I have heard that Russia were going to develop it for civilian use as it could carry heavy cargo and transport faster and more efficient than ships. Austrailia was very interested. I wonder what happened?
It "flew" as a GEV (ground effects vehicle). SOunds good enough for me. Very innovative, but not yet a practical attack or anti-submarine platform. YET.
These aircraft / ships were found to be rather efficient, as Naval patrol craft. Unlike some hybrids, they combine the worst elements of both. The high fuel consumption, high procurement and maintenance costs, and the short mission endurance of aircraft, with the vulnerability of surface ships. I've been told that Ekranoplans can not operate in very bad weather, or high seas.
In effect, a very cool vehicle, in search of a mission.
An Ekranoplan operates on the wing-in-ground-effect principal. That is, at speed, air is compressed under the wings, that lifts the fuselage off the water. Since this effect requires minimally 100 mph speed, and is lost above 20-30 feet, this is definitely NOT a vehicle you'd want to operate over dry land.
OK, so I'm seeing here two models, one that is propelled by turboprop engines and another that appears to be propelled by jet engines. Which one of them made it into service? Did both had a carrying troops capacity or only the turboprop one? And I'm interested to know how these things would be used in a fight. They're quite large. Also, what was their operational range?
@StiviGun1 Both have jet engines -- the Orlyonok has two, they're build into the body of the plane, towards the front. The intakes are just forward of the cockpit windows. Eight or so Orlyonoks were built, at least one (maybe two?) surivive. The original monster, shown in the opening shot, crashed in the 1970s. It was one of a kind. A second slightly smaller version with missile launchers was built in the 1980s, that's the Lun at 7:35, which was "put in service" but I dont know what extent
@ragemanchoo82 OK, so what would've been the doctrine behind these in a war? How would they be used against the US navy? BTW, do u know what was their maximum speed and range?
@ragemanchoo82 Lun was the first of a projected fleet of anti-ship ekranoplans. However, a change in attitude in the upper echelons of the soviet navy meant the focus changed from spending money on new projects, to maintaining more conventional equipment. Only one Lun' was built. It sits under maintenance now, whilst it's sister, Spasatel, remains unfinished.
@StiviGun1 They them selves would not participate in close combat, but would instead either act as cruiser ships and fire missiles or land troops and tanks on the enemy shore. The beauty is they are nor detected by the radars which means they can creap up and no one would expect them, also they travel mega fast. The consept itself is quite facinating as well, because it flyes and swims, yet it is nor a ship nor a plane.
@ssrepubliqu Yeah, these kind of ships would be very useful in a war, in specially as landing troops ships. They also have missiles so they can bombard the shore preparing it for the soldiers and the equipment it's carrying. The soviet navy would've had a tremendous advantage if they would've continued to work on these things. They can carry much more equipment than a conventional plane.
@SuburbAllied I've heard about a project by Beriev, it's an ekranoplan with two bodies and greater wingspan, it's capable to fly at aircraft altitudes, the only setback is fuel consumption, ti shortens the range in half but enables the craft to pass above a storm. I've heard also that this planes could fly higher, but the problem is the same, fuel. Ground effect rises lift up, so saves energy; that's the main concern rather than altitude itself. :) It would be thrilling: 500 kmh and waves!
It didn't really "fly". It never got out of "ground effect" and as such is more of a hover craft than a true airplane. I don't wonder why or whether it flew. I wonder why they ever agreed to build it. Freaking Russians. Crazy.
@MrCoffeeandWine U americans r gelous what the soviet builds ecranoplan is better than u think and u have no idea from life in europe u live in ur gumibear land dont interess u on the rest of the world russians r genials mashine builder and the russian attack helicopters r mutch than ur f..g apache RUSSIAN POWER
@MrCoffeeandWine: It was specifically built to only fly in the "ground effect." It is known as a Wing In Ground effect craft. It is technically classified as an airplane but it is incapable of rising above the ground effect, nor was it designed to do so. As to why they built it? For starters if perfected it could be an effective landing craft. It is a hell of a lot faster than hover landing craft or conventional landing craft, and it has a much greater range.
@MrCoffeeandWine It could fly if they wanted it to, at least the Orlyonok could. It was designed to fly at relatively low altitudes, though. The KM and Lun didn't get higher than about 20 feet off the water.
@ragemanchoo82 I see that being mentioned in quite a few places but I never was able to find a video and I would really love to see it. I love ekranoplanes, they always have been my favorite. Even for LUN I've seen that it can reach altitude of few hundreds meters. I'm guessing it's probably not as efficient.
@ragemanchoo82 Because it faster than any ship (450 km/h, LUN 500), I dont know which one, it can carry 544tones includes plane itself, also radars are not able to see because it just a few meter above of the water. Also it is more economical than any plane due to "ekran" effect. Ultimate machine, I know that russian is going to continue making these ekranplanes
@MrCoffeeandWine Because it faster than any ship (450 km/h, LUN 500), I dont know which one, it can carry 544tones includes plane itself, also radars are not able to see because it just a few meter above of the water. Also it is more economical than any plane due to "ekran" effect. Ultimate machine, I know that russian is going to continue making these ekranplanes.
In Russia will resume production of "Caspian Monsters"
Central Design Bureau named Alekseev, known as the developer of "Caspian Monster", intends to resume the design and development work to create a WIG, which subsequently will be used for law enforcement agencies in Russia. This, as reported by Interfax, said the head of department of quality CDB Alekseev Evgeny Meleshko. According to him, CCB received a request the government to resume work.
In Russia will resume production of "Caspian Monsters"
Central Design Bureau named Alekseev, known as the developer of "Caspian Monster", intends to resume the design and development work to create a WIG, which subsequently will be used for law enforcement agencies in Russia. This, as reported by Interfax, said the head of department of quality CDB Alekseev Evgeny Meleshko. According to him, CCB received a request the government to resume work.
