Development of Ekranoplans

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

Large hovercraft are limited to about 60Knts top speed and are not efficient for long distance like an aircraft.

A hovercraft Ekranoplane would need less infrastructure than an aircraft (ie no runway) and no more than a hovercraft.

If/when it's skirt is perforated/damaged, it's a sitting duck unable to move!

When an aircrafts undercarriage is damaged it is equally useless.

All is needed are bullets, shells or shrapnel to disable it.

They will disable all sorts of craft...

A hybrid of the 2 may not be possible w/o decreased performance.

What would be needed is a retractable skirt for landing and taking off...

Big_Gazza wrote:

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.

Their Navy is in a deplorable condition to talk about those big, heavy Ekranoplans at this stage.
They need to sort out their priorities and get these pork barrel programs shut down.

I wonder if ekranoplans could be used to host S-500 ABM complexes.
Say vs a rival like the USA. They could be parked 1000 miles from the US shore.
The advantage over ships is stealth and speed. And with speed they can be smaller as they don't need large amounts of supplies. The idea would be that they could shoot down US ICBMs in mid flight ie before they have split into MIRVs etc. Potentially easier than shooting them down over/near to Russia.

A more complex idea would be that ekranoplans could somehow submerge ie convert to submarines and hide from any attempts at discovery. The idea of a submarine-plane hybrid has been looked at by the Ru military I understand. Although ofcourse it would not be cheap.

As ekranoplans can fly far above water, I wonder if they could take off and shoot down ICBMs from the air. The Russian military has said that it anticipates the next ABM after the S-500 to be carried from planes.

My other suspicion is that long term, missiles might actually carry their own lasers to destroy ICMBs or cruise missiles. The reasoning is, that they might get close to an impact but to connect is quite a bit harder. Currently Russia is looking at "a missile that carries mini missiles". So why not have a missile carrying lasers?

Russia's current problem is the US has bases on her borders. But Russia does not. Even though Venezuela and Cuba etc would most likely agree to helping Russia

You have quite the imagination my friend.

miketheterrible wrote:You have quite the imagination my friend.

: D
Yes its a step up from what is currently in service. BUT most of it is what has been looked at, OR is being looked at currently.

The most tricky part seems to be an ekrano/mini sub hybrid aspect.

Ultimately strategic defence is the part of the Ru defence industry with the highest budget.
You could say that the current hundreds of ICBMs plus dozens of subs plus 100s of bombers is rather an expensive solution. Hypersonic planes were looked at as a cheaper alternative to fighting America's Star Wars and ABM programmes.

So I think that ekranoplanes might be worth looking at for ABM defence.

Russia is developing a superheavy ekranoplan for the military.

..with a ship weight of 600 tons at a length of 93 meters and a wingspan of 71 meters. It was decided to build such a large 1 because of the possibility of its operation in sea waves of 5-6 points.
It is assumed that the range of the "Rescuer" will be several thousand kilometers, while the car can sit not only on the water, but on a flat solid surface. In terms of its dimensions, the ekranoplan will be comparable to the famous "Caspian Monster" in Soviet times. According to experts, such machines can become an ideal means of landing delivery. It is reported that the reduced models of the Rescuer have already been tested in the TsAGI wind tunnel in the Moscow region of Zhukovsky, and also in a special basin.
Recall earlier reported that in Russia, completed work on the design of the new sea ekranoplan A-050, which will be fully equipped with Russian avionics and a modern navigation and aerobatic complex.
https://vz.ru/news/2017/10/27/892670.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=24smi&utm_term=1341913

I wonder if it can also fly in the airplane mode to avoid hills/mountains & unfriendly spaces.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia is developing a superheavy ekranoplan for the military.

Now we're talking. I was expecting they would go for small ekranoplans first...go BIG or go home

However, not everyone is happy. Just like it's Soviet predecessor, some think it will just be a big money pit

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2914765.html

Cyberspec wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia is developing a superheavy ekranoplan for the military.

