lun-class ekranoplan!

[HROBOS]

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.

1. Ekranoplan can not be detected at a distance of 1,000 km.
2. In order to be able to intercept his aircraft at a distance of 1,000 km. Detection must be increased to at least 2,000 km (including reaction time and target velocity). It's not real x2.
Do you know why the planes do not fly at low altitude over the sea? Do you know why the use of naval aviation corrosion coatings and cleaning aircraft from salt deposits? The trajectory of a missile AIM-120C (in the terminal phase of flight. I doubt that it will fly at high altitude to hit their low-flying target. Who can guarantee that this missile will be able to operate effectively at a low altitude (pickled of sea spray) . It is possible that the missile AIM-120C face the sea wave.
1. How many missiles will reach the target (in a collision course)? Personally, I do not know.
2. How many rockets can hit from the rear hemisphere ekranoplan. The answer to this question, I know exactly 0. Behind the tail is formed ekranoplana present cloud of sea water. If we exclude mutual stupidity F-18 pilots and ekranoplana. As a result we get. F-18 will interfere, ekranoplanam perform an attack (causing the maneuver).
Ekranoplany capable of diverting a large part of aviation. Thereby weakening the defense of an aircraft carrier.
1. The weakening of defense.
2. The weakening of anti-submarine warfare.
This circumstance may well take advantage of the enemy.
1. Attack of the water (submarine).
2. Air attack (enemy aircraft).
3. Missile attack (the enemy surface forces).
Construction ekranoplanov rightly so.
Especially effective is the use of ekranoplanov in combination with other complexes attack

 

[salvage]

can someone tell me WTF this is? i never knew it excisted untill now, like what the hell, a flying submarine or something!

Lun-class ekranoplan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(a norwegian newspaper with this article)

De glemte, sovjetiske havmonstrene - Vitenskap-og-teknologi - NRK

(a guy who has taken a dozen of pictures from this aircraft)

igor113 -

i also read that this cant fly that high, what is the point of making it into an aeroplane then?

sir are u sure its lun-class or is it a typo....i think its lunov and you missed ov

 

[Chogy]

Ekranoplan can not be detected at a distance of 1,000 km.

1,000 km is the proposed combat radius of a carrier's defensive fighters. The number is actually much greater than that. Much of the rest of your post relies on this mistake. Nowhere did I say an F/A-18 could lock ANYTHING up at 1,000 km.

The trajectory of a missile AIM-120C (in the terminal phase of flight. I doubt that it will fly at high altitude to hit their low-flying target. Who can guarantee that this missile will be able to operate effectively at a low altitude (pickled of sea spray)

Now you are REALLY grasping. I don't think you understand how these missiles work. They don't skim the sea, they loft high and come down on the target. The sea will have exactly zero affect on an AIM-120.

Even if it DID, you imply that the sea is sulfuric acid or something! Missiles are made for all weather use. I assure you they could survive a bit of salt spray for their 3 minutes of life.

How many missiles will reach the target (in a collision course)? Personally, I do not know.

With a target like the Ekranoplan, probably 95% or more will guide successfully.

How many rockets can hit from the rear hemisphere ekranoplan. The answer to this question, I know exactly 0. Behind the tail is formed ekranoplana present cloud of sea water. If we exclude mutual stupidity F-18 pilots and ekranoplana. As a result we get. F-18 will interfere, ekranoplanam perform an attack (causing the maneuver).

Again, they come DOWN on the target. This isn't a cartoon where missiles chase airplanes around the sky. A missile points at a spot where, IN THE FUTURE, the two will meet.

The answer to this question, I know exactly 0.

Incorrect.

I can see I cannot convince you. I can only hope that Russia pours precious defense $$ into this system, rather than upgrading it's fighter, bomber, and surface ship fleets.

 

[Chogy]

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..

The level of armor is relative, of course. Some aircraft have more than others. But ALL of them pale before tanks and ships.

A surface destroyer could absorb 100+ AIM-120's and keep fighting.

Armoring an Ekranoplan would increase its survivability, but the penalty in weight and payload would be enormous. And it'd still remain vulnerable.

Look how many Mi-24's were shot down by Stinger, which carries only 450 grams of explosive. The Strela series is similar, and would do similar damage to Apaches.

The general observation is that if it flies, it's vulnerable, and it doesn't take much to bring it down.

 

[HROBOS]

1,000 km is the proposed combat radius of a carrier's defensive fighters. The number is actually much greater than that. Much of the rest of your post relies on this mistake. Nowhere did I say an F/A-18 could lock ANYTHING up at 1,000 km.



Now you are REALLY grasping. I don't think you understand how these missiles work. They don't skim the sea, they loft high and come down on the target. The sea will have exactly zero affect on an AIM-120.