In Russia will resume production of "Caspian Monsters"
Central Design Bureau named Alekseev, known as the developer of "Caspian Monster", intends to resume the design and development work to create a WIG, which subsequently will be used for law enforcement agencies in Russia. This, as reported by Interfax, said the head of department of quality CDB Alekseev Evgeny Meleshko. According to him, CCB received a request the government to resume work.
nice video by the way i saw a plane on pictures that kinda looked like that but inseted had many things on its body of the plane looked miltary i belive but it looked exactly the same but with missles in the back i belive
Advantage of Ekranoplan was high speed, higher than naval surface units. Soviet fleet doctrine called for "battle of first salvo." Made sense given overwhelming relative size of US Navy vs Soviet adversary. Ekranoplan could have bagged 1 or more US CV's. US naval planners were VERY concerned w/Ekronoplan threat. Ekranoplan was NOT intended to operate alone, but in concert with Soviet air, naval surface and subsurface systems. Ekranoplan was yet another component of Soviet multi-dimensial threat.
The principle advantage of this ship is that airborne radars have a harder time finding it and surface radars (except ionosphere bouncing ones) cant see beyond the horizon - so the ekranoplan waits beyond the horizon then closes with frightening speed and launches an attack, before leaving again at high speed.
One sidewinder and that thing will fall out of the sky like a 50 ton brick. bad idea i think, but awesome piece of engineering just for its sheer gargantuan stature.
this were great deterrent weapons, when the west found out they were very surprised and had to keep an eye on every single of those planes, granted there werent many built.
Undetectable by RADAR? Sure a RADAR looking for aircraft but there are other types of RADAR that would spot this thing in no time. Coastal Surveillance and Surface Search (carried on most warships including U.S. aircraft carriers) would spot this thing easily. It would look like a fast moving ship. I wish this video had English subtitles. Looks very informative.
Unless thats a radar that bounces off the ionosphere, its not going to see past the horizon - and this thing can close 55 km in 360 seconds, or 6 minutes.
With the weapon it uses having a range of 120km, it could skirt just inside radar range, fire, and then escape beyond radar range - hoping to make enough course changes that counterfired anti ship missiles could not catch it
actually not, this could be very effective in quick hit and run attack on enemy aircraft carrier or battle group, its flying on only few meters altitude so radar cant detect it....in fact this was very inovative and intressting plane, too bad it never went into serial production :(
They are using ground effect to fly. An enormous amount of power is required to get it out of the water, but once airborne, you need much less power for stable ground effect flight.
These craft made the Americans crap themselves when they found out about them. They could do 500 mph and were undetectable by radar!
If they could have got them to fly elsewhere, those missiles would have been useful. If the objective is to come up with a vessel capable of carrying missiles, then it makes sense that you'll also place missiles on it while testing it =)
Since its essentially a giant land-locked lake the weather and surf tend to be more predictable. That and in the Caspian Sea they probably wouldn't have to worry about the military vessels of unfriendly nations (namely the US or UK) passing by and spying. On that note, you'd think Lake Ladoga would be better for testing since its entirely land-locked by Russia. Maybe it wasn't big enough?
Thanks! I was thinking the same from developing it, but I had never heard about using them somewhere else. About Lake Lagoda: maybe it is too near to Finland, and it is very up in the north.
Yes you are right Ladoga Lake placed near to Finland. But KM Ekranoplan never flying above Ladoga lake water. This ekranoplan was tested only on Caspian sea.
Ladoga Lake not has strategic status becouse placed in to Russia area and not has exit to sea. Exit from Ladoga to sea may only through Neva river and Finnish gulf
It was highly classified, and it couldnt fly anywhere with proper waves. Thats what killed it, it couldnt handle anything except a flat surface. Correct me if im wrong :)
Even though it was designed to ride on the air cushion between the wings and surface, couldn't it also climb to about two kilometers if it had to clear an obstacle?
not really there was one that did it in order to pass over a big wave and the thing how ot fly is that it use a ground effect that make that air will"bounce"on ground and go back on the wing increasing is lift. when he gain more altitude he loose this lift and thus is not really god (really not good) du to his wight and form of wing so the pilot lifted it and stall and crash so no if he tryed to climb to evitate a wave imagine 2 km
The theory is that on take off it was awfully inefficient but the science of WIG (wing in ground effect) shows that it should be more efficient than conventional aircraft.
50 years old, carried as much as a ship, travelled as fast as a jet. To low for radar, no sonar signiture when flying.Died because lack of funding when the USSR and the cold war stopped!
Apart from the fact it was utterly useless outside a lake or in crap weather. That would of had more to do with being scuttled as a post cold war project.
if i were the russian gov., id use this for civil purposes. though in ussr we all were within the same borders, its the russians who now have construction papers of that machine. great pity they had put aside such a big business chance. just imagine, a big high-speed cargo ship, superiorly higher load capability (so fuel efficient), you may easily get a global cargo super-power status and count your cash inflow. amazing...
Boeing was working on something similiar not long ago. To solve the high seas problem it's supposed to be able to fly as a normal plane when seas get to rough.
olynl -- You're probably thinking of the Boeing Pelican. The project has been put on hiatus, probably mostly due to the Bush recession and eventual stock market crash. I don't think it got past the small-scale model testing stage. Its a large, boxy plan with four propeller engines.
It would seem like a regular seaplane but with jet engines would be more practical than an ekranoplan. Apparently Boeing is considering very large cargo transporter seaplane, the Pelican (which has four prop engines with very large propellers), but its almost certainly not going to happen in this economy.
It crashed? i'm surprised as the commentator seems to be in front of both the smaler cargo and older missile carrier...maybre the original one but they have clearly 2 new ones.I think the russians like the idea of something that fast going under the radar,literaly.with the speed of a jet and the capacity of an GEV,they have adventages over seaplanes(pontoons create drag...)helicopters and hydrofoil.
