"Lun(Harrier)"-class ecranoplane (wing-in-ground)

[K. A. Pital]

Holy fucking crap! The great son of the Caspian monster caught my attention...








And he's still out there!


Does anyone know if the US/Europe has by now any workable analogues of that thing?

[WyrdNyrd]

I've only heard of piddly little sport-plane WIGs sold to week-end fliers (no offense intended, Broomstick!)

My warplane-wanker side just has to add: "It would be so awesome if somebody, anybody, actually used something like this operationally."

Edit: Spelling

[Chris OFarrell]

Holy fucking crap! The great son of the Caspian monster caught my attention...

Does anyone know if the US/Europe has by now any workable analogues of that thing?

Not on that scale I don't think.

I'm preaty sure the West abandoned any kind of research into it because it was simply impractical, dangerous and expensive. Not to mention its roles were filled by other cheaper and safer technology.

[Patrick Degan]

Well, according to FAS.org:

Link

The apparent success of these machines hid some very real problems, not least of which were serious stability and control deficiencies, as well as tremendous power requirements to get off the water. Under low flying conditions radar sensors measuring altitude, tilt and velocity of craft trace the variable profile of wave disturbance practically without averaging, thus making it difficult to gauge the motion parameters in relation to the undisturbed level of the sea surface. It is necessary to combine radar with other sensors in order to provide high accuracy. It has a massive turning circle, and is fairly slow to accelerate. Its poor manoeuverability means it cannot turn and run from a fight, and so is a fairly easy target if caught in a confined space, or if surrounded and pushed against the shoreline.

Also:

So the WIG concept is clearly not new, and has been implemented by several manufacturers. However, none has really caught on, and the primary reason is that ground effect craft only become truly practical for very large vehicles, even larger than the massive KM. The reasoning is as follows. As discussed above, the amount of lift a flying vehicle needs to generate is directly related to its weight. The heavier a plane is, the more lift it needs, so the larger its wings must be (for the same cruise speed). This basic relation becomes a problem when we consider very heavy aircraft. As payload weight increases, wing size increases which requires larger and heavier structures that further increase overall weight. As weight increases, additional thrust and fuel is required to push the vehicle at its desired cruise speed over the required range, and the need for larger or additional engines plus greater fuel capacity further increases the overall weight of the vehicle. This trend pushes manufacturers towards increasingly complicated and expensive design solutions that make very large and heavy aircraft unprofitable to build.

It seems that while WIG vehicles make for interesting experimental curiosities or weekend toys, the design concept has not really proven practical for either large-scale military or commercial applications.

[K. A. Pital]

The apparent success of these machines hid some very real problems

Um... that would be akin to saying "the apparen success of Me-262 hid some very real problems" - something you can't deny, but it's the problems of exploiting and refining this technology, not something that makes the tech totally unworthy. If you have a mobile rocket base which can potentially move faster than any ship, why not use it? Okay, planes are faster, but their payloads are smaller, and then, the WIGs are very stealthy against modern radar tech, which makes them a perspective weapons platform.

It has a massive turning circle, and is fairly slow to accelerate.

Actually, it's a plane-ship hybrid, so that's nothing out-of-order. Ships have a large turning cycle too, but so what? Ffor a planeship that moves at 500 kph and strikes target at said speed, being almost totally radar-stealthy, questions of acceleration and deceleration are secondary to actual speed, once it's out and free in the open seas. It's a very good anti-ship raider.

Its poor manoeuverability means it cannot turn and run from a fight, and so is a fairly easy target if caught in a confined space, or if surrounded and pushed against the shoreline.

Um... that's, well, nonsense. A seafaring stealthy rocket cruiser is not something that should "run", and to "run", you don't need to turn - you need to pass your enemy without him noticing you on radar and strike a few rockets at him.
As for "surrounding" "it" - that's seriously weird. How do you plan to surround a stealthy craft moving in open seas with 500 kph? If you pinpoint it's bases and make a very tight blockade with line-eye sight between the points of blockade, I could see it working, but usual naval "patrols" simply would not work against such a thing.
That's like the most un-naval thing I read - ships are also "poorly maneuvarable" even compared to WIGs, and they don't even have 500 kph speed to compensate for it, but somehow nobody complains about ships?
It also sounds like the authors of the article intent the ship "fight", like in a brawl or something, which futher proves that they don't have a concept of using naval fast craft - a "Lun"-class engaging in a sort of Bismarck-like duel with a true cruiser or carrier is ridiculous, and the concept of Lun-class rocket cruisers is JUST the opposite of that - it's striking a blow at your enemy before he knows and while he can't see you and evading him at superior speed.