Even if it DID, you imply that the sea is sulfuric acid or something! Missiles are made for all weather use. I assure you they could survive a bit of salt spray for their 3 minutes of life.



With a target like the Ekranoplan, probably 95% or more will guide successfully.



Again, they come DOWN on the target. This isn't a cartoon where missiles chase airplanes around the sky. A missile points at a spot where, IN THE FUTURE, the two will meet.



Incorrect.

I can see I cannot convince you. I can only hope that Russia pours precious defense $$ into this system, rather than upgrading it's fighter, bomber, and surface ship fleets.

1. The maximum distance interception (in 1000 km.) Was specified by you. Well, you agreed with the inability to intercept targets at a distance (except for random capabilities).
Events will unfold in the 200-400km.

2. Nobody said that the rocket will fly all the way at low altitude. However, it will not be able to attack from a great height at an angle (nearly vertical drop) will agree that is absurd.

A) Most of the path of the rocket will hold at the optimum height for yourself. The final part of the flight will depend on maneuvering targets.
Who told you that the goal will be to the point where you're waiting for her? With the same success you can go back to the receiver of a large-caliber anti-aircraft artillery (100-152 mm) and refuse to air missiles (short and medium range). Enough to have a radar and a primitive computer (in order to calculate the trajectory.) So what we're going to the cinema at least in common?

B) In the final phase of the trajectory the rocket will have to come down to super-low altitude.

1. When I talked about the spray, I was referring to the wave.

2. Do not try to convince me that the height of the rocket is the best 4-7 meters.

3. Missile to hit a target (we need to go a certain distance). AIM-120 is able to overcome the turbulent flow (the trace left by the flight eekranoplana)? Yes, it can (if the aircraft has the "high altitude"). You're trying to convince me that the rocket did not "dive" in this situation. What is the loss of a few meters of altitude in a given situation (low-altitude maneuvering rockets)? I think you're quite able to understand it themselves. Combat conditions (use of weapons), differ from laboratory conditions

 

[Chogy]

This is getting tedious.

I did not say an F/A-18 could detect one of these at 1,000 km.

Here are my exact words:

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.

Sortie means it can fly to that distance. In other words, the F/A-18 takes off, flies 1,000 km from the carrier, and CAPS. Very possible. Then, it detects the Ekranoplan while it is roughly 1,200 km from the carrier.

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.

Again, the proposed patrol area is 1,000 km from the carrier.

Events will unfold in the 200-400km.

No, they won't. They will unfold at greater ranges than that.

2. Nobody said that the rocket will fly all the way at low altitude. However, it will not be able to attack from a great height at an angle (nearly vertical drop) will agree that is absurd.

You don't have a clue about missile intercept geometry and kinematics. YES, it does in fact attack at extreme angles. YES it will do so successfully. Otherwise, any aircraft would be safe if it simply flew at 20 meters. The Iraqis did that very well, and a lot faster than the Ekranoplan, when they ran towards Iran in 1991. They got smoked. One of my friends killed a pair of them with AIM-7 missiles.

Who told you that the goal will be to the point where you're waiting for her?

Years of experience with these systems tells me.

The radar and missile combination tracks the velocity vector of the target. The missile computes where IT and the TARGET will be predicated on both vectors. The missile flies to that point, and gets updated along the way.

When I talked about the spray, I was referring to the wave.

Won't do a thing to the missile. How come anti-ship missiles like Exocet and Harpoon don't have problems with the ocean when they attack targets significantly lower than the Ekranoplan?

Do not try to convince me that the height of the rocket is the best 4-7 meters.

I won't, you have convinced yourself that Russia has created a wonder-weapon that is immune to the most modern fighters and missiles. Good for Russia. Sure is odd that the USSR dropped the program, and the U.S. never bothered to make a fleet of these invulnerable systems.

 

[HROBOS]

This is getting tedious.

I did not say an F/A-18 could detect one of these at 1,000 km.

Here are my exact words:



Sortie means it can fly to that distance. In other words, the F/A-18 takes off, flies 1,000 km from the carrier, and CAPS. Very possible. Then, it detects the Ekranoplan while it is roughly 1,200 km from the carrier.




Again, the proposed patrol area is 1,000 km from the carrier.




No, they won't. They will unfold at greater ranges than that.



You don't have a clue about missile intercept geometry and kinematics. YES, it does in fact attack at extreme angles. YES it will do so successfully. Otherwise, any aircraft would be safe if it simply flew at 20 meters. The Iraqis did that very well, and a lot faster than the Ekranoplan, when they ran towards Iran in 1991. They got smoked. One of my friends killed a pair of them with AIM-7 missiles.



Years of experience with these systems tells me.