Now we're talking. I was expecting they would go for small ekranoplans first...go BIG or go home

However, not everyone is happy. Just like it's Soviet predecessor, some think it will just be a big money pit

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2914765.html

Ehhhh... 

They may want to sort out rest of the Navy before chasing exotic stuff

PapaDragon wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia is developing a superheavy ekranoplan for the military.

Now we're talking. I was expecting they would go for small ekranoplans first...go BIG or go home

However, not everyone is happy. Just like it's Soviet predecessor, some think it will just be a big money pit

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2914765.html

Ehhhh... 

They may want to sort out rest of the Navy before chasing exotic stuff

Depends what's "sorting our" process of updating, development never ends... From the other hand heavy ekraniplan vna:
- be used as dual purpose technology (transport, cargo planes)
- be used as fast rescue/transport craft
- marines vehicle
-ASW much faster with longer range then helo

They also don't need icebreakers & could be based/used on big rivers & lakes. http://inosmi.ru/russia/20150820/229738283.html
China & India may buy some too, since it'll be more capable than their new amphibians: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin5rSPgJnXAhUIqFQKHdYsDZwQqQIINigAMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fviral%2F386691-china-amphibious-ag600-tests%2F&usg=AOvVaw09q00W0IOR6J_O2yBVcG3M

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshows/infrastructure/indian-navy-to-buy-12-amphibious-rescue-aircraft-from-japan/a-multi-purpose-amphibian/slideshow/55287204.cms

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/uYTUrW9uQr6d20SnJAkelL/Who-needs-a-runway-SpiceJet-wants-to-land-in-sea-fields.html
The range of the 600T "Rescuer" will be several thousand km, capable to sit on the water & flat solid surface..", & is intended for SAR, marine landing & supply.
It's compare, the famous "Caspian Monster" [550T]; the AN-225 is 285T empty & 640T MTOW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya#Specifications_.28An-225_Mriya.29

But I wonder, if it passes directly over small ships/people/polar bears at full speed, will they survive?

Tsavo Lion wrote:But I wonder, if it passes directly over small ships/people/polar bears at full speed, will they survive?

Ekranoblast

Tsavo Lion wrote:.................
But I wonder, if it passes directly over small ships/people/polar bears at full speed, will they survive?

Imagine standing on the runway while strategic airlifter is taking off.

Same thing only worse because on average ekranoplans have twice as many engines as aircraft of comparable length...

They'll use only 2 engines on front pylons when cruising & perhaps 1 engine on the tail. The wake doesn't look very big on the pics, but a small boat may not avoid being damaged or worse!

Supposedly the giant "Rescuer" will feature a wingspan more than 100 feet wider than the one found on Caspian Sea Monster, which actually makes sense considering it's planned for the type to include traditional landing gear as well as its boat-shaped hull. This amphibian format would theoretically allow the aircraft to fly at higher altitudes, outside of ground effect, but with far less efficiency, while also giving it access to traditional airstrips. Many Soviet-era ekranoplans also had the goal of flying at higher altitudes as well as in their standard WIG mode. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15542/russia-supposedly-bringing-back-giant-ekranoplans-for-arctic-missions

That makes a lot of sense, also to be able to fly like a regular plane.
4 mods of travel: flat land, water surface, just above water/ice, & well above land/water. It could take off from Magadan on the Okhotsk Sea, run in the WIG mode, climb to overfly Kamchatka peninsula, then again descent & fly on to Petropavlovsk. The same with islands in the Arctic or from Black Sea via Turkey to Med. Sea & back, or Caspian Sea via Iran to Arabian Sea & back.

Tsavo Lion wrote:They'll use only 2 engines on front pylons when cruising & perhaps 1 engine on the tail. .......

I dunno, this photo says 8 engines:

http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=70&w=1440&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F10%2Fkhadha11515.jpg%3Fquality%3D85


Also according to that article ''Seagul'' design is finalized and will be starting tests in 2022:




Although TheDrive.com is pretty much the shittiest source out there...