lun-class ekranoplan!

[Zabaniyah]

Say, that brings the question: What does lun mean in Russian?

 

[HROBOS]

Too broad. Air cushion vehicles are appropriate in limited circumstances. But no one has proposed outfitting the U.S. Marines hover landing craft with large anti-ship missiles. That is what guided missile warships are for.

Russia is not the United States.
Project 1239 "Sivuch."
Armament:
1 76mm gun
2X6 30mm automatic cannon
2X4 (8 pieces) missiles "Mosquito"
1X2 launcher SAM "Wasp"
Speed of 50 knots.

And fleet defense aircraft can combat sortie 1,000 km from the carrier battle group. An Ekranoplan with a RCS of about 1,000 square meters is as easy a target imaginable. A single air to air missile can destroy a $200 million aircraft and perhaps hundred men and valuable anti-ship missiles.
Consider - an AIM-120 will utterly destroy the Ekranoplan. What would an AIM-120 do to a warship? Scratch the paint?

1. Very profitable show for one carrier battle groups against each ekranoplan.
2. If ekranoplan fit to the distance the missile shot (aircraft carrier will be doomed). U.S. defense could not effectively reflect the volley of supersonic anti-ship missiles (Russian production). Warhead weight 200/250-300kg ("Onyx", "Mosquito").

I compared military technology then, and explained WHY the USSR smartly abandoned it. That hasn't changed. We still have (now even better) AA missiles, look-down pulse-doppler radar, and a fragile target that is very vulnerable.

The funny thing is that you too are a very vulnerable target.

What can the Ekranoplan possibly do that couldn't be done infinitely better with a Tu-22 or Tu-95?

U.S. planners were very concerned with anti-ship missiles on swarms of Tu-95. Again, why limit the aircraft to wave-top heights? At one time, low altitude flight was effective in denying a defense a good shot. Today, modern fighters don't care what altitude a target is at. It doesn't matter one bit.

The concept is expensive, vulnerable, and unneeded, as anything it carries could be better carried by either Tu-22 (if speed is needed) or surface warships.

1. The large mass of the payload and range (in proportion).
2. Ability to hide (not wasting fuel). Agree, the bomber would be quite difficult to wait for his goal in a few days.

The plane is much more powerful (speed, altitude, distance) than a helicopter. Somehow we do not reject helicopters. If we follow your logic (the helicopters are a waste of money). Each technique has its own niche.

 

[Thomas]

1. The large mass of the payload and range (in proportion).
2. Ability to hide (not wasting fuel). Agree, the bomber would be quite difficult to wait for his goal in a few days.

The plane is much more powerful (speed, altitude, distance) than a helicopter. Somehow we do not reject helicopters. If we follow your logic (the helicopters are a waste of money). Each technique has its own niche.

I would listen to Chogy. He has extensive first hand experience and knowledge concerning what he is talking about.

 

[untitled]

Say, that brings the question: What does lun mean in Russian?

The Lun-class (harrier) ekranoplan (NATO reporting name Duck) was a seaplane designed by Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeev and used by the Soviet and Russian navies from 1987 to sometime in the late 1990s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan

Source Wikipedia


The word Lun here means a Harrier (A type of hawk)
Lun is also shortened version of Monday in French and Italian like the Mon in English (from Lunar)

Have none of you guys got watches where you have Lun instead of Mon

 

[HROBOS]

I would listen to Chogy. He has extensive first hand experience and knowledge concerning what he is talking about.

Personally, I do not know anything about the extent of his knowledge in this field. So I trust my opinion.

 

[Chogy]

So I trust my opinion.

I trust my experience with pulse-doppler AI radars, low-flying attack aircraft, look-down shoot-down methodologies, point defense scenarios, and general CAP procedures for the defense of high-value assets against threats at all altitudes and speeds.

The Ekranoplan is a fragile, vulnerable platform with limited uses and an outrageous price tag for the capabilities it brings with it.

 

[Chogy]

That was a bit snide, I apologize. But consider modern technologies...

A single F/A-18 (let alone an F-22) could target 4, 6, 8 of these things all by himself. They would (due to their size) be detectable at vast distances, and the missiles would have an absolutely solid lock and track solution against a target that could at best do a 1.2 G turn.

Anything that flies, by definition, has essentially zero armor. A-A missiles are engineered to spew pyrophoric (burning) debris at hypersonic speeds. Fuel tanks are punctured, fires are started, Engines (mounted on top) are shredded and self-destruct. This fragility is why a missile like a Stinger or Strela can down a heavy aircraft using a warhead not much bigger than a soldier's hand grenade.

 

[SQ8]

Which brings up a little question.. can this thing.. slip in and out of being a "boat".
Or more directly.. will an AIM-120 still track it if it hits the water??

 

[Ajaxpaul]

wiki says it will go up only 5 mtrs above water. Doesn't it cause a lot of turbulence? how can it stay up for a long time. Is it like a hovercraft?

I am no expert..so please excuse if my questions sound stupid.

 

[HROBOS]

That was a bit snide, I apologize. But consider modern technologies...

A single F/A-18 (let alone an F-22) could target 4, 6, 8 of these things all by himself. They would (due to their size) be detectable at vast distances, and the missiles would have an absolutely solid lock and track solution against a target that could at best do a 1.2 G turn.

Anything that flies, by definition, has essentially zero armor. A-A missiles are engineered to spew pyrophoric (burning) debris at hypersonic speeds. Fuel tanks are punctured, fires are started, Engines (mounted on top) are shredded and self-destruct. This fragility is why a missile like a Stinger or Strela can down a heavy aircraft using a warhead not much bigger than a soldier's hand grenade.

