M. Serebriysky, S.Ya. Biyachuev and others conducted theoretical studies of the screen effect.


                ekranoplans a little younger than aircraft
            2. xtur
              xtur 18 February 2016 10: 58
              -1
              > - river floodplains
              > - coastal area of ​​seas / oceans
              > ALL THESE are places of congregation / residence (habitat is simpler) birds

              I tried to imagine the amount of meat in kg, which is scattered precisely in the floodplains of the rivers and in the coastal zone of the sea / oceans and covers this entire zone, as follows from your assumption.
              So, it is obvious that with so much free meat, the humanity of the earth and nafig will never have to deal with agriculture, it’s enough to just soak all these birds.

              Generally speaking, since the floodplain is directly related to management, all this has long been calculated - the area of ​​the floodplain, and the surface of the coastal zone of the sea / oceans, and the number of birds living there - that means, if you want to give an argument, not sharpness, you need to find these numbers and bring them.
              For now, consider it a demonstration of wit



              Threat. reading the arguments of opponents of EP, the feeling that you are present at the KVN, and not at the discussion of a technical issue does not leave
              1. opus
                opus 18 February 2016 12: 54
                0
                Quote: xtur
                While we consider it demonstration of wit

                Yes, I agree.
                Especially such
                Quote: xtur
                I tried to imagine the amount of meat in kg, which is scattered precisely in the floodplains of the rivers and in the coastal zone
                - demonstration of "wit", or rather the lack thereof and "skill" as well.
                can you share the results "counted"?
                scraps of paper, a report card in exel? Come on. DARE.
                Or just a bunch?
                ====================
                help? I can provide data on "meat". What region are you interested in?

                - In the steppe zone, the nesting density of waterfowl reaches 44,2 pairs per 100 ha of water bodies, and in August their number increases on average to 2,6 thousand individuals per 100 ha. The background species on the water bodies of the steppe are mallard, teal-cracker. Constantly inhabited here are coot, pegans, fire-hens, gray goose, mute swan. Among the wetland habitats of the region, forest bogs with sizes from 5 to 50 ha are of the greatest importance. Here mallard, teal, gray duck, black-headed black nest, coot nest. Fish breeders and mill ponds attract mallard, gray duck, black-headed black, and teal-whistle for nesting.
                - In the years of medium and high water cut, the total reserves of waterfowl after the breeding season range from 0,4 to 0,9 million.
                - Based on all available data, the averaged version of the estimates of the summer number of waterfowl for a favorable period of the state of the region’s water bodies was calculated - 1,73 million individuals. A decrease in the number of waterfowl in the region occurs in dry years, against the background of a decrease in the area of ​​water bodies and a deterioration in their quality as habitats.

                -95% of all seabirds breed in colonies, the size of which can reach record values ​​among birds and constitute an impressive natural sight.


                river


                If in 1973 an African vulture collided with a civilian plane over Côte d'Ivoire at an altitude of 11 mwhat to say about the ekranoplan
                1. xtur
                  xtur 18 February 2016 22: 28
                  0
                  > In the steppe zone, the nesting density of waterfowl reaches 44,2 pairs per 100 hectares of water bodies, and in August their number increases to an average of 2,6 thousand individuals per 100 hectares

                  for a person known on the forum as familiar with physics, it is simply indecent to give data on the density of a parameter, and not to give data, at least on a common surface.

                  > can you share the results "counted"?
                  scraps of paper

                  I can quickly sketch on awk too, I can write a program in some other programming language, depending on the task

                  > table in exel? Come on. BOLDER.

                  Well, why did it go, why do I need a pirated exel when there is free LibreOffice Calc?

                  And yes - give the result of calculating the number of birds
                  should be the one who put forward the thesis, and the thesis (that in the floodplains and coastal waters of the seas / oceans is full of birds) was put forward by the forum participant opus


                  I will only then multiply the total number of birds that this participant will represent by the average of all birds.
                  1. opus
                    opus 19 February 2016 01: 47
                    0
                    Quote: xtur
                    at least about the general surface.

                    everything does not fit, it is not real.
                    There, for each region, research
                    Quote: xtur
                    I can quickly sketch on awk, I can also program

                    I prefer C #.
                    I want to learn Ruby on Rails. They pay more for it.
                    Yes and finally


                    Quote: xtur
                    and the thesis (that in floodplains and coastal waters of the seas / oceans is full of birds) was put forward by a member of the Opus forum

                    1. they are full there: there insects will be born, frogs, tadpoles, caviar, fish and the fish itself, worms, crabs, etc.
                    Nothing to do in the open ocean
                    2. The thesis was not about birds at all.
                    And the fact that the birds interfere with ekranoplanes in their places of basing. Strong.
                    And in the coastal zone there are quite large birds


                    What do you think, why did you suffer to put this grill (against sea spray? This is an attempt (unsuccessful at that) to solve the problem that they missed
                    2.You walk on the ground, speed 5km / h. In summer (in summer, it’s like in the coastal zone or in the riverbed / floodplain). The chance to run into a copar / fly bug is minimal, but it does.
                    Run is increasing.
                    On the autobahn, the windshield and headlights will be in the meat, scrubbing every 100 km.
                    The same with birds and with EP
        2. Fat
          Fat 17 February 2016 18: 11
          +3
          Quote: BENNERT
          Quote: NEXUS
          For a minute, imagine an ekranoplane with a speed of say 1000 km, and with a radius of action of a couple of thousand km. Moreover, taking into account stealth technologies, new weapons

          Will he have any advantages over the Su-34?

