Russian Naval Aviation: News

GarryB, where are my comments about future unmanned VTOL shipborne maritime patrol aircrafts related to this comment in this topic?

http://www.russiadefence.net/t2897p175-russian-naval-aviation-news#163432

I don't know what you are talking about.

I haven't moved any posts for quite a while now.

It were a decent number of comments about how can be a long range modern maritime patrol aircraft with the introduction of unmanned technologies. It was just a discussion with you.

It should be since the page 8 of this topic, and it was in more than one page. Comments of the first half of 2016. It remains nothing of that, only some late reference, is it in other topic?

It was a talking about future potential unmanned aircrafts, explained why, long range, explained how, shipborne, explained why, explained how it affects to the range of the maritime patrol UAVs and even with a list of around 30 Russian warships that would be able to carry them, of 5 to 7 tons approximately, explained why, VTOL, explained why, with low charge of weapons, explained why. It was a light cost analisys related to it. It was a talking about how would be the work with them from ships, instead of land bases, about how a ship would be able to answer with different types of weapons to the threats discovered by them (own surface-surface missiles,...) and about how the bombing role of the current maritime patrol can be assumed by fast strategic bombers that move only to the target, when a target is discovered, making the costs lower. It was a discussion about sensors, its size... It was even some comment with videos with examples of current UAVS of the size proposed and current UAVs working the most interesting ways for the purpose, with some case of engines rotating after to take off, and other things.

Also it was a talking about how it was to late to go to a new big size manned aircraft of the old mold, and about how it was a risk of getting fairly obsolete in a few years, maybe 10-15, far before the end of the life of potential new aircrafts build now or in the following years.

Where is all that?

I don't know.

All I can say is that I did not move them.

There is an important number of posts disappeared, not only mines, also yours.

flamming_python wrote:

eehnie wrote:There is an important number of posts disappeared, not only mines, also yours.

The pro-Israeli propagandists must have hacked the site

Maybe in the interest of GarryB to find his own posts.

GarryB wrote:I don't know what you are talking about.

I haven't moved any posts for quite a while now.

GarryB, I've noticed that several of the posts that I made as well as posts made by other forum members have simply disappeared.

There must be some technical issue with this forum. If you recall a few years ago some members were complaining exactly about this issue . Posts are disappearing.

Sorry if it's been mentioned before.

Ekranoplans: Soviet secret weapons get a new lease of life

https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/326266-ekranoplans-soviet-secret-weapons

Also are they really capable of flying in category 5 storms? I find that quite hard to believe and the fact being so close to the surface that big waves would simply wash it away the article even states a disadvantage is that it can fly on uneven surface surely a category 5 storm would create a massively uneven surface on the water obviously the sea will always be choppy and a bit wild which I am sure they can operate fine in but category 5 storms I ain't sure. Maybe someone can shed some light on the matter. But good news if they come back.

Regarding disappearing posts I will have a word to Vlad about it.

Another factor against Ekranoplans are seabirds (gulls, terns etc.) and waterfowl (ducks, geese, etc.) that tend to be more common at those sea skimming altitudes.

The problems with the ekranoplans :
Cost as much as a similar sized airplane
has less capability than an airplane
Restricted the weather condition when it can land/take off from water
turning radius must be big( it can't lose altitude to turn)



Practically the Ekranoplans is as expensive as an aircraft, but less capable.

No, the main problem with Ekranoplanes is that they fly at low altitude where jet engines are not that efficient and top speed is limited.

Their straight stubby wings means they generally need rather large tail structures for stability.

I have seen some West German designs that used delta wings and did not need the large tail structures for stability.

An Ekranoplan can fly at any altitude it only gets it best efficiency at very low level so if there is turbulence or waves or a storm it can easily climb and fly over it like any other aircraft... unlike a ship it is also fast enough to be able to fly around most storms too.

GarryB wrote:No, the main problem with Ekranoplanes is that they fly at low altitude where jet engines are not that efficient and top speed is limited.

Their straight stubby wings means they generally need rather large tail structures for stability.

I have seen some West German designs that used delta wings and did not need the large tail structures for stability.

An Ekranoplan can fly at any altitude it only gets it best efficiency at very low level so if there is turbulence or waves or a storm it can easily climb and fly over it like any other aircraft... unlike a ship it is also fast enough to be able to fly around most storms too.