These type of craft were considered too easy to disable once weapons systems advances of the late 50's rolled in. Boeing actually had a seaborn bomber that was shelved for this very reason. A shot up airplane that lands on earth won't sink to the bottom of the sea.
youre wrong. its not airplane. The ground effect gave it superior load capacity-it could carry 540 tons of cargo (900 troops + 2 APCs). Since it flew some 5-15 meters over surface, it couldnt be harmed by sea weapons (torpedoes/mines), and really hard to shotdown by missiles if that time. So - think about it as ultimate transporter-more expensive then ship, but many times faster, and superiorly efficient compared to airplane.Even tho the project 903 Lun served in soviet army as missile carrier.
I want to buy one!! Russian dominance here! No one likes to accept the fact that Rusland had better, bigger and more effective weaponry. Glad Gorbatsjov made us understand the coldwar race only has losers and therefor Russia won the coldwar, NOT Reaganomic-America.
It's in vogue to hate America, but the fact is that America stopped Russia, a nation whose communism killed tens of millions of innocent people. It doesn't really matter who had the best weapons. Russia was sick, and it's still got a ways to go before it's better.
Note that the only KM crashed twice, most Orlynooks crashed, and the Lun rusts. And never was as stable in WIG flight as the 100 year old Spruce Goose. Slow, unstable, huge targets. Dominance?
No I refuse to argue over the Russian supremacy. All you state here can as well be dedicated to America. haha. No way buddie. Ok, now I need to have the money. Russian maffia is too dangerous ,...mm, I'll ask the biggest maffia in the world, the American goverment, hahaha.
idcs, every single American who has every lived in the past 232 years combined has not killed as many people as Joe Stalin. It is so disgusting that people ignore the true nature of evil in order to hate the US, a nation that does have many faults, but nothing like the USSR or PRC.
In fact, America is responsible for many life saving innovations in the fight against hunger and disease, and Dr. Borlaug, American inventor, saved more lives than any 100 Russians combined who have ever lived.
America is responsible for many lives, than has been lost by pretence of "Fight for democracy in other countries". Iraq, for example. But i think it is off topic (for this publication)
criticism of the U.S government or whoever is in control its hard to tell these days shouldn't be mistaken for hatred of the american ppl. The present government asks for conspiracies against it to be ignored because they are lies, yet they lie themselves about everything. makes u wonder.. 2million iraqi children died of hunger and disease before the war because of the U.S and its sanctions
the fact is that u got ur facts wrong, and the Dr Borlaug thing true yes but one man does not help ur case because one mans achievement cannot make up for all the blood the U.S government has spilt over the years directly or indirectly and will continue to do so by the look of things. there's nothing wrong in being nationalistic land is the only thing worth fighting and dying for but u also have to be stupid (no offense) not to see the blood on ur gov hands.. and no im not russian
Interesting indeed. Especially "carrier-destroyer" part - Lun one. These rocket containers are huge, and with minor redesign they could be used for anything modern (smaller per unit, and much more deadly). Perhaps even winged missiles. Nuclear ones...
Certainly nuclear, this was an original requirement. They would have a hard time getting to a carrier, though. The few that didn't crash would easily be knocked out by airplanes. They were easy to spot and terrible at maneuvering. Remember, the KM (this big one) sits at the bottom of the Caspian. Many Ekranoplan pilots died, and Russia never mass produced these things for a reason.
I think such a beast would've had a chance to carry out its mission during the times it was launched. The early '60's radar would've had a hard time picking the KM out from the background surface clutter until it got in close enough to attack. Aircraft radar would only pick up clutter and the pilot would have to attack visually using his guns. As I understand it, the KM porpoised and crashed from pilot error; attempting WIG travel without full power and the correct speed.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the Soviet Union, but they don't admit it when their weapons catastrophically fail. The KM didn't crash once. It crashed mutliple times and the last time it crashed they decided it wasn't worth the trouble of lifting up again.
Many, many others also crashed. The Eaglets (propeller ones) especially.
Every time: pilot error. We know better than to take them at their word. More of these crashed than didn't, so perhaps they had really really really bad pilots.
The Sov's refusal to publicly admit failure is well known. The video here shows the KM and Eaglets moving along nicely. If the airframe is inherently unstable, it would be practically impossible to achieve any stable flight for the video bits shown here. Perhaps those beasts were tricky in the takeoff and transition to wing-in-ground-effect mode.
There's probably some truth to that, but I disagree that all the videos show these flying stable. Many times, the rear of the craft is dragging. Also, I never see any weather. And it's the Caspian lake... not the Atlantic Ocean. Under the most stable conditions, these things crashed. But I do agree that most crashes reported were during takeoff.
They were developed over the course of decades, soI'm not surprised there are several minutes of error free video. I think that's just editing.
Soviets built so few of these because they were so unstable. They researched it because it's interesting (no one disputes that these are cool vehicles. I'm just saying they have very low value as a weapon).
Lockheed is considering the Pelican for cargo only. They aren't crazy enough to try to use it as a weapon! The Russians abandoned these projects but pursue many other weapons. Why? The US flew these Russian vehicles and has all the blueprints, and said they are not worth building. Why?
Spruce Goose Tech Comes Of Age
jurisnot 2 weeks ago
More LUNA Missile carrier footage: watch?v=WB0yCawyTQk
YouTheory 3 weeks ago
the air force told me i would pilot something like this aircraft back in the 80s
KALEIDOSCOPEN 1 month ago
translate please,this is very interesting
diagnosticobd 2 months ago
que bang estranho kkkkkkkkk e feio
maycom16 2 months ago
this is how the soviets would bring in there T80's ashore :P.
good thing the 3rd world war never started.
welkijken 4 months ago
im watching this and all I hear is "McCroya minyat Den Magazeeen!" damn COD...
