Ekranoplan

File: 903 lun.webm (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

Yes.

File: 18-Lun-ekranoplan.jpg (251KB, 1600x982px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1600x982px

>>33585658
Yeah but..

Why missiles tho?

File: 5-ekranoplan.jpg (78KB, 800x429px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x429px

>>33585675
no

Does it work on a rough day?

>>33585683
>why missles tho?
What a dumb question comrade

File: orlijonokship.jpg (21KB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x226px

>>33585683
They had the Caspian Sea Monster as a heavy transport and Orlyonok as an LC
Why not ?

>>33585683
for sending pure guided vodka missile my friend to capitalist pig

>>33585696
Not as well but a few hundred feet or boat mode are options.

File: 1490736835456.png (81KB, 978x695px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 978x695px

Relevant greentext.

>>33585705
Don't insult me Dimitri

Missile could been of substituted for more cargospace and greater mass at takeoff, but of course slavshit designers had to put in Moskits

>>33585711
Because glorious backfire could do the same job of anti shipping without need for entirely new design

File: a-90 (5).jpg (66KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x480px

>>33585689
Yes.

>>33585717
>can faintly hear the USSR hymn behind the sound of the engines
Reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtDX46cTJQ

File: Rostislav Evgenievich Alekseev.jpg (23KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x355px

>>33585721
This chap was not interested in making aircraft he was making fast ships.

>>33585745
This is what happens when Clint Eastwood bangs William Fichtner.

I know it's a pretty boring concern, but how much fuel does this thing consume? Because it looks like it needs an entire Cretaceous period just to get from City 17 to Ravenholm.

>>33585745
>This chap was not interested in making aircraft he was making fast ships.

But GEVs are subject to the same principles as regular Transport planes in that they are restricted by to a lesser degree weight and size , >>33585658 this could be easily substituted by a Transport plane and Maritime Patrol aircraft, the Duck is essentially a cross between a Ship and Plane with none of the benefits, it has a mediocre MTOW for a strategic airlift plane thus restricting the amount of armament or cargo it can carry.

The Idea is good but it would not work in the real world.

File: a-90 (6).jpg (58KB, 640x351px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x351px

>>33585792
>Max takeoff weight: 380,000 kg
I don't think fuel deficiency is that much of a concern.

File: km_3.jpg (83KB, 690x440px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 690x440px

>>33585792
Fuel efficiency is its big selling point. For a ship it is very, very, fast and for an aircraft it, using ground effect, becomes very fuel efficient.

File: 96a914eaff4247fb8a995d227dbf4ff2.jpg (365KB, 1152x780px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1152x780px

>>33585825
>Max takeoff weight: 380,000 kg
>I don't think fuel deficiency is that much of a concern.

What sort of logic is that?
>>33585792
>>33585849
The An-124 with a heavier payload has over twice the range of this memeplane, perhaps it if could ditch those massive Moskit silos jutting out of the fuselage it could get an extra 800 miles just from parasite drag.

>>33585882
An-124 requires an airfield.

>>33585882
The memeplane with the Moskit silos has transporting the Moskit silos as its main task.
The transporty one doesn't have them because that would be just silly.
pic.

File: 483505373_6e154442c8_o.jpg (29KB, 666x264px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 666x264px

>>33585941

>>33585721
yes, backfire can take off from a local harbor, of course, how could I forget that option it had been equiped with from the factory. Same as that option of staying super low to the radar-reflective surface of the water, where look-down radars of that era had troubles of identifying, not even tracking targets at that speed given the operational distance...

File: 20151119_isporuka_bogu_ili_alahu_tu22m3.jpg (36KB, 625x352px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x352px

>>33585882
Plus a Backfire with 3 Kh-22 with a Mach 4.6 terminal veolicty could do more damage and is much quicker than 6 Moskits.

>"Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, and was 12 m (40 ft) deep."

>>33585920
There are plenty of those, and the Duck is restricted to a single inland Sea, not all weather, and there is only a handful of them, with less payload capacity then a normal troop ship.

>>33585941
>The transporty one doesn't have them because that would be just silly.
pic.

>>33585943 This?
The Idea is elegant enough for quickly transporting, but mounting Moskits on them?

File: LunCLass2.jpg (24KB, 600x286px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x286px

Equipped for ten days at sea. Apparently.