          I wonder what might be the advantages of 1 kg of pasta compared to 2 kg of veal tenderloin?
      2. opus
        opus 18 February 2016 02: 32
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        For a minute, imagine an ekranoplane with a speed of say 1000 km, and with a radius of action of a couple of thousand km.

        1000km / h at an altitude of 10 meters?
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 18 February 2016 07: 07
          0
          Quote: opus
          1000km / h at an altitude of 10 meters?

          Everyman is new to the distribution of air density over the height. smile
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 18 February 2016 09: 18
            +1
            Quote: Alex_59
            Everyman is new to the distribution of air density over the height.

            Dear, I know about air density. If you read my post carefully, you will probably see the words-
            imagine for a minute
            .
            And by the way, do you know the speed record on land? In 97 in the USA -1 227,986 km / h. And this is on wheels.
            1. opus
              opus 18 February 2016 13: 06
              0
              Quote: NEXUS
              In 97 in the USA -1 227,986 km / h. And this is on wheels.

              You are on "wheels" then compare the MID with an ekranoplan.





              Question will disappear immediately.
              And fall away again - if you pay attention thrust-to-weight ratio

              2x Rolls-Royce Spey for a 5 ton "car"?
              Isn't it easier than 2x Rolls-Royce Spey on the British version of the F-4 Phantom?


              still 26 tons versus 5 for the trust

              Mass: 10,5 tons / 2x 91,2 kN (18240 tons)
              And if the ekranoplan will have the SAME thrust-to-weight ratio (power) as Thrust SSC ....
              it will be enough for 1 measured nautical mile.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 February 2016 15: 04
                +1
                not even enough for a mile. goryuchk will end before going to the screen request
  • Irgy
    Irgy 17 February 2016 09: 00
    0
    Comrade Kaptsov, just a mile from your competence!
  • tolancop
    tolancop 17 February 2016 09: 02
    13
    I began to read with interest. But by the middle of the material, I already guessed whose last name would appear below: the author cannot be denied the absence of style.
    I don't like materials from Kaptsov. Already too broad a "specialist" - and in military shipbuilding, he understands everything and in flying things too. It is obvious that the author is another "expert".
    Specifically for the material. It is obvious that ekranoplanes have disadvantages. Only this is not a reason to write off this type of equipment for scrap. There are countless examples: in the 30s of the 20th century, the Hindenburg disaster put a bold cross on airships. It seemed forever ... But 40-50 years passed and the issues of building airships began to be considered by very serious offices, since along with the shortcomings, airships have their own advantages. The emergence of new materials, the development of science and technology, may well revive previously condemned ideas. We have already written about helicopters. Concerning the catastrophes of ekranoplanes ... I first read about them in "TM" in the 80s. Among other things, it mentioned the problem of training ekranoplan pilots. I don't remember literally, but the essence is this: it is categorically impossible to use pilots as pilots of ekranoplanes. The pilots have developed a reflex - in case of danger, go to climb. The reception is correct for aircraft, but absolutely unsuitable for ekranoplanes. And trying to suppress the reflex developed by the pilots is useless, it's easier to train a new person from scratch. The danger of hooking a surface with a plane is not an easy question, but theoretically it is quite solvable. The current systems of automation (autopilots, etc.) 40-50 years ago, seemed fantastic, but ... people worked.
    The danger of a sudden obstacle to the ekranoplan is not funny: the author mentions the ease of detection by the radar of any trifle, but immediately refuses to the radars the ability to track the navigation situation.
    Comparison of an ekranoplan with land aircraft, IMHO, is generally incorrect, if we compare it with amphibians, and then the gap in characteristics will probably be more modest.
    T.ch. put an end to ekranoplanes, IMHO, should not. We must work, look for a niche for their application.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 17 February 2016 09: 14
      0
      We must work, look for a niche for their application.

      What to look for her? Rescuer, shock, anti-submarine, scout. To some extent, it’s useful for a landing. Perhaps the landing of sabotage groups.
      And for civilian use, it can completely replace passenger river and sea transportation on medium-range routes. Were on the rivers SPK (hydrofoil ships). Something no one complained that he did not fit into the turn of the river or broke off wings stranded. The speeds are comparable.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 17 February 2016 09: 29
        +8
        Quote: Wedmak
        Rescuer