Imreadingthisaloud 4 months ago
I'd shit my pants if i saw that coming at me
TheL1034 5 months ago
It's the Raven from Empires and Allies
TheOkami1113 5 months ago
So it works well over sea, but does it work also over land? Because surely there's much more changes in ground level over land.
fink58 6 months ago
Vasily : Comrade...It not lift !! No fly good!!
Yvgeny : it ok comrade. Not be nervous....we put more motors on,,,,
globalpilot76 6 months ago
I have heard that Russia were going to develop it for civilian use as it could carry heavy cargo and transport faster and more efficient than ships. Austrailia was very interested. I wonder what happened?
ap0lmc 10 months ago
this thing is so cool !!
why nobody use it? High cost? Low effectiveness? or what?
dominicfhk 10 months ago
Were can I get original copy of this program? Does anyone also know were I can get any additional original source videos of ekranoplan, anything....
akulax2 11 months ago
Its carries chuck norris to church.
ArzAcarnum 11 months ago 3
this is amazing.
SamLeSavage 1 year ago
russian shit
ericssson 1 year ago
@ericssson i never see americans build great machine like this and this shit kill you f-117 hi-tech plane in Serbian war in 1990s
crazyfabio1 1 year ago
lol i heard cowboys from hell in there
beserker1912 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And remember- who dares, wins.
InTTruder 1 year ago
It "flew" as a GEV (ground effects vehicle). SOunds good enough for me. Very innovative, but not yet a practical attack or anti-submarine platform. YET.
InTTruder 1 year ago
I guess the ekranoplan gap never held much concern with NATO Ide love to see this tschnology expanded
wendellb36 1 year ago
These aircraft / ships were found to be rather efficient, as Naval patrol craft. Unlike some hybrids, they combine the worst elements of both. The high fuel consumption, high procurement and maintenance costs, and the short mission endurance of aircraft, with the vulnerability of surface ships. I've been told that Ekranoplans can not operate in very bad weather, or high seas.
In effect, a very cool vehicle, in search of a mission.
skeilak 1 year ago
Translation please...
SvenDansk7 1 year ago
@SvenDansk7 I don't have the English transcript, sorry :(
ragemanchoo82 1 year ago
@ragemanchoo82 I could but too lazy :)
akulax2 11 months ago
I'd be crapping my pants too see an entire wave of these things loaded with troops stroming towards my local beach.
RedcapOranda 1 year ago
@RedcapOranda
An Ekranoplan operates on the wing-in-ground-effect principal. That is, at speed, air is compressed under the wings, that lifts the fuselage off the water. Since this effect requires minimally 100 mph speed, and is lost above 20-30 feet, this is definitely NOT a vehicle you'd want to operate over dry land.
skeilak 1 year ago
OK, so I'm seeing here two models, one that is propelled by turboprop engines and another that appears to be propelled by jet engines. Which one of them made it into service? Did both had a carrying troops capacity or only the turboprop one? And I'm interested to know how these things would be used in a fight. They're quite large. Also, what was their operational range?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1 Both have jet engines -- the Orlyonok has two, they're build into the body of the plane, towards the front. The intakes are just forward of the cockpit windows. Eight or so Orlyonoks were built, at least one (maybe two?) surivive. The original monster, shown in the opening shot, crashed in the 1970s. It was one of a kind. A second slightly smaller version with missile launchers was built in the 1980s, that's the Lun at 7:35, which was "put in service" but I dont know what extent
ragemanchoo82 1 year ago
@ragemanchoo82 OK, so what would've been the doctrine behind these in a war? How would they be used against the US navy? BTW, do u know what was their maximum speed and range?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@ragemanchoo82 Lun was the first of a projected fleet of anti-ship ekranoplans. However, a change in attitude in the upper echelons of the soviet navy meant the focus changed from spending money on new projects, to maintaining more conventional equipment. Only one Lun' was built. It sits under maintenance now, whilst it's sister, Spasatel, remains unfinished.
MrMoorkey 10 months ago
Comment removed
crven53 8 months ago
@StiviGun1 They them selves would not participate in close combat, but would instead either act as cruiser ships and fire missiles or land troops and tanks on the enemy shore. The beauty is they are nor detected by the radars which means they can creap up and no one would expect them, also they travel mega fast. The consept itself is quite facinating as well, because it flyes and swims, yet it is nor a ship nor a plane.
ssrepubliqu 7 months ago
@ssrepubliqu Yeah, these kind of ships would be very useful in a war, in specially as landing troops ships. They also have missiles so they can bombard the shore preparing it for the soldiers and the equipment it's carrying. The soviet navy would've had a tremendous advantage if they would've continued to work on these things. They can carry much more equipment than a conventional plane.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
whateva it is, it can't be fun to operate that ting in heavy seas
SuburbAllied 1 year ago
@SuburbAllied I've heard about a project by Beriev, it's an ekranoplan with two bodies and greater wingspan, it's capable to fly at aircraft altitudes, the only setback is fuel consumption, ti shortens the range in half but enables the craft to pass above a storm. I've heard also that this planes could fly higher, but the problem is the same, fuel. Ground effect rises lift up, so saves energy; that's the main concern rather than altitude itself. :) It would be thrilling: 500 kmh and waves!
solnegrolunaroja 1 year ago
Amazing aircraft from the "Evil Empire"...
stellarblue51 1 year ago
How many MBTs(main battle tank),armoured vehicles and passengers(or infantry)that this plane can carry?
razer666L 1 year ago
It didn't really "fly". It never got out of "ground effect" and as such is more of a hover craft than a true airplane. I don't wonder why or whether it flew. I wonder why they ever agreed to build it. Freaking Russians. Crazy.
