/script>
Why not?
aerodynamics and bouyancy confuse me everyday
>>33261895
>>33261886
>>33261839
no. calm the fuck down now.
What in the name of all that is holy is that??
>>33262401
Lun-class Ekranoplan, aka the Caspian Sea Monster.
Do you live under a roc/k/ or something?
>>33261839
>Why not?
Our state ferry system could use a few.
>>33262517
Actually, the KM was called the caspian sea monster. Lun was 25 years later
>>33261839
>Why not?
>>33262548
My bad, then it's not like they are worlds apart anyway. They are much more alike than the newer troop transport A90 or something for instance.
>>33261839
>Weather
>mile long turning radius
>common fucking sense
It's high performance suicide boat.
>>33261839
It's a plane that can't really fly. Waves fuck it royally. Too much fuel for patrols.
Good payload and speed. Good as a one off surface strike aircraft, because you are not outrunning the fighters.
>>33262603
yes, but it is sanic, hard to spot with radar and has big missiles
>>33262538
More than a few..
>t. Fellow WA kommando
>>33262612
>hard to spot on radar
I'm sure it has the cross-section of a small gule.
You can put big missiles on a more sanic plane.
>>33261839
Only good for rushing across seas for extremely quick deployment of an large invasion force, which will probably never happen.
>>33262538
Kek I'm on one of our slow shit ferries now. Waiting for that Seattle-Bremerton fast ferry to be a thing.
>>33261839
>has less range, speed and payload than airplane
>can practically fly over sea only
Dunno.
>>33262963
>less payload
uhm, no
>>33262859
Hol' Up! Hol 'Up!
>>33263030
>>33262538
Alaska needs them. Fuck me, getting anywhere by ferry in the panhandle takes days. Unless you want to fly. Even then Wrangell to Anchorage is an 8 hour flight.
>>33263027
Umm, yes.
>>33263253
so, any other plane made in 1966 with 200 tons of payload?
200 is huge, even for today. and they got that with soviet 1960s jet engines
>>33263274
KM didn't have 200 tons of usable payload. It had around of ~100 tons and efficiency of this payload usage was even smaller (armed with 6 4 tons missiles or 24 tons of armament mass).
>>33262963
nothing would stop it from flying over land m8
just has to be flat land
>>33263422
KM and lun is different things
>>33263507
Yeah you are right. This is lun. KM literally had 0 (zero) payload.
>>33263497
This why i said practical. Most lands would have terrain prohibiting safe flight of a ground effect vehicle.
>>33263564
KM had just shy of 200
>>33263581
KM had zero.
>>33263590
what are you on about. it had an MTOW of like 550 tons, and was about 250 empty? I can assure you it doesn't carry it own weight in fuel or crewmen
>>33263633
It was not designed to carry any payload. KM was flying lab with no practical use. His record flight MTOW was achieved by water filling wings. Take off was during zero sea state (rare thing even for Black Sea BTW) and required like 10 km run. It was pure record thing.
Soviet GEVs that were designed to carry payload carried 20 and 24 tons of it.
>>33263726
M8, then that water counts as payload.
And its not a "lab with no practical use", it's more of a design study, to see if a design of this size even was possible
And the 20 ton thing was the A-90 Orlyonok, which was much, much smaller
>>33263759
There is record thing payload and practical use payload. KM had no practical use.
>>33262612
>hard to spot with radar
IT would light up passive sonar like a sunovabitch. Sound travels faster in water and having all those jet engines blast sound waves into the water isn't going to make for a stealthy approach.
>>33261839
It could have nice use in Mediterranean or Black sea as fast transport.
>>33261839
>couldn't fly over big waves
>long run up
>huge amounts of fuel
>icbm's were better
>>33261839
considering a Nimitz could take out a target from 4 miles away, it was a one way trip.
>>33264412
i'm pretty sure a P-270 can fly further than 4 miles
With modern weather tracking
You could avoid rough waves/weather, flying a large ground effect vehicle out on the open ocean
Could be useful
Hell you could fly onto the land if you planned out your route well.
>>33264412
And an old diesel sub could take out a Nimitz
>>33261839
Really enjoyed the portrayal in World In Conflict. A super high speed dash in to coastal Norway to fuck up oil platforms and insert forces to neutralize NATO AA, radar, and early warning stations. Nothing more, nothing less, just what they would have been perfect for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WopbvjBMa3A
>>33264768
>Okay comrades, route is planned we can fly low at x
>Cause of Death: Illegal Wind Turbine
>>33261839
>mfw Russia has serious plans to build more
>>33265422
They have a lot of waters that they can use them in
Baltics
Med
Black sea
Caspian
etc
>>33261839
>>33261886
>>33261895
Could something like this be used for Arctic warfare. Like, let's say hypothetically, there was a land war being fought on Antarctica. Could these things be hovering around over the icy landscape at high speeds wrecking shit?
>>33265520
well, idk if antarctica is flat or not, but it cant land
>>33264225
>>couldn't fly over big waves
they're quite capable of climbing to up to about 100 feet altitude - way higher than any wave. They simply lose efficiency the higher they are.
for peak efficiency, you need to be skimming the surface, 4-5m, but they can easily go much more than that by burning more fuel.
>>33265422
I hope so, these things are pure sex
>>33261895
Needing 3 hands for throttles, All other aircraft are shameful
>>33263876
> CON, SONAR, Contact bearing-OH GOD MY EARS
>>33263876
>>33262612
hurrrrr the bus is easily detectable in combat
it's big and yellow