I am pleased to speak on the merits.
Let us agree in advance. We say a little imagination (within reason and technically feasible).
Because - that none of us knows the future characteristics of the (new ekranoplana).
I have a question for you. Which missiles would use airplanes F-18/22 (in this case). I would be grateful if you indicate the approximate characteristics of these missiles. Different sources different data (we use return your settings).
We will consider ekranoplany (armed anti-ship missiles).
I think the effectiveness of amphibious and antisubmarine ekranoplanov, no doubt.

 

[HROBOS]

wiki says it will go up only 5 mtrs above water. Doesn't it cause a lot of turbulence? how can it stay up for a long time. Is it like a hovercraft?

I am no expert..so please excuse if my questions sound stupid.

Ekranoplany and hovercrafts (created under his bottom) cushion of air. They do it in different ways.
1. Hovercraft creates pressure by fans in a limited (rubber skirt) space.
The progressive movement is carried out with additional engines.
2. Ekranoplan uses a different method. It creates an air pressure with a steady motion (acceleration, and he needed a short wings). Flight ekranoplanya like slipping on an air cushion.
So you're right 50%.
I hope my translation will not be difficult.

 

[Chogy]

I am pleased to speak on the merits.
Let us agree in advance. We say a little imagination (within reason and technically feasible).
Because - that none of us knows the future characteristics of the (new ekranoplana).
I have a question for you. Which missiles would use airplanes F-18/22 (in this case). I would be grateful if you indicate the approximate characteristics of these missiles. Different sources different data (we use return your settings).
We will consider ekranoplany (armed anti-ship missiles).
I think the effectiveness of amphibious and antisubmarine ekranoplanov, no doubt.

Even if I knew the exact details of the AIM-120C, for example, I wouldn't post them. But I will post that missiles made after about 1972 rely on a doppler return, meaning they track velocity. Every echo that returns from mass that is below a certain velocity, say 50 knots, is filtered out from the return. ONLY objects with velocities higher than the filter notch show on the scope, and are seen by the missile.

Ocean waves don't exceed 50 knots. Ekranoplans do. Thus, as far as the targeting radar and missile go, the ground/ocean clutter simply isn't there. All it sees is a giant echo traveling at 300, 400 knots. BOOM.

And an F/A-18 at 40,000 feet could loft one of these a LONG ways. You add the patrol radius (with refueling) of the CAP aircraft, call it 1,000km, and the engagement distance of the missile, and there's your protective umbrella.

Assuming the Ekranoplan makes it past the CAP, it would still have to penetrate picket ships, defensive missiles, all the technology designed to prevent anti-ship missile attacks from working.

If the Ekranoplan managed to set down and slow to a few knots, he would blend into the background clutter. But then, he's nothing more than a fragile, thin-skinned surface missile frigate.

If a nation wanted to pursue anti-ship missile technology, it makes a lot more sense to greatly increase the range of the AS missile itself, and launch them from land. Or better yet, do what the USSR did for a long time... load Tu-95 and Tu-22 with these. THAT is a big threat.

For anti-submarine use, being very close to the water is a hinderance, not a benefit. The surface area of the sea that can be scanned goes UP as altitude increases.

I'm sorry, the USSR scientists and military planners that rejected the original Ekranoplan made the correct decision. They were smart. It was made obsolete by advancing fighter radar and missile technology. It is still a very cool and impressive device, but so was the Hindenburg.

 

[ptldM3]

This thing is essentially a very fast ship, and yes it is vulnerable just like any other ship. There is no need for such a craft when Russia is producing a variety of surface ships as well as submarines.

Currently it would be nice to built an additional aircraft carrier, since Russia has only one and eventually, 10, 20, 30 year down the road they will need to think about replacing it. Currently Russia is planning on producing 20 Admiral Sergey Gorshkov class frigates, 20 Steregushchy class corvettes, 8 Lada class submarine, 6-10 Yasen class submarines, 8 Borei class submarines, 5 Ivan Gren class landing ships, and 2-4 Mistrals.

But no carriers

That was a bit snide, I apologize. But consider modern technologies...

A single F/A-18 (let alone an F-22) could target 4, 6, 8 of these things all by himself. They would (due to their size) be detectable at vast distances, and the missiles would have an absolutely solid lock and track solution against a target that could at best do a 1.2 G turn.

Anything that flies, by definition, has essentially zero armor. A-A missiles are engineered to spew pyrophoric (burning) debris at hypersonic speeds. Fuel tanks are punctured, fires are started, Engines (mounted on top) are shredded and self-destruct. This fragility is why a missile like a Stinger or Strela can down a heavy aircraft using a warhead not much bigger than a soldier's hand grenade.

But what about the A-10, SU-25, or MI-24, all aircraft are armored and have been able to withstand a lot of punishment. There has been SU-25's that have returned to base after being hit with heat seeking missiles. The MI-24 is very much the same, it has taken some very bad punishment over Afghanistan, in fact it can withstand .50 rounds into the rotor blades. All three aircraft can withstand heavy damage before their amour is penetrated and even when their amour was penetrated all three aircraft have been able to return home even after having lost engines, parts of wings, or in general having gapping holes blown into their fuselages.

I'm not sure if the ekronoplane was amoured or not but if the same methods of amour that was used on the A-10, SU-25 and MI-24 were incorporated than there is no reason why it wouldn’t be able to survive direct hits from missiles, but again it would depend on the size of the warhead and where it hits. A large cruise missle would probably do the job.

 

[Swatwolf]

Someone tell me what would happen to this plane in the middle of a storm or a tidal wave? Will it glide over waves as well? Probably one of the reasons it was shelf.

 

[HROBOS]

Someone tell me what would happen to this plane in the middle of a storm or a tidal wave? Will it glide over waves as well? Probably one of the reasons it was shelf.

C During the storm, no one is fighting.
Even large ships trying to take refuge in safe havens.