MrCoffeeandWine 1 year ago
@MrCoffeeandWine U americans r gelous what the soviet builds ecranoplan is better than u think and u have no idea from life in europe u live in ur gumibear land dont interess u on the rest of the world russians r genials mashine builder and the russian attack helicopters r mutch than ur f..g apache RUSSIAN POWER
OctavianDulf1976 1 year ago
@MrCoffeeandWine: It was specifically built to only fly in the "ground effect." It is known as a Wing In Ground effect craft. It is technically classified as an airplane but it is incapable of rising above the ground effect, nor was it designed to do so. As to why they built it? For starters if perfected it could be an effective landing craft. It is a hell of a lot faster than hover landing craft or conventional landing craft, and it has a much greater range.
jvidell 1 year ago
@MrCoffeeandWine Actually, in my opinion, it's too bad that they stopped working on it.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@MrCoffeeandWine It could fly if they wanted it to, at least the Orlyonok could. It was designed to fly at relatively low altitudes, though. The KM and Lun didn't get higher than about 20 feet off the water.
ragemanchoo82 1 year ago
@ragemanchoo82 I see that being mentioned in quite a few places but I never was able to find a video and I would really love to see it. I love ekranoplanes, they always have been my favorite. Even for LUN I've seen that it can reach altitude of few hundreds meters. I'm guessing it's probably not as efficient.
akulax2 11 months ago
@ragemanchoo82 Because it faster than any ship (450 km/h, LUN 500), I dont know which one, it can carry 544tones includes plane itself, also radars are not able to see because it just a few meter above of the water. Also it is more economical than any plane due to "ekran" effect. Ultimate machine, I know that russian is going to continue making these ekranplanes
TheCivicsupra 10 months ago
@ragemanchoo82 well if you get it to fly, would it not be an airplane?
ssrepubliqu 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCoffeeandWine Because it faster than any ship (450 km/h, LUN 500), I dont know which one, it can carry 544tones includes plane itself, also radars are not able to see because it just a few meter above of the water. Also it is more economical than any plane due to "ekran" effect. Ultimate machine, I know that russian is going to continue making these ekranplanes.
TheCivicsupra 10 months ago
rapid long range troop deployment (read usa invasion)
crven53 8 months ago
This is more effective than the planned import of french Mistral Ship. I wish the Russians will invest on this and develop improvements.
MrRachlin 1 year ago
вот так вот Амирикосы сосите!!! РОССИЯ РУЛИТ!!!!!!!!!
KENNY64426 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Russia will resume production of "Caspian Monsters"
Central Design Bureau named Alekseev, known as the developer of "Caspian Monster", intends to resume the design and development work to create a WIG, which subsequently will be used for law enforcement agencies in Russia. This, as reported by Interfax, said the head of department of quality CDB Alekseev Evgeny Meleshko. According to him, CCB received a request the government to resume work.
Zondrx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Russia will resume production of "Caspian Monsters"
Central Design Bureau named Alekseev, known as the developer of "Caspian Monster", intends to resume the design and development work to create a WIG, which subsequently will be used for law enforcement agencies in Russia. This, as reported by Interfax, said the head of department of quality CDB Alekseev Evgeny Meleshko. According to him, CCB received a request the government to resume work.
Zondrx 1 year ago
In Russia will resume production of "Caspian Monsters"
Central Design Bureau named Alekseev, known as the developer of "Caspian Monster", intends to resume the design and development work to create a WIG, which subsequently will be used for law enforcement agencies in Russia. This, as reported by Interfax, said the head of department of quality CDB Alekseev Evgeny Meleshko. According to him, CCB received a request the government to resume work.
Zondrx 1 year ago
nice video by the way i saw a plane on pictures that kinda looked like that but inseted had many things on its body of the plane looked miltary i belive but it looked exactly the same but with missles in the back i belive
a380j 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear All,
I have some questions about psychology:
(1) Why do we love flying?
(2) Why do we enjoy to pilot an sea plane?
(3) Comparing with flying an "wheel-landing-plane", what are the joy and excitment to fly a sea plane?
(4) How does piloting an sea plane different from piloting an "land plane"?
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!! :)
applesweeter 1 year ago
My country needs a craft like this, more than 4000 km of coast, Easter Island at 4800 km offshore... The ideal boat-plane!
solnegrolunaroja 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lexe34 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lexe34 1 year ago
this thing has the record for flying things of 544 tons (!)
nazirdjon 1 year ago
@nazirdjon The An-225 can carry up to 620 tons as far as I know
Could be wrong though
Shady32 1 year ago
Que locura !!! Pensar que hemos estado tan cerca de un conflicto atomico.!!
faboledesma 1 year ago
Advantage of Ekranoplan was high speed, higher than naval surface units. Soviet fleet doctrine called for "battle of first salvo." Made sense given overwhelming relative size of US Navy vs Soviet adversary. Ekranoplan could have bagged 1 or more US CV's. US naval planners were VERY concerned w/Ekronoplan threat. Ekranoplan was NOT intended to operate alone, but in concert with Soviet air, naval surface and subsurface systems. Ekranoplan was yet another component of Soviet multi-dimensial threat.
TagsNOLA 1 year ago
The Lun could handle 5m waves.
The principle advantage of this ship is that airborne radars have a harder time finding it and surface radars (except ionosphere bouncing ones) cant see beyond the horizon - so the ekranoplan waits beyond the horizon then closes with frightening speed and launches an attack, before leaving again at high speed.
It had merit
irR4tiOn4L 1 year ago 3
обидно то что эта машина стоит эти машины на данный момент не стоят на вооружении =(
fobos88s 1 year ago
One sidewinder and that thing will fall out of the sky like a 50 ton brick. bad idea i think, but awesome piece of engineering just for its sheer gargantuan stature.