That aside, even Boeing got an order for WIG screenplane. I'd believe the tech to be perspective. After all, hydrofoils and hovercraft and all that stuff were thought to be "without perspectives" too at some point in time.

[phongn]

Wait, what? Since when were these things stealthy? For that matter, how are they receiving targetting data against an enemy surface fleet?

Also, aren't WIGs usually limited to relatively calm seas?

[Elheru Aran]

The only military planes on that size produced by Western countries, I think, were cargo planes. The Spruce Goose was definitely bigger, but it wasn't anywhere near an armed plane. There was this British seaplane in WWII though, which they used for anti-submarine patrols-- I forget the name, but it was a big fucker-- three decks inside, IIRC... perhaps made by Gloster?

[Vanas]

The Short Sunderland?

Not a Wing-in-ground effect though, just a flying ship.

[Elheru Aran]

The Short Sunderland?

Not a Wing-in-ground effect though, just a flying ship.

That's it. I was thinking size actually...

[Coyote]

Stas, it depends on how you want to look at it.

If you think of it as a fast ship, then it has definite advantages, namely of course speed. But in order to have that speed, it should not have armor or weapons, and it will be stuck working in calm areas. If you think of it as a slow plane, again, you've got trade-offs. It has the cargo capacity but crap maneuverability.

In short, there's nothing that this can do that one of the big assault-lander hovercraft can't do already, and be far more maneuverable at the same time. Even the big tank-landing hovercraft can turn on a dime compared to this thing. I wouldn't trust it on the blue-water ocean.

This would be an excellent commercial cargo hauler or tourist ride for scotting across the Caribbean or the Mediterrannean; possibly around the Hawaiian Islands or going to Catalina Island, maybe the Alaskan chain of islands runing from Canada to the Aleuts. But it would be more of a novelty item. Research into bringing back Zeppelins for commercial purposes have more traction than reviving this program. It is a fun technological concept piece though.

If we were somehow able to colonize Mars and Terraform it with decent size shallow seas, then it would be worthwhile to build it in such a low-grav environment. But of course that's being speculative...

[JointStrikeFighter]

Isnt the west working on the big Pelican WIG as a cargo transport?

[phongn]

Isnt the west working on the big Pelican WIG as a cargo transport?

There's a proposal for it but I haven't seen serious funding of the idea.

[K. A. Pital]

phongn

Wait, what? Since when were these things stealthy?

Since their very birth. They go too low, too fast for most types of radars out there.

For that matter, how are they receiving targetting data against an enemy surface fleet?

Active/passive radiolocation and the self-aim systems of the Moskito rockets themselves.

Also, aren't WIGs usually limited to relatively calm seas?

No, not really. Smaller WIGs - yes, the ultra-heavy WIG battlecruisers like the above aren't. They're quite capable of dealing with waves, but some problems do arise. The first problem thing is getting the WIG running - that should be done in calm water. After that it's altitude is essentially not limited. The smaller Soviet assault WIG "Orlyenok" can fly overseas with waves reaching 20 m high, and it's maximum altitude is not meters, but kilometers. The second problem arising here is the control of a WIG on high altitudes - although it can fly high, a sudden rise in altitude may lead to a crash - it has to climb slowly, well, I mean, relatively slowly, it can't just go up like a plane. And the third problem - the higher you rise, the more fuel you consume. But that's like, obvious.

Coyote

But in order to have that speed, it should not have armor or weapons, and it will be stuck working in calm areas.

WTF shoud it not have weapons, when it already has them (precisely "Sunburn" (Moskito) rockets, one of the best anti-ship rockets in the world)? And it's armor is pretty much sufficient for a hit-and-run rocket cruiser - frankly, it's not intended to go up into a "naval battle" like some slug-out between ships, it's a fast rocket cruiser. The myth that it can't cope with high waves is a myth - it should start up in calm water, but after that, the thing is free as a bird.

It has the cargo capacity but crap maneuverability.

Um, "crap maneuverability" is what exactly? Many modern fighters have a turn radius more than the size of Estonia at max speed, is that a "crap maneuverability"? And why would you need a smaller turning radius in open seas? HELL, the Moskito rockets have an effective targeting radius of HUNDREDS of kilometers, that's enough to "turn" wherever the cruiser wants and be gone.

In short, there's nothing that this can do that one of the big assault-lander hovercraft can't do already, and be far more maneuverable at the same time.

Tell me of any single big assault lander hover that could:
1) move at 500 kph or more
2) and thus deploy an anti-air group to protect the assault from enemy fighters before the enemy fighters even rise
3) sink a few enemy ships in the process with penetrating anti-ship rockets from hundreds of kms.