        How do you imagine an ekranoplan rescuer? Sea lifeguard? As a rule, troubles at sea happen in a storm. My imagination does not allow me to imagine how such an ekranoplane will look for a ship in distress among many-meter waves. Well, God bless him, he detects (if their beacon is turned on), he will find it. And then what? He will not be able to land on the sea due to the high storm wave. Any transport aircraft (IL-76, An-12) can drop a PSN or a boat, the latter arriving several times faster, and the probability of a successful search from an airplane located high above the horizon is several times higher.
        Quote: Wedmak
        shock
        Why is it better than classical aviation? Lun, weighing 380 tons, carries 6 Mosquitoes. 6 Su-34 carry the same load. But Su-34 can also bomb terrorists in desert Syria, and Lun cannot. Moreover, the Su-34, if necessary, will fly as low as Lun flies, but much faster. And if necessary, they can fly high, can maneuver, evade enemy missiles. What will Lun do when attacking enemy fighters against him? I’m even afraid to think.
        Quote: Wedmak
        anti-submarine
        He will not have omitted GAS. It's impossible. So it will throw buoys, like IL-38. Then why is it better than the IL-38 itself, which flies faster and higher, and can examine many times the greater area of ​​the sea at the same time?
        Quote: Wedmak
        Scout
        Scouts do not fly at 10 meters from the ground, because at 10 meters from the ground, only the crests of the nearest waves are visible. And in optics and in radar. A scout must be able to climb high in order to look into the distance 100-200 km, which the ekranoplan cannot by definition.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 17 February 2016 09: 48
          +1
          My imagination does not allow me to imagine how such an ekranoplane will look for a ship in distress among many-meter waves in a stormy sea

          In a stormy sea, it’s generally a problem to find and save someone. Even if you throw the boat out of the transporter, she will not be able to approach the ship in distress. But very often the storm is still experienced and the helpless ship hangs out in the ocean for a couple of days, waiting for the ships to come to the rescue. ECP can be splashed nearby and remove the crew.
          Lun, weighing 380 tons, carries 6 Mosquitoes. 6 Su-34 carry the same load.

          Super. We will not indicate when Lun and Mosquitoes were created, and when Su-34. And the fact that the Su-34 has never been worn by Mosquitoes. True, such an opportunity was offered in the version of Su-32FN.
          But not the point. The bottom line is that aviation is not always able to fulfill its tasks. Not all air defense will get attacking EPC. Moreover, in order to launch Mosquito the aircraft needs to gain altitude by substituting itself under the impact of an air defense system.
          He will not have omitted GAS

          What for? Buoys + magnetometric equipment. You will not argue that the latter works better near water than at the height of the patrol IL-38N? Moreover, IL can easily detect radar.
          Scouts do not fly at 10 meters from the ground, because at 10 meters from the ground, only the crests of the nearest waves are visible. And in optics and in radar.

          Oh really? From an altitude of 10 meters + radar altitude + speed can be seen much farther than from a ship quietly heading on course. Again, different theaters of war suggest different techniques.
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 17 February 2016 09: 57
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            than at the height of the patrol IL-38N?

            I do not know how anti-submarine silt

            But the height of Orion's patrol is 100 feet (30 meters). They usually overwhelmed the windows of the cab so that you have to work as janitors. And one of the four motors is usually turned off - to save fuel
            From a height of 10 meters + altitude of the radar + speed can be seen much further than from a ship that is walking quietly on course.

            Can you imagine how far you can see from the drone, from a height of 18 meters

            MQ-4C "Triton". Takeoff weight 15 tons. The UAV is capable of flying at an altitude of 18 thousand meters 24 hours, exploring during this time 4 million square kilometers surface of the ocean.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 17 February 2016 10: 30
              +1
              MQ-4C "Triton". Takeoff weight 15 tons.

              Yes, damn it, why do you compare 2000's devices with 1980's devices? Intelligence is also different.
            2. opus
              opus 18 February 2016 18: 46
              0
              Quote: BENNERT
              But the height of Orion's patrol is 100 feet (30 meters).

              P-3C "Orion", generallypatrolling at a speed of 380 km / h at a height of 150 m with good visibilityand and at an altitude of 600 m - with a bad one.

              By doing typical task to search for a submarine he can patrol at an altitude of 450 m for 3 hours. 2870 km away from the airfield. Flight to patrol area at an altitude of 5400 - 7200 m

              From 30 meters (10-storey building), radio-hydroacoustic buoys, homing anti-submarine torpedoes Mk.43 / 44/46, depth (including nuclear "Lulu") and conventional high-explosive bombs - you can drop the FIG at a speed of 380 km / h.
              They don’t enter the water, it’s not a helicopter
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 17 February 2016 10: 15
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            Even if you throw the boat off the transporter, she will not be able to approach the ship in distress
            You just don't know. The Fregat boat was radio-controlled. Although in practice, both the "Fregat" (Tu-16), and the "Ruff" (An-12PS) and "Gagara" (Il-76MDPS) also proved to be not very successful rescue systems.
            Quote: Wedmak
            Moreover, in order to launch Mosquito the aircraft needs to gain altitude by substituting itself under the impact of an air defense system.
            Yes, the plane needs to gain altitude, turn on the radar, capture the target and launch the rocket. All is logical. How Lun will work (and in general a military ekranoplan with RCC) is completely incomprehensible. Where will he get info about goals? He cannot jump to heights like the Su-34. The funds of its central office are limited by the radio horizon, i.e. near 10-15 km. Those. he will use RCC as a pistol for firing at the temple. If someone lets him on these 15 km to himself ...
            Quote: Wedmak
            Buoys + magnetometric equipment.
            Only buoys. A magnetometer is such ... how to put it mildly ... a wunderwaffle. According to the anti-submarine pilots, they can detect the submarine if they fly over it 10 meters above the water, and it will be exactly under the plane at a perescopic depth. Otherwise ... well, only for the bosses in the reports to write about successful contacts so as not to upset. Read Artemyev's Il-38 against missile submarines. The incredible capabilities of anti-submarine aircraft from a person who have flown them all his life are very eloquently described there.
            Quote: Wedmak
            From a height of 10 meters + radar height + speed

            The radio horizon with a radiation source at a height of 2 meters at zero wave is 12,5 km. By raising the radiation source up to 10 meters, you can increase the radio horizon up to 18,5 km. Cool. While the same Su-34 flying at an altitude of only 500 meters already has a radio horizon range of about 80 kilometers. As for "+ speed" - I don't know what I'm talking about at all, the speed does not affect the range of radio emission and its ability to bend around objects in any way.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 17 February 2016 10: 41
              +2
              Where will he get info about goals?