The radar and missile combination tracks the velocity vector of the target. The missile computes where IT and the TARGET will be predicated on both vectors. The missile flies to that point, and gets updated along the way.



Won't do a thing to the missile. How come anti-ship missiles like Exocet and Harpoon don't have problems with the ocean when they attack targets significantly lower than the Ekranoplan?



I won't, you have convinced yourself that Russia has created a wonder-weapon that is immune to the most modern fighters and missiles. Good for Russia. Sure is odd that the USSR dropped the program, and the U.S. never bothered to make a fleet of these invulnerable systems.

If you're dealing with missiles, you should know about anti-missile maneuvers (eg, "kolokol", "cobra").
Each system has a response time.

Ekranoplan can perform similar maneuvers in the sense of (possibility of reducing the speed to 0). The sharp deceleration of the water (change of speed and deceleration of the water). During this process, he dipped heavily into the water.
The high velocity missiles toward their targets (not always a +). This is one of the possibilities.

Now consider an attack from the rear hemisphere (without loss of speed).

1. Nothing prevents ekranoplanu (to detect missile launch). Accordingly, his motion is not straightforward.
Missiles capable of reacting to change the direction of the target (anti-aircraft artillery different ability to produce only a barrage of gunfire). The closer the missile will be their target. The more will seek to attack her for "optimal path" (shortest path). I mean finishing time of the attack (a few seconds before tripping the fuse).

2. You will not be 20 meters. The missile is designed for aerial combat. She will not try to fly above ekranoplana. You too overestimate intelligence missile (it would not determine for itself a secure path). The main task is to destroy the rocket its goal. Now you can start from a height of 3 - 7 meters. The turbulent flow of air and spray (eight powerful engine running above the water surface). The sharp increase in density of the medium in the path of the rocket. The reaction rate rockets to height loss? I'm not interested in the answer. The missile did not have time to react to changing flight conditions. Developers of 100% did not expect such a situation. If your rocket is not a torpedo (when its mission ended at the bottom of the sea).

3. Why not be afraid of anti-ship missiles fly at low altitude.

A) To begin. These missiles were originally developed for flight regimes at low altitude.

B) Even in this case. Very few missiles capable of overcoming all their way at low altitude. Many of the rockets falling only at the final stage of flight.

C) anti-ship missiles have a greater margin of structural integrity (as compared with anti-aircraft missiles). Some anti-ship missiles have armor (protecting critical systems).

D) anti-ship missiles capable of hitting targets (which have the speed to 40 knots). They can destroy ekranoplan (only in port).
Therefore it is not ethically possible to compare the anti-ship missiles and missile air-to-air.
This will be equivalent to over a tank and infantry combat vehicles.

4. Distance interception. We do not know when the actual data about the possibilities E-2.
I rely on numbers.
Discovery (group goals) 480km. (From other sources up to 600 km.).
Detection of a cruise missile is 258 km.
Calling numbers 200-400km. I assume that.
Ekranoplan be detected at a distance of 450-400km. (+ Response time to the threat).
400 - pessimistic scenario.
200 aptimistichny scenario.
300 - the most realistic.
Perhaps ekranoplan not be detected (up to a missile launch).
Russia has experience in aviation flights over U.S. aircraft carriers (caught off guard and unprepared to repel an attack). There are many variations of this scenario.

5. Feasibility of construction ekranoplanov. I have not once said that eekranoplan most effective in combination with other means of attack. You continue to ignore it (by giving his assessment of the effectiveness of ekranoplana).

 

[Thomas]

You make a lot of asumptions based on no hands on experience. and your trying to tell someone with years of hands on experience with radar, missile systems, and flying caps. he doesn't know what he is talking about. .........

 

[HROBOS]

You make a lot of asumptions based on no hands on experience. and your trying to tell someone with years of hands on experience with radar, missile systems, and flying caps. he doesn't know what he is talking about. .........

Surprise me with his knowledge. Maybe I want to laugh.
If he can not. Borrow someone else's thoughts (on a dedicated forum, you have a great selection). Then (with a straight face) to extradite those thoughts were his own.
This will be the best option (compared with idle chatter.)

 

[Chogy]

Hrobos, your assumptions and explanations are presumptive and frankly childish. When I tell you that an AA missile will have no problem killing one of these things, I speak from hands-on, real life experience. But you don't like the answer.

In your mind, you've come up with all sorts of reasons why your invincible flying boat will change the very face of warfare. Fortunately for your nation, men a lot smarter and more realistic rejected it. Every few years, some new group "discovers" the ground-effect vehicle, and we go through this again.