Tannerthomas 1 year ago
this were great deterrent weapons, when the west found out they were very surprised and had to keep an eye on every single of those planes, granted there werent many built.
maiga71 1 year ago
Undetectable by RADAR? Sure a RADAR looking for aircraft but there are other types of RADAR that would spot this thing in no time. Coastal Surveillance and Surface Search (carried on most warships including U.S. aircraft carriers) would spot this thing easily. It would look like a fast moving ship. I wish this video had English subtitles. Looks very informative.
albapflazd3 1 year ago 2
Unless thats a radar that bounces off the ionosphere, its not going to see past the horizon - and this thing can close 55 km in 360 seconds, or 6 minutes.
With the weapon it uses having a range of 120km, it could skirt just inside radar range, fire, and then escape beyond radar range - hoping to make enough course changes that counterfired anti ship missiles could not catch it
irR4tiOn4L 1 year ago 3
Your mums a failed project
FreddyKidda 1 year ago 2
espectacular
davidlucasfer 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this project failed
in the end it has no point , and it is easy to take this ship (plane) down
azizaziz 2 years ago
actually not, this could be very effective in quick hit and run attack on enemy aircraft carrier or battle group, its flying on only few meters altitude so radar cant detect it....in fact this was very inovative and intressting plane, too bad it never went into serial production :(
sukhoi235 2 years ago 22
@sukhoi235 its a piece of junk, thats why it didnt get produced.
NCC1701zulu 1 month ago
The only failed project here, is YOU
Vova993 1 year ago 3
go and put apple in your mouth.
i'm talking here with people who knows about military projects. kids are not allow in this conversation.
azizaziz 1 year ago
big planes
unit666industries 2 years ago
the one Plane with that tiny single turboprop does not like like it would have enough power to even move much less fly
crabtrap 2 years ago
@crabtrap has two turbojets under "nose"
They are intented to fly in the ground efect not like a plane.
mouselg 2 years ago
@mouselg yes i understand they are groound effect planes but the smaller one with the counter rotating prop looked underpowered
crabtrap 2 years ago
They are using ground effect to fly. An enormous amount of power is required to get it out of the water, but once airborne, you need much less power for stable ground effect flight.
These craft made the Americans crap themselves when they found out about them. They could do 500 mph and were undetectable by radar!
karadan100 2 years ago
no reason to put missiles on that. still awesome though
paxbelly 2 years ago
For military reasons?
ZealotKommunizma 2 years ago
like, im just saying since they only really flew on the caspian sea that those missiles wouldnt do too much good.
paxbelly 2 years ago
If they could have got them to fly elsewhere, those missiles would have been useful. If the objective is to come up with a vessel capable of carrying missiles, then it makes sense that you'll also place missiles on it while testing it =)
ZealotKommunizma 2 years ago
low speed??? this thing goes faster than 600km/h
gogiva 2 years ago 2
even more than 800 km/h...
lechevaliernoirboss 2 years ago
@lechevaliernoirboss 500km/h, not mph. So about 250~mph.
TehBluebear 2 years ago
500km/h or
310.69 Miles/hour (mph)
landsbergisLT 1 year ago
Can anyone explain the use of turbojet engines when it's well known than turboprops are more efficient than jets at low speeds and altitudes?
chokedad 2 years ago
gosh they were so advance then......
balgurjit82 2 years ago
Was it only used on the Caspien sea? Why?
Nyusziorsth 2 years ago
Since its essentially a giant land-locked lake the weather and surf tend to be more predictable. That and in the Caspian Sea they probably wouldn't have to worry about the military vessels of unfriendly nations (namely the US or UK) passing by and spying. On that note, you'd think Lake Ladoga would be better for testing since its entirely land-locked by Russia. Maybe it wasn't big enough?
ragemanchoo82 2 years ago
Thanks! I was thinking the same from developing it, but I had never heard about using them somewhere else. About Lake Lagoda: maybe it is too near to Finland, and it is very up in the north.
Did you see this? 42.881667,47.656667
Nyusziorsth 2 years ago
Yeah I saw that. :) Its one of the sets of coordinates in the description.
ragemanchoo82 2 years ago
Yes you are right Ladoga Lake placed near to Finland. But KM Ekranoplan never flying above Ladoga lake water. This ekranoplan was tested only on Caspian sea.
Ladoga Lake not has strategic status becouse placed in to Russia area and not has exit to sea. Exit from Ladoga to sea may only through Neva river and Finnish gulf
Lexe34 1 year ago
It was highly classified, and it couldnt fly anywhere with proper waves. Thats what killed it, it couldnt handle anything except a flat surface. Correct me if im wrong :)
infernoacid 2 years ago
A very good video, great!
Nilser1990 2 years ago
It's like a flying giant hammerhead shark! So cool.
Go Russkies.
havanahamburger 2 years ago 18
I want one :D
Neophlegm 2 years ago 2
It looks so graceful skimming just over the water like that :)
b0gAtYr 2 years ago 3
This is one of the coolest things I've ever seen!!
bigworld3001 2 years ago 5
Even though it was designed to ride on the air cushion between the wings and surface, couldn't it also climb to about two kilometers if it had to clear an obstacle?
InfiniteMushroom 2 years ago
Yeah, that's what I've read. It would be neat to see photos or footage of it more than 30 feet off the surface.
ragemanchoo82 2 years ago
not really there was one that did it in order to pass over a big wave and the thing how ot fly is that it use a ground effect that make that air will"bounce"on ground and go back on the wing increasing is lift. when he gain more altitude he loose this lift and thus is not really god (really not good) du to his wight and form of wing so the pilot lifted it and stall and crash so no if he tryed to climb to evitate a wave imagine 2 km
xaviourte 2 years ago
is that still functional (serviceable)?
alongthebluff 2 years ago
Its kinda funny to see it in Google earth, but whats weird is it belongs to Russia but it is in the United States of America in some shipping port.