File: a-90 (4).jpg (52KB, 874x562px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 874x562px

>>33585960
>There are plenty of those
No, there are not. It's not an Il-76 that can land on almost every dirt strip.
>and the Duck is restricted to a single inland Sea
No, it is not. It's like saying the ships of the Black Sea Fleet are restricted to the Black Sea. They are not.
>not all weather
Same as aircraft.
>and there is only a handful of them
What does this have to do with anything?
>with less payload capacity then a normal troop ship
That's because it's not a troop ship, it's a missile truck. Now let's compare A-90 to Project 12061. They are roughly the same weight category, however the former has has capacity to carry 200 marines or two APC/IFV, range of 1500 km and 360 km/h cruise speed, while the latter carries 140 marines or two APC/IFV or an MBT, has 370 km range and 93 km/h speed.

>>33585792
>I know it's a pretty boring concern, but how much fuel does this thing consume?

Tonne for tonne, an ekranoplan in GE altitudes is about 25-30% more efficient than contemporary aircraft, over the same distance.

a lot of ekranoplans have 6 or 8 engines where an equivalent jet would have 4, but once they are off the ground and in ground effect, they can cruise with just 2 engines running - so huge savings at that point.

A Lun Ekranoplan is less efficient than a modern plane, but it was made 40 years ago - a modern ekranoplan with modern engines could well be 40-50% more efficient than a wide body airliner.

>>33585658
Aren't they beautiful?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5xA4fScB0s

>>33585960
>The Idea is elegant enough for quickly transporting, but mounting Moskits on them?

you're looking at completely different designs.

the Lun was designed in two forms. one is a hospital ship, which does not have missiles, for fast deployment to conflicts, able to cater to 50+ patients and move them back from forward triage. The second was the missile-armed one, which was designed as a fast attack anti-ship vessel. it was to come in at 10 feet above the water at 550mph, in an era where radars were unable to track low-flying aircraft, and then launch salvos of mach-2 anti-ship missiles to down enemy ships. In that role, it was lethal.

the KM, the "caspian sea monster", among other designs, was intended as a heavy transport, able to unload a huge load of troops, or even BMPs or t-72s straight into a landing zone with rapid insertion.

File: 64725-004-13658DE0.jpg (26KB, 387x301px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 387x301px

>>33586075
>No, there are not. It's not an Il-76 that can land on almost every dirt strip.
Still more An-124s and plenty of suitable Airfields for them whereas the 'Duck' is restricted to the black sea
>No, it is not. It's like saying the ships of the Black Sea Fleet are restricted to the Black Sea. They are not.
Lol you sure?
>Same as aircraft.
Aircraft can fly above 90% of weather
>What does this have to do with anything?
It means Any Strategic airlifter type in the Russian inventory can lift 10 fold more men and material
>That's because it's not a troop ship, it's a missile truck. Now let's compare A-90 to Project 12061. They are roughly the same weight category...
See>>33585960

How fast were these things?

>>33585683
It could approach a target vessel at high speed and under the radar with 6 advanced anti-ship missiles in a time when close range defense systems were useless against such weapons.

File: a-90 (3).jpg (70KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x600px

>>33586136
>plenty of suitable Airfields for them
No, there are not.
>the 'Duck' is restricted to the black sea
No, it is not.
>Lol you sure?
Yes, I am sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Operational_Squadron
>Aircraft can fly above 90% of weather
Aircraft can't take off and land "above 90% of weather".
>It means Any Strategic airlifter type in the Russian inventory can lift 10 fold more men and material
No, it only means that USSR collapsed before it went into full rate production.
>See
Why? I just responded to that. Simply repeating the same thing hoping I will force myself into coming up with new arguments instead of the valid ones you have simply ignored won't do.

I want some to serve as car ferries in southeast alaska.

I don't like having to spend an entire weekend to take the ferry to Ketchikan or Juneau to do some shopping and government stuff. Could take the plane but then no car at the other end.

File: km1-i.jpg (18KB, 355x185px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 355x185px

>>33586140
KM would push 500kmh. Which, for a ship, is quite nippy.

>>33585683
Think a missile corvette, but faster.

File: SRN4Loading89.jpg (515KB, 2336x1496px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 2336x1496px

>>33586185
A SARO product may better serve your needs.

>>33586237
Other brands are available, your mileage may vary.