Even the big tank-landing hovercraft can turn on a dime compared to this thing.

It can't. Not as a lander, and neither as a rocket cruiser. Are hovers even used as rocket cruisers?

[Patrick Degan]

The apparent success of these machines hid some very real problems

Um... that would be akin to saying "the apparen success of Me-262 hid some very real problems" - something you can't deny, but it's the problems of exploiting and refining this technology, not something that makes the tech totally unworthy. If you have a mobile rocket base which can potentially move faster than any ship, why not use it? Okay, planes are faster, but their payloads are smaller, and then, the WIGs are very stealthy against modern radar tech, which makes them a perspective weapons platform.

Um, that's actually a False Analogy Fallacy which says nothing to the practical problems of large WIG craft. Furthermore, WIGs aren't anymore stealthy than any other small-sized surface craft. The Lun certainly does not have a shape which deflects incoming radar pulses nor is it coated with RAM. Plus, it's not entirely impossible to spot surface-skimming objects on radar. Also, not only are planes faster and more manoeuverable, they can be built in greater numbers.

It has a massive turning circle, and is fairly slow to accelerate.

Actually, it's a plane-ship hybrid, so that's nothing out-of-order. Ships have a large turning cycle too, but so what? For a planeship that moves at 500 kph and strikes target at said speed, being almost totally radar-stealthy, questions of acceleration and deceleration are secondary to actual speed, once it's out and free in the open seas. It's a very good anti-ship raider.

Where are you getting this "almost totally radar-stealthy" business? It's a bit more difficult to spot because it's running in the "fade zone" but that doesn't make it invisible to surface-search radar at long ranges or Over The Horizon radar and certainly not to any fighter or AEW&C platform's look-down radar. It's not going to outrun a fighter and certainly not a missile. And the larger one of those things is, the more visible it will be on radar.

Its poor manoeuverability means it cannot turn and run from a fight, and so is a fairly easy target if caught in a confined space, or if surrounded and pushed against the shoreline.

Um... that's, well, nonsense. A seafaring stealthy rocket cruiser is not something that should "run", and to "run", you don't need to turn - you need to pass your enemy without him noticing you on radar and strike a few rockets at him.

Your argument is, well, nonsense. Manoeuverability —or lack therof— is a serious issue with any craft depending upon ground-effect simply to keep itself up and running. It can't perform any violent course-alteration and risk stalling out of ground-effect. Which means its course is largely predictible. Which means when a long range surface-search or OTH radar spots one of these things, it won't be all that difficult to predict where it can be intercepted by fighters and it won't be able to take any sort of evasive action. Which means it's a target.

As for "surrounding" "it" - that's seriously weird. How do you plan to surround a stealthy craft moving in open seas with 500 kph? If you pinpoint it's bases and make a very tight blockade with line-eye sight between the points of blockade, I could see it working, but usual naval "patrols" simply would not work against such a thing.

It seems you skipped the second part of that particular sentence regarding the craft being surrounded and pushed against the shoreline —a distinct possibility if its caught before it's run up to speed and achieved skim-altitude. And over open ocean, it's not going to be surrounded by ships. It's going to be jumped by fighters.

That's like the most un-naval thing I read

Probably because this is actually a discussion about aeronatics.

ships are also "poorly maneuvarable" even compared to WIGs, and they don't even have 500 kph speed to compensate for it, but somehow nobody complains about ships?

Another False Analogy Fallacy.

It also sounds like the authors of the article intent the ship "fight", like in a brawl or something, which futher proves that they don't have a concept of using naval fast craft - a "Lun"-class engaging in a sort of Bismarck-like duel with a true cruiser or carrier is ridiculous, and the concept of Lun-class rocket cruisers is JUST the opposite of that - it's striking a blow at your enemy before he knows and while he can't see you and evading him at superior speed.

Strawman Fallacy. None of that drivel has any remote relation to the thrust of either article.

That aside, even Boeing got an order for WIG screenplane. I'd believe the tech to be perspective. After all, hydrofoils and hovercraft and all that stuff were thought to be "without perspectives" too at some point in time.

Contractors get orders for prototypes all the time. That does not mean that they will necessarily result in a practical weapons system; in fact most times they result in the opposite.

[K. A. Pital]

Um, that's actually a False Analogy Fallacy which says nothing to the practical problems of large WIG craft.

Because practical problems arise with smaller WIG craft, not with larger ones, if we're speaking military transportation. The larger a WIG is, the more deemed it's existence for the military.