Aloysius458 2 years ago
Its been moved??
ragemanchoo82 2 years ago
Any data on fuel consumption ?. It must've devoured tons per second
rangelso 2 years ago
The theory is that on take off it was awfully inefficient but the science of WIG (wing in ground effect) shows that it should be more efficient than conventional aircraft.
blyndrotor 2 years ago
50 years old, carried as much as a ship, travelled as fast as a jet. To low for radar, no sonar signiture when flying.Died because lack of funding when the USSR and the cold war stopped!
andgate2000 2 years ago 4
Apart from the fact it was utterly useless outside a lake or in crap weather. That would of had more to do with being scuttled as a post cold war project.
taipan185 2 years ago
since you cant understand russian they mention that these planes can operate in high wind and wave environments. so you are wrong.
dewey911 2 years ago 2
I think this would not have worked in other seas like Black sea beacuse they are very sensible to waves.
What is the autonomy of this giants?they seem to suck lots of kerosene
mouselg 2 years ago
Cool craft , not to practical . Still cool tek
hellavadeal 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Winner of the butt-ugly contest....which was formerly my title damn it!
CanadaMan81 3 years ago
I think its ominous looking. Kind of scary...
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
i don't think that this monster will work in heavy seas...
keysersozefede 3 years ago
Yep. That was its big downfall, and coincidentally how it met its demise. There's a wikipedia article on it.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
Now I know where Gerry Anderson got all his ideas for The Thunderbirds.
milosit 3 years ago
Haha :D I hadn't thought of that. Yeah, this DOES look like a vehicle you'd see in the show..
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
Yes! We (Russians) are the BEST!!!
QAlexTheGreatQ 3 years ago 2
I for one am not Russian. But i agree to you
Tclans 3 years ago 3
The best hmmm...this is a great achievement through.
lostinseganet 3 years ago 2
Not actually a seaplane. it's a ground effect vehicle.
DarkGeorgiaSkies 3 years ago
for business, it might be a very worthy project.
if i were the russian gov., id use this for civil purposes. though in ussr we all were within the same borders, its the russians who now have construction papers of that machine. great pity they had put aside such a big business chance. just imagine, a big high-speed cargo ship, superiorly higher load capability (so fuel efficient), you may easily get a global cargo super-power status and count your cash inflow. amazing...
dotsent 3 years ago
Boeing was working on something similiar not long ago. To solve the high seas problem it's supposed to be able to fly as a normal plane when seas get to rough.
olynl 3 years ago
Wow what was it called?
lostinseganet 3 years ago
.......747.......
cmor5705 2 years ago
lol
JMCSD 2 years ago
olynl -- You're probably thinking of the Boeing Pelican. The project has been put on hiatus, probably mostly due to the Bush recession and eventual stock market crash. I don't think it got past the small-scale model testing stage. Its a large, boxy plan with four propeller engines.
ragemanchoo82 2 years ago
It would seem like a regular seaplane but with jet engines would be more practical than an ekranoplan. Apparently Boeing is considering very large cargo transporter seaplane, the Pelican (which has four prop engines with very large propellers), but its almost certainly not going to happen in this economy.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
how could a sea plane fly all that way under the radar in stealth???
sonofhendrix 3 years ago
wooo
russians pwn
(im half russian)
KinaDanna 3 years ago
Anyone know if footage exists of the Sea Monster's crash?
evilintel 3 years ago
Good question. I think it happened out in the Caspian Sea, though, so nobody was around to film it. I could be wrong.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
It crashed? i'm surprised as the commentator seems to be in front of both the smaler cargo and older missile carrier...maybre the original one but they have clearly 2 new ones.I think the russians like the idea of something that fast going under the radar,literaly.with the speed of a jet and the capacity of an GEV,they have adventages over seaplanes(pontoons create drag...)helicopters and hydrofoil.
bernito2 3 years ago
It didnt crash and can be seen on google earth at 42.881667,47.656667
joetomw222 3 years ago
ahh very cool, just checked that out on Google earth, thanks for pointing that out.
proximo26 3 years ago
These type of craft were considered too easy to disable once weapons systems advances of the late 50's rolled in. Boeing actually had a seaborn bomber that was shelved for this very reason. A shot up airplane that lands on earth won't sink to the bottom of the sea.
mykidshateitwhen 3 years ago
youre wrong. its not airplane. The ground effect gave it superior load capacity-it could carry 540 tons of cargo (900 troops + 2 APCs). Since it flew some 5-15 meters over surface, it couldnt be harmed by sea weapons (torpedoes/mines), and really hard to shotdown by missiles if that time. So - think about it as ultimate transporter-more expensive then ship, but many times faster, and superiorly efficient compared to airplane.Even tho the project 903 Lun served in soviet army as missile carrier.
Alphamarus 3 years ago 3
What's the ekranoplan at 9:00 with 8 engines? an enlarged Lun or something?
panzerfaust777 3 years ago
That's the LUN, just another view. The LUN was actually a little smaller than the Caspian Sea Monster. The appearance is similar, though.
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
This is almost as good as Rocky IV!
fishinguru1971 3 years ago
what was that?
mamayanga 3 years ago
GREAT Post thanks!!
Bob in Louisiana
cajunhornet60 3 years ago
I am so glad I can understand Russian -- This is really interesting.
54spiritedwill54 3 years ago
Proves the axiom "If it's ugly it's British, if it's weird it's French and if it's both it's Russian"
But those are some pretty cool airplanes.
ecktoeman 3 years ago 3
no it's not an airplane
nazirdjon 3 years ago
Russia is a killer of its own talented people.
Liosha2 3 years ago 2
what if ther's a storm? whit maybe wave like 8 meters?and ther's an actual project of this vehicle ?
Gargantu4 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ragemanchoo82 is a peice of SHIT!
infodisinfo 3 years ago
^ And comments like this are the only thing you offer the site (ZERO videos uploaded.) Whats your excuse?