A ship is very cheap compared to an aircraft.

The Ekranoplane is superior compared to a ship, but inferior compared to a true aircraft.


It can carry anti ship missiles, but can't carry helicopters or other long range sensor platform, and it can't climb high enough to "see" ships.

Singular_Transform wrote:


It can carry anti ship missiles, but can't carry helicopters or other long range sensor platform, and it can't climb high enough to "see" ships.

The Soviet Union classified ekranoplans into 3 categories.
Category A - Used almost always in ground effect, but with a limited pop up climb ability.
Category B - could attain certain altitudes.
Category C - only used ground effect for takeoff and landing phases.

For example, the large 140 ton Category B Orlynok could reach 3000m.
As far as I can recall, the massive 380t Lun was also able to acheive a considerable altitude, much higher than Orlynok if I recall correctly.
So, their efficient regime was in ground effect, but nothing stops an ekranoplan of the correct design from climbing higher to have an electronic "look around".

kvs wrote:There is way too much dissing of ekranoplans.   All this yapping about engine efficiencies is so blinkered it is cringe worthy.
Ekranoplans offer payload capacities no pure aircraft could hope to achieve and mobility no ship could ever hope to achieve.
Ekranoplans open up a whole new category of transport system and are real innovation.    If people care so much about
engine efficiency then they should write an angry letter to the makers of these systems and tell them to use propeller engines
instead.   In case it is not clear:  the fault is with the Brayton cycle jet engines and not with ekranoplans.  

Why not concentrate in getting one more frigate next year? I mean actually receiving a ship of > 3,000 tonnage.
Cause I think all these side-show monkey projects are milking money away from the important stuff

WTF difference would one Frigate make?

WTF different would 100 Frigates make?

Ekranoplans and Frigates are not related.

KiloGolf wrote:Why not concentrate in getting one more frigate next year? I mean actually receiving a ship of > 3,000 tonnage.
Cause I think all these side-show monkey projects are milking money away from the important stuff

KG is STILL sooking about Frigate construction?... On a thread about Ekranoplans?.... Fuck mate, you got some problems.

Ekranoplans are way better than amphibians when used for transport & SAR, & more reliable than V-22 type aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

They could be used to supply ships & subs faster & over longer distances w/o refueling & icebreakers in the Arctic/Antarctic, & have export potential:

The 54-ton A-050 aircraft is especially well suited for service with the Federal Border Service, Ministry of Emergency Situations, Federal Security Service and the Russian Navy to serve as patrol aircraft. The aircraft will be able to carry 9 tons of cargo or 100 passengers over distances of up to 5,000 km at a cruising speed of 350-450 km/h. http://www.deagel.com/Support-Aircraft/A-050_a003242001.aspx
The ekranoplan is considered suitable for the PLA Navy to deploy to various regions like the disputed South China Sea to carry out anti-access and area denial tactics. China is also understood to be developing its own version of an ekranoplan. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/china-in-talks-to-buy-a-050-ekranoplan-from-russia.404058/

In the US, the Boeing Pelican is still a paper plane! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican

I would like to see a combination hovercraft ekranoplan.... ie an Ekranoplan with a skirt undercarriage able to basically take off or land on any flat surface like water or snow or sand or mud for that matter...

Being able to deliver payloads to places without prepared runways or even hard ground like an Island in the Pacific would be a useful thing and making it as fast as an aircraft would be an added bonus for emergencies.

If/when it's skirt is perforated/damaged, it's a sitting duck unable to move! All is needed are bullets, shells or shrapnel to disable it. Also their speed & range are less than Ekranoplan. The Russians & Chinese already have hovercraft but now work on & want Ekranoplans; it's clear they have the advantage over hovercraft. A hybrid of the 2 may not be possible w/o decreased performance.

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:I would like to see a combination hovercraft ekranoplan.... ie an Ekranoplan with a skirt undercarriage able to basically take off or land on any flat surface like water or snow or sand or mud for that matter...

Being able to deliver payloads to places without prepared runways or even hard ground like an Island in the Pacific would be a useful thing and making it as fast as an aircraft would be an added bonus for emergencies.

Why not just use a hovercraft?
Cheaper and less infrastructure needed.

Hovercraft are slow and don't have the option for full low altitude flight. They are still useful, but only for short range landing operations, like liberating the Baltic states and booting the Nazis into the sea....