              TsU for missiles, as it would be possible to start up in coordinates. And who will give TsU Su-34?
              Those. he will use RCC as a pistol for firing at the temple. If someone lets him on these 15 km to himself ...

              And who will let the Su-34 in? You compare Lun 80's and Su-34 2000's. Hence the misconception about the possibilities of EPC. What makes you think that the ECP will generally be suitable for 15 km? It has the ability to carry more powerful missiles than airplanes and move faster than ships. Hence it is necessary to dance.
              Su-34 flying at an altitude of only 500 meters already has a radio horizon range of about 80 kilometers.

              Why are you attached to Su-34? His radar generally only looks forward, and you can put omnidirectional on the EPC. And by speed, I meant the area of ​​the surveyed territory in one go on patrol.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 17 February 2016 11: 13
                +3
                Quote: Wedmak
                TsU for rockets, as it would be possible to start up and coordinate
                According to the coordinates taken before the launch of the RCC - it is possible. But not before leaving the base at sea. Those. for example, the ekranoplanes connection leaves Polyarny to catch AUG somewhere in the Norwegian Sea, they know the coordinates of this AUG before going out - these coordinates were obtained, for example, using the Tu-22MP or Tu-95RC. With this info EC go to the target area .... and there they must somehow do additional reconnaissance immediately not far from the enemy’s AUG, without giving out their appearance by approaching the target to dangerous 15 km. They need to somehow find the bearing and range, at least approximately. Who will provide them? Space can, of course. But space is provided by the control center and nuclear submarines, and NK, and aviation. If space has been cut down (all the satellites of reconnaissance intelligence have been knocked down!) Or is it just that the satellite is now at the wrong turn and you need to wait half a day for it to arrive in the zone? The submarines can wait. Surface ships will lift helicopters for additional reconnaissance (Ka-25RC). Aviation will jump and review its radar. And what will the ekranoplan do? That is the question! He doesn’t have helicopters, he can’t jump, wait half a day - the fuel will run out or even be discovered and killed ...
                Quote: Wedmak
                And by speed, I meant the area of ​​the surveyed territory in one go on patrol.

                Aviation unequivocally covers all but the satellite in the area of ​​the surface under examination.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 17 February 2016 11: 25
                  +1
                  All this is true only if we are talking about the first type of EPC. He really can’t do a jump, although the flight altitude is still slightly changing. But the second type, a cross between an ekranoplan and an ekranolet, can do a jump. This time.
                  Second: on the ECP, you can put an UAV providing a control center. Everything. The problem is resolved.
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 17 February 2016 12: 07
                    0
                    Quote: Wedmak
                    All this is true only if we are talking about the first type of EPC. He really can’t do a jump, although the flight altitude is still slightly changing. But the second type, a cross between an ekranoplan and an ekranolet, can do a jump. This time.
                    Second: on the ECP, you can put an UAV providing a control center. Everything. The problem is resolved.

                    This is all like trying to wag a dog. That is, we have ECP, now we need to give birth to tasks for him. This is somewhat absurd. In fact, one must have the courage to admit to himself that ECP (like SVP and amphibians of type A-40 or Be-200) has a very, very narrow corridor of application possibilities. All they can do is carry medium-tonnage loads (50-100 tons) over a level surface in conditions where speed is required more than the ship, but cheaper than the plane. This is clearly not a military field of application. To transport spare parts to the gas workers over the tundra is just that. To carry small parties of shift workers in the same place. Rescue fishermen from ice floes not in stormy conditions (here again, SVPs have already firmly established themselves). Small ECPs are commercial passenger transportation of local importance, as a competitor to An-2 or L-410. For example, the Volgograd-Saratov flight along the Volga - tickets will be cheaper than on the L-410, and the speed is almost the same.
                    1. Bennert
                      Bennert 17 February 2016 12: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      For example, the Volgograd-Saratov flight along the Volga - tickets will be cheaper than on the L-410, and the speed is almost the same.

                      First, let him learn how to pass under the supports of the Volgograd bridge
                      and then a dam in the north of the city awaits him.
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 17 February 2016 14: 12
                        -2
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        First, let him learn how to pass under the supports of the Volgograd bridge
                        and then a dam in the north of the city awaits him.