I'll be blunt - it's a flying piece of **** that, if employed, will end up dumping national treasure and blood into the sea. And guys like you will wonder "Wow, I guess those American missiles can actually hit a target at 10 meters altitude. Why didn't the waves or spray knock them out of the sky? I really wanted that to happen, but it didn't."

 

[HROBOS]

Hrobos, your assumptions and explanations are presumptive and frankly childish. When I tell you that an AA missile will have no problem killing one of these things, I speak from hands-on, real life experience. But you don't like the answer.

In your mind, you've come up with all sorts of reasons why your invincible flying boat will change the very face of warfare. Fortunately for your nation, men a lot smarter and more realistic rejected it. Every few years, some new group "discovers" the ground-effect vehicle, and we go through this again.

I'll be blunt - it's a flying piece of **** that, if employed, will end up dumping national treasure and blood into the sea. And guys like you will wonder "Wow, I guess those American missiles can actually hit a target at 10 meters altitude. Why didn't the waves or spray knock them out of the sky? I really wanted that to happen, but it didn't."

1. No one has the experience destroy targets at such a low altitude and in such extreme conditions. In this case you do not speak the truth, or rather, half-truths.

2. You can find cases of successful use of rockets (class air - air), low-flying targets.

A) Such cases are rare (we do not have the statistics of successful / unsuccessful applications of this weapon).

B) The plane can fly at a height of 3 - 5 meters (long time).
I rule out suicide.

C) From this one can assume that most of the cases (the successful destruction of aircraft) occurred at a time (not a successful attempt to evade the missiles at low altitude).
Hence, the aim of decreasing the rocket and the rocket was pursuing his goal.
Ekranoplan constantly moving at low altitude (different angles of attack, a rocket).

3. Last time I tried to show some primitive mechanical difficulties which will have a rocket (sometimes I did this deliberately primitive). However, I have not ever said that they will solve everything at 100%.

A) I do not rule out the problems of detecting and tracking targets. If we sum up all the problems, then defeat ekranoplana such as "Lun" is problematic.

B), however you look at the effectiveness of weapons (a retired) on the basis of the modern achievements of arms (at least it is stupid). I can send to a comparison of the F-22 and MiG-21. However, you do not forget to kick ekranoplan, and call it a seaplane (apparently based on the fact that the era of seaplanes passed).

&#1057 Give me even one reason why the future eekranoplan can not use new technologies (reduced radar signature, thermal signature reduction systems, electronic countermeasures, improved air defenses and other systems)? Currently, U.S. is building "freaks" on the air cushion for the Coast Guard.
Why do you think that ekranoplana in this situation there is no future?

4. When you build your assumptions on claims related to Western arms (you admit a mistake). All may look just fine (under ideal laboratory conditions). In life, everything looks different.

In the five-day war, Russian planes ran into unexpectedly strong defense of Georgia and has lost several planes.
The reason for that sudden transfer of Georgians (Ukrainian anti-aircraft installations, together with support staff). In fact for Georgia fought Ukrainian soldiers (the best specialists Ukrainian Air Defense).
A few days later, Defense of Georgia was destroyed. Do not forget, it is extremely difficult conditions for aircraft (mountains and forests, where you can hide and esm USA).

We are now seeing a different picture in Libya. Open country, complete lack of anti-air defense (I do not think opposition to the firing of small arms and slingshots). So I have fun regular reports on the destruction of another set of Libyan air defenses (whether it's radar or missile launcher). The Western alliance uses the entire list of their current systems. The result of these efforts is pathetic.

In Serbia, it was the same. For all time of the NATO bombing could destroy only a few planes and tanks (owned by Serbs). When, after the Armistice. Serbs taken out hundreds of their tanks out of Kosovo. For NATO, the moment of shame.
The second shame for NATO in this war was the destruction of F-117.
Which was destroyed by an outdated anti-aircraft missile.
The effectiveness of weapons of NATO forces in these conflicts are at a very low level. United States in its history has never faced an opponent with his equal in strength. All US-led war on the relation of forces similar to the colonial wars. With known results.

Our argument in this regard was useless (initially).

1. I am very critical to some of the specs (Western arms). I do not trust advertising.

2. You do not even really tried to challenge some of my applications (even if some of them look very weak).
On this basis, I conclude that you are not interested in the result of the dispute.
You have done (beforehand) conclusions for themselves (none of the arguments you will never be persuaded.)

 

[U-571]

lun class?? what the freakin hell?????????? lun class weapon BWHAHAHAHAHAHHA

surely that thing india wont buy or all pakistanis will die laughing

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

^^^ the biggest problem with lun class is that it can only be dutiful upto a certain time.

 

[Imran Khan]

they should change this name for sake of pakistan .we are respected peoples mam .ehat if some womens and kids join party of launching lun class?

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

seriously was it that bad that they named it lun ?