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
I want to buy one!! Russian dominance here! No one likes to accept the fact that Rusland had better, bigger and more effective weaponry. Glad Gorbatsjov made us understand the coldwar race only has losers and therefor Russia won the coldwar, NOT Reaganomic-America.
Syphonaptera 3 years ago
You can buy one. Google for it.
It's in vogue to hate America, but the fact is that America stopped Russia, a nation whose communism killed tens of millions of innocent people. It doesn't really matter who had the best weapons. Russia was sick, and it's still got a ways to go before it's better.
Note that the only KM crashed twice, most Orlynooks crashed, and the Lun rusts. And never was as stable in WIG flight as the 100 year old Spruce Goose. Slow, unstable, huge targets. Dominance?
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
No I refuse to argue over the Russian supremacy. All you state here can as well be dedicated to America. haha. No way buddie. Ok, now I need to have the money. Russian maffia is too dangerous ,...mm, I'll ask the biggest maffia in the world, the American goverment, hahaha.
Cheers :)
Syphonaptera
Syphonaptera 3 years ago
Anyone who can miss a couple a bucks??? I need $95,000,000. This boy wants to buy a new toy for Christmas...)
Syphonaptera 3 years ago
US killd much more !!!!!!
idcs5000 3 years ago 3
idcs, every single American who has every lived in the past 232 years combined has not killed as many people as Joe Stalin. It is so disgusting that people ignore the true nature of evil in order to hate the US, a nation that does have many faults, but nothing like the USSR or PRC.
In fact, America is responsible for many life saving innovations in the fight against hunger and disease, and Dr. Borlaug, American inventor, saved more lives than any 100 Russians combined who have ever lived.
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
America is responsible for many lives, than has been lost by pretence of "Fight for democracy in other countries". Iraq, for example. But i think it is off topic (for this publication)
idcs5000 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Heil Bush.
OlegStrk 3 years ago
spoken like an intelligent and unbiased commenter!
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
Oleg, you're being sarcastic, right?
ragemanchoo82 3 years ago
criticism of the U.S government or whoever is in control its hard to tell these days shouldn't be mistaken for hatred of the american ppl. The present government asks for conspiracies against it to be ignored because they are lies, yet they lie themselves about everything. makes u wonder.. 2million iraqi children died of hunger and disease before the war because of the U.S and its sanctions
sumbol 3 years ago
the fact is that u got ur facts wrong, and the Dr Borlaug thing true yes but one man does not help ur case because one mans achievement cannot make up for all the blood the U.S government has spilt over the years directly or indirectly and will continue to do so by the look of things. there's nothing wrong in being nationalistic land is the only thing worth fighting and dying for but u also have to be stupid (no offense) not to see the blood on ur gov hands.. and no im not russian
sumbol 3 years ago 2
rad.
productetc 4 years ago
Interesting indeed. Especially "carrier-destroyer" part - Lun one. These rocket containers are huge, and with minor redesign they could be used for anything modern (smaller per unit, and much more deadly). Perhaps even winged missiles. Nuclear ones...
WVrrus 4 years ago
Certainly nuclear, this was an original requirement. They would have a hard time getting to a carrier, though. The few that didn't crash would easily be knocked out by airplanes. They were easy to spot and terrible at maneuvering. Remember, the KM (this big one) sits at the bottom of the Caspian. Many Ekranoplan pilots died, and Russia never mass produced these things for a reason.
Russia's subs were 1000x deadlier.
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
I think such a beast would've had a chance to carry out its mission during the times it was launched. The early '60's radar would've had a hard time picking the KM out from the background surface clutter until it got in close enough to attack. Aircraft radar would only pick up clutter and the pilot would have to attack visually using his guns. As I understand it, the KM porpoised and crashed from pilot error; attempting WIG travel without full power and the correct speed.
InfiniteMushroom 3 years ago
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the Soviet Union, but they don't admit it when their weapons catastrophically fail. The KM didn't crash once. It crashed mutliple times and the last time it crashed they decided it wasn't worth the trouble of lifting up again.
Many, many others also crashed. The Eaglets (propeller ones) especially.
Every time: pilot error. We know better than to take them at their word. More of these crashed than didn't, so perhaps they had really really really bad pilots.
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
The Sov's refusal to publicly admit failure is well known. The video here shows the KM and Eaglets moving along nicely. If the airframe is inherently unstable, it would be practically impossible to achieve any stable flight for the video bits shown here. Perhaps those beasts were tricky in the takeoff and transition to wing-in-ground-effect mode.
InfiniteMushroom 3 years ago
There's probably some truth to that, but I disagree that all the videos show these flying stable. Many times, the rear of the craft is dragging. Also, I never see any weather. And it's the Caspian lake... not the Atlantic Ocean. Under the most stable conditions, these things crashed. But I do agree that most crashes reported were during takeoff.
They were developed over the course of decades, soI'm not surprised there are several minutes of error free video. I think that's just editing.
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
Unstable, easy to kill, dangerous. And if it's true - why Soviets were researching them.
Somebody here may say - thats because Russkies are idiots.
But then why Amercians /Boeing/ planning to start developing such things /30 years after Russian "idiots" made it/.
OlegStrk 3 years ago 3
Soviets built so few of these because they were so unstable. They researched it because it's interesting (no one disputes that these are cool vehicles. I'm just saying they have very low value as a weapon).
Lockheed is considering the Pelican for cargo only. They aren't crazy enough to try to use it as a weapon! The Russians abandoned these projects but pursue many other weapons. Why? The US flew these Russian vehicles and has all the blueprints, and said they are not worth building. Why?
applesforsnapples 3 years ago
I am so glad I can understand Russian -- This is really interesting.
oniisanmaaku 4 years ago
Grrrrrr I don´t undersand russian!!! I would like to know what they say. I admire the technology developed by russians.
Amazing!
morriscamorris 4 years ago 2
I just hope the Russian I put in the video description is accurate. I used Google's translator tool to get it.