Furthermore, WIGs aren't anymore stealthy than any other small-sized surface craft. The Lun certainly does not have a shape which deflects incoming radar pulses nor is it coated with RAM.

Lun, like many other WIGs, is just one of the first machines, which were assembled to test basic usage, and obviously advanced stuff was not incorporated at the time. If we speak of building such craft now, it would be much more stealthy. Also, Alekseev designs used the plane fuselage as a base, if we speak of a smooth monowing-type of screenplane with appropriate smooth contours and a water-camouflage paint, such screenplanes would be difficult to spot.

Plus, it's not entirely impossible to spot surface-skimming objects on radar.

True, however, most of the radar systems are not designed to do so because of the absense of such targets in practice.

Also, not only are planes faster and more manoeuverable, they can be built in greater numbers.

The problem with using a plane as an anti-ship weapon - precisely, a bomber - lies in the fact that a bomber attacking an Air Carrier Group is nothing but dead meat. Actually, all of them. Even if some could launch their anti-ship missiles before being totally assraped by fighters in the ACG air-defense zone, the result would be the loss of a bomber group. WIGs have a chance of survival, and the more advanced a WIG is, the more chances it has.

that doesn't make it invisible to surface-search radar at long ranges or Over The Horizon radar

That's true, so? What are the measures, and why should the WIG come into the air superiority zone of the ACG? It could harbor heavier and better anti-ship missiles than bombers, and decimate the CV groups from afar.

It's not going to outrun a fighter and certainly not a missile.

1) Nothing can "outrun" a fighter. Fighters assrape bombers, period. Once a bomber is spotted by fighters and locked on, it's dead meat. The advantage of a heavier WIG here is that it could carry advanced anti-fighter systems - like S-300/S-400 class - while the bomber's capabilities on that account are rather limited.
2) Rockets are not designed to attack at the surface. The craft could maneuver in 3 dimensions close to the surface, that can curbstomp some of the more common missiles. I do admit there are missiles to stike at the "lower hemisphere" targets today, so the age of WIGs may never even start, but these missiles are still few today.

It can't perform any violent course-alteration and risk stalling out of ground-effect.

Neither can a slow moving TAKR (rocket cruiser). But a rocket cruiser can't move at such speeds. And nobody blames the rocket cruiser.

Which means it's a target.

No one said it's not a target. It's a hit-and-run weapon. It's not intended to get into the crossfire.

It's going to be jumped by fighters.

No CV keeps it's fighters in the air all the time. Where would those fighters be in the first minutes of the craft's attack?

It seems you skipped the second part of that particular sentence regarding the craft being surrounded and pushed against the shoreline

Because if it's pushed against the shorline, that means it's caught in one of it's bases. If enemy ships are on our bases, frankly, the fate of a certain screenplane is irrelevant. Notice that they don't speak of the craft being targeted by aviation - they speak of a naval surrounding, which is ridiculous.

Probably because this is actually a discussion about aeronatics.

Because having a faster type of ship is a really bad idea?

Another False Analogy Fallacy.

Where's the false analogy? A heavy WIG could carry naval weapon systems such as rockets, and harbor troops, being many times faster AND more maneuverable than a common light warship.

Strawman Fallacy.

The WIGs are not designed to "fight", they're a hit and run type of weapon. If it gets under a fighter assault, it's ability to carry S-300/S-400 class defense systems would come in handy. If it comes under rocket assault, at least it has chances, unlike bombers, the use of rockets against which is honed for many years almost to perfection.

That does not mean that they will necessarily result in a practical weapons system; in fact most times they result in the opposite.

For some particular reason, screenplane prototypes have been ordered much after USSR's screenplane program. If the program and the technology are a failure, that's good enough to make conclusions and don't order screenplane designs. However, the opposite is true - projects of screenplanes still exist. China, actually, has it's own screenplane programme.

And last: costs. The costs of a prototype - i.e. non-serial screenplane, which is basically hand-made, is about 50-60 mil. soviet roubles. The cost of a SERIAL Blackjack-class bomber, which could effectively attack CV groups with anti-ship missiles - not alone, obviously! - is over a hundred million.

[Patrick Degan]

Because practical problems arise with smaller WIG craft, not with larger ones, if we're speaking military transportation. The larger a WIG is, the more deemed it's existence for the military.

Bullshit. You simply decided to ignore the material in the articles which address exactly the practical problems with large WIG craft.