                        Well, it's basically solvable. The width of the locks is more than 30 meters, the EKP can land in front of the lock and be locked as a displacement vessel, the dimensions are quite sufficient. Another thing is that then the speed of its movement will drop sharply and aviation will again win. In addition, you have to pay for sluicing, 10 years ago about 50 thousand rubles were taken for the passage of a vessel of the "lake" type. Which immediately raises the ticket price. My thought was precisely that the EKP shipping port would be higher than the dam and would avoid all this ernuda with EKP sluicing. Well, under the pillars of the bridge, I think it will definitely pass. I'm talking about a small EKP for 15-20 seats.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 17 February 2016 12: 03
                  +4
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Those. for example, the ekranoplanes connection leaves Polyarny to catch AUG somewhere in the Norwegian Sea, they know the coordinates of this AUG before going out - these coordinates were obtained for example using the Tu-22MP or Tu-95RC. With this info EC go to the target area .... and there they must somehow do additional reconnaissance immediately not far from the enemy’s AUG, without giving out their appearance by approaching the target to a dangerous 15 km.

                  I am afraid that in this case everything will be much sadder.
                  The fact is that all the theses on the low visibility of ekranoplanes were based on one postulate - the enemy has nothing in the air. Then yes - for shipborne radar ekranoplan due to the low altitude is not noticeable.
                  In the case of AUG or even KUG, an aircraft with a radar will always be in the air - either an AWAC or a simple basic patrol. And for him, the ekranoplan’s flight altitude doesn’t matter - since the goal of such epic dimensions is extremely difficult to miss even with a conventional on-board fighter / striker radar.
                  In fact, from the point of view of an aircraft radar, an ekranoplane is no different from a very fast missile boat.
                  So they will find it even at distant approaches. And a dangerous rapprochement with the AUG for an ekranoplan will be approaching 300 miles to it. smile

                  Well, then - the time will come for some "Super Phoenix" - long-range heavy RVV with improved target selection on MV and PMV. However, given the dimensions of the ekranoplan and its maneuverability, it will be extremely difficult to lose grip (EMNIP, even the original Phoenixes were created from the calculation of hitting much smaller and more maneuverable targets - long-range anti-ship missiles and carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles of the WB).
              2. pv1005
                pv1005 17 February 2016 12: 29
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                Where will he get info about goals?

                TsU for missiles, as it would be possible to start up in coordinates. And who will give TsU Su-34?
                Those. he will use RCC as a pistol for firing at the temple. If someone lets him on these 15 km to himself ...

                And who will let the Su-34 in? You compare Lun 80's and Su-34 2000's. Hence the misconception about the possibilities of EPC. What makes you think that the ECP will generally be suitable for 15 km? It has the ability to carry more powerful missiles than airplanes and move faster than ships. Hence it is necessary to dance.
                Su-34 flying at an altitude of only 500 meters already has a radio horizon range of about 80 kilometers.

                Why are you attached to Su-34? His radar generally only looks forward, and you can put omnidirectional on the EPC. And by speed, I meant the area of ​​the surveyed territory in one go on patrol.

                Dear you about the fact that we have a man on suspenders who escaped falling from the fifth floor, but the suspenders had to be thrown away, and they that pop from the bell tower fell off and galoshes were whole. So in their version, rubber on galoshes is much better. And they cannot prove the opposite. hi
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2016 11: 41
        +2
        Quote: Wedmak
        What to look for her? Rescuer, shock, anti-submarine, scout

        As a lifeguard, he obviously loses to a helicopter or amphibian. Like a percussionist - obviously loses to the missile carrier. As an anti-submarine, it is generally insolvent and has no advantages over PLO airplanes / helicopters. As a scout, it’s a complete and absolute zero, since the low flight altitude and design features do not allow you to place and use the same search radar - it will be too low above sea level.
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 17 February 2016 09: 15
      +5
      Quote: tolancop
      T.ch. put an end to ekranoplanes, IMHO, should not. We must work, look for a niche for their application.

      The worst thing is when our developments come back from there, like, as if they were invented, the same Pentium-Pentkovsky, but we are such "creators of public opinion" as Kaptsov obscure our eyes with various near-real nonsense and minor solvable problems.
      We must believe in the creative power of our people and their best part of the engineering staff and highly skilled workers who will do EVERYTHING, if only they would not interfere ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 17 February 2016 12: 05
        +2
        Quote: Sveles
        We must believe in the creative power of our people and their best part of the engineering staff and highly skilled workers who will do EVERYTHING, if only they would not interfere ...