File: KIL_4517.jpg (232KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1000x667px

4 sale (old) link...pic unrelated
http://www.yachtboutique.com/Designers/Ekranoplan/Ekranoplanintro.htm

>>33586170
>No, there are not.
>Yes, I am sure.
Laughing_Turkish_Coastal_Defense.jpg
>Aircraft can't take off and land "above 90% of weather".
What i'm trying to say here is that regular high crusing jet aircraft can fly above most weather systems or even into them and not be affected, your Eurkanoplane would be more susceptible to bad weather along with having to content with rough seas, are you also suggesting that i the excact figure i stated is not true? If so please show me
>No, it only means that USSR collapsed before it went into full rate production.
Oh so it wasn't some crazy experimental concept?
>Why? I just responded to that.
I am confused

File: Zubr.jpg (184KB, 1024x716px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x716px

>>33586248

>>33586237
Wrangell to Ketchikan is 8 hours by ferry, 14 hours to Juneau.

your hovercraft is not even capable of the quarter of the speed of a erkanoplane.

File: fly_at_low_level_between.jpg (139KB, 962x643px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 962x643px

>>33586204

File: 220px-Short_Sunderland_2_ExCC.jpg (11KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x165px

>>33586252
Ekranoplan = Ship.
When your aircraft can "Ship" then you can compare the bad weather capabilities.

>>33585721
>Missile could been of substituted for more cargospace and greater mass at takeoff, but of course slavshit designers had to put in Moskits
but then you'd miss out on the offensive advantage the unique design provides, this thing could slap your carrier's ass and there'd be nothing you could do about it because he's flying too fast and too low for your radar to see him.

>>33585960
>Plus a Backfire with 3 Kh-22 with a Mach 4.6 terminal veolicty could do more damage and is much quicker than 6 Moskits.
debatable, plus a Backfire wouldn't have the advantage of surprise.

File: AP188 known as Mamilossa, operating in Canada.jpg (145KB, 1504x1000px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1504x1000px

>>33586270
Was assuming you didn't have sufficient clear water for an aircraft to take off.
Zero take off run.

>>33586303
interior island waterways should be stable enough except in bad weather.

>>33586291
>but then you'd miss out on the offensive advantage the unique design provides, this thing could slap your carrier's ass and there'd be nothing you could do about it because he's flying too fast and too low for your radar to see him.

Is there actually any information on Radar characteristics or is this an assumption? Because i'd expect 380 tonnes of planes to produce some RCS even that low, plus if it is a carrier then you will have to content with the fact that a defenseless 500mph hunk of aluminum is being stalked by an entire carrier wing with Look Down/Shoot Down Radar and TGP with FLIR doing everything it can to keep that carrier alive, and that wing will have a chip on it's shoulder if you manage to sink it

>>33586291
1000kg vs 300kg warhead with under half the range and over 1 mach faster.


I'll reply to other comments tomorrow if the thread is alive, it's 1:10 here

File: Buccaneer.jpg (160KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x768px

>>33586367
500kmh ship that you couldn't torpedo.
In the eighties they would have been basically unstoppable by guided weapons because nothing that could track it could intercept it.
A visual attack by an aircraft is probably the best bet to bring one down.
Hmm...

File: Buc.jpg (335KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1920x1080px

>>33586415
>A visual attack by an aircraft is probably the best bet to bring one down.
Hmm...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsbvmMGNY3Y

File: 956 boyevoy in san diego.jpg (283KB, 1686x1086px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1686x1086px

>>33586252
What does Turkish Coast Guard have to do with the airstrip requirements of An-124 or with ships of one fleet not being restricted to only operating in the waters of the sea the fleet is based at?
>jet aircraft can fly above most weather systems or even into them and not be affected
It can't "fly into them" and you keep ignoring the simple fact that an aircraft, especially a heavy cargo aircraft that can compete with A-90, not only has certain strict limitations regarding airstrip, but also is affected and restricted to good weather conditions during taking off and landing.
>Eurkanoplane would be more susceptible to bad weather
Amphibious operations are generally susceptible to bad weather.
>along with having to content with rough seas
It can take off from land.
>Oh so it wasn't some crazy experimental concept?
There was nothing crazy about it. It had its purposes and goals that were met, however not resulting in any meaningful serial production due to the collapse of the country.

File: 3m70 p-1000 vulkan launch from 1164 moskva (2).jpg (94KB, 800x568px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x568px

>>33586367
Kh-22 is also over a tonne heavier and is less sophisticated regarding electronics and flight profiles. Soviet Union had a variety of supersonic missiles, they could've put P-1000 on it for all they care.

>>33585658
Why?

If i want a fast missile platform, I can strap them to a fastboat.