        Yeah ... they also believed in Dyrenkov, Kurchevsky, Taubin.
    3. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 17 February 2016 09: 59
      0
      use pilots as pilots ekranoplanes is strictly impossible. The pilots have developed a reflex - in case of danger, go to climb. For airplanes, the reception is correct, but for ekranoplanes it is absolutely unsuitable.
      They faced the same problem when they began to test vertical take-off aircraft; as a result, helicopter pilots became testers.
  • kvs207
    kvs207 17 February 2016 09: 09
    +3
    I read somewhere that specially trained people should be "pilots" of ekranoplanes, but not pilots who transfer the skill of piloting an airplane to an ekranoplan.
  • efendia
    efendia 17 February 2016 09: 12
    +2
    Whole article - blah blah blah. Where is the comparative table with the characteristics, including the structural materials used, with links to the source? Why is there no comparison with SVP, flying boats, which are closer to the ekranoplanes functionally? Of course, I can rummage through the net to search and compare these characteristics, but then why is this article just to cackle ekranoplans? I believe that this article is pure populism.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 17 February 2016 09: 17
      +1
      Oleg simply has one drawback: to show one thing in all shells, in order to criticize with complete confidence, and completely hush up the other, which makes this criticism crumble like a house of cards.
  • Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 17 February 2016 09: 15
    +2
    Oleg Kaptsov, as always, is inimitable. Even if he is wrong, reading his articles is always interesting, and what a heated discussion ...
  • one
    one 17 February 2016 09: 16
    +1
    a negative result is also a result!
    the most expensive is experience and knowledge.
    how many technologies worked out ?!
    testing of new materials, structural and technological
    making!
    how many experts have gained experience!
    still want to fuss.
    take, for example, the Wright brothers’s plane,
    flew a few meters ...
    with this money you could buy a farm,
    or a hundred bicycles with more payload
    and go on ...
    and now he's in the museum!
    wink
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 17 February 2016 09: 19
    +6
    A rare case when I agree with Oleg. WIG is an interesting experiment, no more. At least at this level of technological development. It is no coincidence that they did not go into a large series.
  • Irgy
    Irgy 17 February 2016 09: 21
    +2
    It is precisely competence, and competence, you cannot say otherwise. It pisses me off to be honest when they compare the performance characteristics of ekranoplanes, the development of which has been carried out for a little over 10 years, with airplanes whose history has more than 100, it's like comparing the rate of fire of the Mosin rifle and the Vulcan machine gun, and say that they are the same! Or do you recall the carrying capacity of the first aircraft ?! For your information, the carrying capacity of the TB-3, one of the largest aircraft of the 30s, was only 3 tons, and this with a take-off weight of 20 tons! Why don't you compare it with the An-12 ?! And for aircraft of earlier years, it is even less. Help to calculate the efficiency, or can you do it yourself ?! Why don't you rush to compare the performance characteristics of the Mi-4 and Mi-26 ?! Those. do you understand the absurdity of this comparison ?!
    In addition, only Alekseev was seriously engaged in the development of ekranoplanes, and the development of aircraft around the world, and each company, each design bureau brought something new. any development gives an appropriate result only after a certain amount of time, time of trial and error, and Alekseev simply was not given ...
    PS If the development of ekranoplanes would still be engaged, it is not known what outstanding characteristics they would have, and EKiP is a confirmation of this. If there is nothing to write, then do not write to the Author of the article for comparing 2 (two) different things and parents to school, for having raised a bezlarya and a void. And we must consider not the uselessness of ekranoplanes, but the uselessness of the article in particular, and the uselessness of the work of this "specialist" on this respected portal!
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 17 February 2016 09: 24
    +5
    The author gives examples of ekranoplanes that were created under Tsar Gorokh. At that time no one thought about stealth technologies, efficiency and many other things that are now relevant and important. Eaglet, Lun, KM were the first ekranoplanes in the world. no one ever even touched this topic.
    There were enough problems then and enough now, but to say such NON-FUNNY, as the fact that ekranoplans is useless iron is not worth it.
    Technology does not stand still, and now China, the USA, and Korea are designing their ekranoplans. Apparently also believing that the ekranoplane is useless, investing millions in these projects.
  • senima56
    senima56 17 February 2016 09: 27
    0
    Like A. Raikin: "Listen to you, you are right! But listen to you, you!"
  • report4
    report4 17 February 2016 09: 36
    -1
    Quote: saturn.mmm

    As for the author, you have spoken out, but has something to say about the article?
    Can you give some tables, a comparative analysis, prove that this Kaptsov is wrong, we are not idle talk.

    If the author gives his empty reflections without "tables and comparative analysis", then from which one should the reader refute them?
  • Avenich
    Avenich 17 February 2016 09: 42
    -3
    Forgive me, dear, my question is not for Beleberdy aftor, but for the site administrators. Please indicate the legitimacy of the use of the word I have highlighted.
    Those who advocate the construction of these SLAWS

    If you consider that such letter combinations are acceptable on the electronic pages of this site, then I’m afraid you will significantly lose your rating in my eyes.
  • GEV67
    GEV67 17 February 2016 09: 44
    0
    Not yet renegades muttered muddy water. The article appeared in spite of the fact that many projects of the USSR decided to revive ... Some people in the West became so scribbled and scribblers write.
  • yuri1691
    yuri1691 17 February 2016 09: 45
    +2
    Refuse is not worth it. There are many disadvantages, but the screen effect must be used. Further research and the creation of fundamentally new samples free from flaws are needed. In the future, there may be a small unmanned version, a screen high-speed torpedo, a small-sized hybrid of a light aircraft with an ekranoplan, a screen helicopter ...
  • efendia
    efendia 17 February 2016 09: 47
    0
    As usual, we all came up with and forgotten, and then we bought what was brought to mind from behind the mound at frantic prices and we are touched by how good it is. But isn’t it time to bring and sell ourselves over the hill ???
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 17 February 2016 10: 03
    -1
    Uselessness of WIG
    To the author, we are waiting for a devastating article on the uselessness of automotive equipment, accident rate too rolls over, a lot of people are dying, environmental pollution is enormous. good
  • efendia
    efendia 17 February 2016 10: 03
    +2
    If Alekseev hadn’t brought the hydrofoil ship and demonstrated to the leadership of the country, it is unlikely that they were currently used. And then there was a sea of ​​opponents on them since such a solution had not been used before. In general, everything new and especially revolutionary is born like that - most often in agony.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 17 February 2016 10: 06
    0
    The construction of such super-heavy aircraft is very expensive, as an example, the Berievsky Be 2500 project with a carrying capacity of 1000 tons, is now estimated at 500 - 600 billion rubles.
    1. Generalissimo
      Generalissimo 17 February 2016 15: 54
      -1
      Quite the contrary - with an increase in its size, the ekranoplan only pays off better, and since 500 tons it has no competitors at all.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 17 February 2016 22: 01
      0
      Quote: Vadim237
      The construction of such super-heavy aircraft is very expensive

      And the operation ... fellow
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 17 February 2016 22: 07
        +1
        Quote: Bayonet
        And the operation ...

        When Chelomei, Korolev, Yangel started, everything was not going smoothly, they were expensive and they even had opponents backwards.
        Let’s not develop anything at all, don’t do anything ... we will configure Armat and Kalashakov and we will convince ourselves that we are the smartest. wassat
        1. KKND
          KKND 18 February 2016 02: 14
          +3
          Let’s not develop anything at all, don’t do anything

          Right, let's set up a bunch of wunderwaffles and eat one potato wassat
          I propose to the Nexus to propose a plan to Serdyukov or Rogozin
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 18 February 2016 02: 41
            +1
            Quote: KKND
            I propose to the Nexus to propose a plan to Serdyukov or Rogozin

            I will offer you to voice my very clever thoughts personally to Putin.
            Quote: KKND
            Right, let's set up a bunch of wunderwaffles and eat one potato

            The wunderwafel is f-35 with an exorbitant budget or Sivulf worth 4 billion ... And since you earn so little that you only have enough for potatoes, then where does the development of the new one really?
  • efendia
    efendia 17 February 2016 10: 13
    +1
    And I also don’t know what the issue of equipping an ekranoplane according to marine requirements is that the Admiralty anchor and a winch were installed on the ekranoplane to lift it and I think the chains were also present. Question to the author of the article, if you undertook to compare the weight characteristics with an airplane, how many tons does this equipment weigh ???
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 17 February 2016 10: 37
      -3
      Quote: efendia
      Admiralty anchor and winch for lifting it and I think the chains were also present. Question to the author of the article, if you undertook to compare the weight characteristics with an airplane, how many tons does this equipment weigh?

      This is a WIG
  • Old26
    Old26 17 February 2016 10: 14
    +7
    Quote: Edvagan
    in fact, I read a lot of articles about ekranoplanes, and I realized to myself that ekranoplanes combine both the advantages of water and air transport and disadvantages. here it is important to decide what more.
    By the way, about poor controllability and energy inefficiency of ekranoplanes had to read before. I think that specialists should express their opinions here, and, alas, I am not a specialist.

    A few years ago a good book on ekranoplans was released. I don’t remember the name now, but many projects with their performance characteristics were sorted out. Alekseev made an attempt to use the screen effect known since the dawn of aviation. Theoretically, everything seems to be not bad, but the reality turned out to be somewhat different.
    Small ekranoplanes can really find their niche, but large - alas.

    Here, Oleg is still right. By all their characteristics, they lose to both transport aviation and ships. The only plus seems to be compared with cargo ships - the speed is negated by a small load and complete dependence on weather conditions. Compared to cargo planes, it’s a loss in speed, range and flexibility.

    Quote: efendia
    Whole article - blah blah blah. Where is the comparative table with the characteristics, including the structural materials used, with links to the source? Why is there no comparison with SVP, flying boats, which are closer to the ekranoplanes functionally? Of course, I can rummage through the net to search and compare these characteristics, but then why is this article just to cackle ekranoplans? I believe that this article is pure populism.

    Although I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of Oleg, I will say in his defense. The article is not a book. It is impossible to reproduce everything. You can of course ask and compare with SPV, even with flying boats (airplanes). But in any case, the comparison will be, alas, not in favor of ekranoplans. Calculate economic, if you want, efficiency. How many tons of fuel is ekranoplan eating and how much is the plane at the same distance. How much the plane will deliver the payload and how many ekranoplan.
    The time for large ekranoplanes has not yet come (if it does). Right now, a small ekranoplan of the Burevestnik-24 type is being tested (I might be mistaken with the name, but it still seems so). Here it is adapted for use. It can move in several modes at once: displacement, gliding, can use the screen effect and can fly. And I think it will be used widely enough. In this case, the load is about 10 people or 3 tons of cargo.
  • Old26
    Old26 17 February 2016 10: 15
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    The author gives examples of ekranoplanes that were created under Tsar Gorokh. At that time no one thought about stealth technologies, efficiency and many other things that are now relevant and important. Eaglet, Lun, KM were the first ekranoplanes in the world. no one ever even touched this topic. The problems were enough then and enough now, but to say such STUPIDness as that ekranoplans is useless iron is not worth it. Technologies do not stand still and now China, the USA, and Korea are constructing their ekranoplans. Apparently also believing that the ekranoplan is useless, investing millions in these projects.

    Yes, no one bothered with stealth technologies (they are even theoretically impossible on an ekranoplane) - here you are right. Maybe 30 years ago there were problems with detection, but not now.
    And efficiency - and it has not changed now. The engines are the same with about the same flow rate. True, the resource is several times less than that of the same engines on an airplane.

    Yes, there were the first and showed that they are not needed, at least at this stage of development. Otherwise, if they were as effective as they are trying to prove to us, the native MO would have clung to such a "wunderwaffe". But no. Sometimes they prefer a flat-bottomed 900-ton river-sea boat with far from outstanding performance characteristics and the same missiles to an ekranoplan.
    The last ekranoplan left in the Caspian Sea - "Lun" has been rusting for several years on the slip of the "Dagdizel" plant in Kaspiysk.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 17 February 2016 23: 49
      +1
      Quote: Old26

      And efficiency - and it has not changed now. The engines are the same with about the same flow rate. True, the resource is several times less than that of the same engines on an airplane.


      ... really, about efficiency? And also with a resource? :)

      I think NO!
      At the end of the last century, metal aircraft were built:
      dural - aircraft
      steel (preferably stainless steel) - amphibians and EP, because in contact with seawater and other corrosion requirements. Therefore - they came out massive.

      Now - there are composites, glass / carbon fiber, titanium. All this is corrosion resistant. Therefore, the specific values ​​of db comparable to airplanes.

      As for resources - why the hell did you take that EP - a small resource of engines? Quite the contrary - on airplanes the resource will be less, because reliability and safety requirements are higher. And by the way, on the EP put engines removed from aircraft, after repair, respectively ...

      As for efficiency, progress is also being made - current engines have a fuel consumption of at least 20-30% less under equal and other conditions.

      Therefore, if now we redesign the EDS for the same tasks, the carrier itself will be at least 30-40% less massive. And taking into account modern weapons - the KR type "Caliber" or Kh-101 - even less massive and cumbersome.
  • abarth
    abarth 17 February 2016 10: 21
    0
    Quote: venaya
    Anyone who personally experienced the feeling of the effect of the screen effect cannot get rid of the idea of ​​using it to increase the economy of movement in off-road conditions. Rostislav Alekseev himself, dealing with issues of increasing the speed of surface ships, came to the conclusion that this effect is more promising than the hydrofoil vessels that he himself developed. I admit that in some ways he could be mistaken, but I consider it unreasonable to throw out this principle of movement, otherwise we can come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to use an air cushion. I believe that deeper developments are needed here, at least on a theoretical level. There are ideas and it is advisable to refine and implement them.



    from here it is necessary to dance in reasoning, hydrofoil ships are also not so simple, Meteors and rockets can not all build and calculate.

    Yes, there are many mechanisms that are built by intuition; in recent years, this has at least somehow been predicted to be calculated.
    For example, Electric engines with revolutions over 10 (contradictions), for example, a Mazda Skyactiv engine compression ratio, for example a VW TSI engine (turbocharged) So-called Otto diesel, for example ... yes, every mechanism in a car, for example: a window mechanism (glass the seal in terms of tolerances, "always opens easily, but rattles in winter", "does not rattle, but dirty glass does not open well"), the internal combustion engine itself, if you do not consider the design as such, the European and Asian schools use different philosophy on tolerances.

    These are examples of techniques that we use.
  • efendia
    efendia 17 February 2016 10: 28
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    Although I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of Oleg, I will say in his defense. The article is not a book. It is impossible to reproduce everything. You can of course ask and compare with SPV, even with flying boats (airplanes). But in any case, the comparison will be, alas, not in favor of ekranoplans. Calculate economic, if you want, efficiency. How many tons of fuel is ekranoplan eating and how much is the plane at the same distance. How much the plane will deliver the payload and how many ekranoplan.

    I, too, am not an opponent or supporter of the author, but if you undertake to compare, compare reasonably with links to sources, and for this you do not need to write a book, just the size of the article is enough. Similarly, the economy can be compared in numbers and not unfounded. I think the performance characteristics have fuel consumption both on cruise mode and on take-off.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 17 February 2016 10: 39
      +1
      Quote: efendia
      Similarly, the economy can be compared in numbers and not unfounded. I think the performance characteristics have fuel consumption both on cruise mode and on take-off.
      Well, you can calculate the cost-effectiveness for the perspective ekranoplan OKB Sukhoi - S-90 and compare with existing aircraft. With a load of 19 passengers, the C-90 has the economy of 26,85 g / person * km. Similar indicators for aircraft of similar carrying capacity:
      L-410 - 37,45
      Bombardier DASH8 - 29,69
      Embraer 120ER - 38,29

      That is, the ekranoplan will be somewhat more economical. Hence the conclusion - when transporting goods over the sea, it can find its niche, but only if the customer wants it faster than a ship, but cheaper than aviation.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 17 February 2016 11: 52
        +2
        With the same success, you can compare a spaceship or some other chimera with an airplane. What prevents you from writing any characteristics you want for an apparatus that does not exist? This is a piece of paper, understand? She will endure
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 17 February 2016 10: 30
    0
    Wiki has an article with the pros and cons of ekranoplanes, prospects.
    Kaptsov has good articles, he knows how to draw attention to the topic, first of all, by his extraordinary opinion, already for this he is a plus. Strongly animates the site.
    But in fact - he is in many ways right, at least now, in our time. According to the efficiency-cost criterion (the development cost must be included in the price), the ekranoplan is apparently inferior to the available weapons, reconnaissance, and transport means. Otherwise, from the 1930s, something would have been created. The Soviet Union could afford super projects, sometimes even introducing them into a series.