Lun, like many other WIGs, is just one of the first machines, which were assembled to test basic usage, and obviously advanced stuff was not incorporated at the time. If we speak of building such craft now, it would be much more stealthy. Also, Alekseev designs used the plane fuselage as a base, if we speak of a smooth monowing-type of screenplane with appropriate smooth contours and a water-camouflage paint, such screenplanes would be difficult to spot.

Difficult to spot on AEGIS radars which has a resolution in the 5 nanometre^2 range? Don't think so.

Plus, it's not entirely impossible to spot surface-skimming objects on radar.

True, however, most of the radar systems are not designed to do so because of the absense of such targets in practice.

What the fuck are you talking about? You actually think military R&D waits until a ship gets killed by a new antiship missile?

Also, not only are planes faster and more manoeuverable, they can be built in greater numbers.

The problem with using a plane as an anti-ship weapon - precisely, a bomber - lies in the fact that a bomber attacking an Air Carrier Group is nothing but dead meat. Actually, all of them. Even if some could launch their anti-ship missiles before being totally assraped by fighters in the ACG air-defense zone, the result would be the loss of a bomber group. WIGs have a chance of survival, and the more advanced a WIG is, the more chances it has.

Hate to tell you this, but the same objections apply to WIGs attempting to make an approach on a CVBG.

that doesn't make it invisible to surface-search radar at long ranges or Over The Horizon radar

That's true, so? What are the measures, and why should the WIG come into the air superiority zone of the ACG? It could harbor heavier and better anti-ship missiles than bombers, and decimate the CV groups from afar.

So everything. Try not thinking with your hand wrapped around your dick for a few minutes. You keep pretending that what is nothing more than a fancier-than-usual standoff platform somehow is going to get past the defence screens of a modern CVBG which not only has its CAP on continual rotation as well as Hawkeye AEW in the air but is also screened by AEGIS ships with defences designed to deal with the cruise missile threat as well as air attack.

As for "decimating" those CVBGs from afar... I hate to tell you this, but "afar" is limited by the maximum effective range of the missile the Lun mounts. In this case, the P-270 Moskit, which means a Lun has to close to within 65nm of the carrier group —which is well within the task force's CAP zone.

And speaking of the Moskit v. ships:

Link

This leads to a curious point which comes back to the Soviet's lack of systems analysis. They designed P-270 to exploit certain weaknesses in the SPY-1 radar performance. This it does, but by looking at a single bit of equipment in isolation, they neglected to evaluate the target system as a whole. Had they done so, they'd have found they'd managed to push the intercept envelope back into an area where AEGIS works very, very well. Once Standard SM-2 had been given an IR auxiliary homing system, it was more than capable of shooting the P-270s out of the sky. Its essential to think system-to-system NOT weapon-to-weapon.

It's not going to outrun a fighter and certainly not a missile.

1) Nothing can "outrun" a fighter. Fighters assrape bombers, period. Once a bomber is spotted by fighters and locked on, it's dead meat. The advantage of a heavier WIG here is that it could carry advanced anti-fighter systems - like S-300/S-400 class - while the bomber's capabilities on that account are rather limited.

That's right —put more weapon systems on, increase the craft's weight, and complicate the design even further to produce a heavier, slower craft which makes it even more of a target. Or sacrifice a degree of antiship strike capability to add an AAW defensive complement.

2) Rockets are not designed to attack at the surface. The craft could maneuver in 3 dimensions close to the surface, that can curbstomp some of the more common missiles. I do admit there are missiles to stike at the "lower hemisphere" targets today, so the age of WIGs may never even start, but these missiles are still few today.

The moment an ekanoplan rises to any appreciable altitude, it becomes a target for any fighter- or ship-launched missile in the area. It also sticks out like a fucking sore thumb on every radar. As it is, skimming close to the surface, it's vulnearble not only to fighter missiles but air cannon and guns as well.

It can't perform any violent course-alteration and risk stalling out of ground-effect.

Neither can a slow moving TAKR (rocket cruiser). But a rocket cruiser can't move at such speeds. And nobody blames the rocket cruiser.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?!

No one said it's not a target. It's a hit-and-run weapon. It's not intended to get into the crossfire.

Pity because that's what's likely to happen. A hit-and-run weapon which cannot take evasive action very well and will get its ass jumped by multiple fighters on the way in.

No CV keeps it's fighters in the air all the time. Where would those fighters be in the first minutes of the craft's attack?

CVNs most definitely keep fighters in the air all the time. A modern carrier's air operations run 24 hours a day, excepting when the ship is in transit from or to its home port.

It seems you skipped the second part of that particular sentence regarding the craft being surrounded and pushed against the shoreline

Because if it's pushed against the shorline, that means it's caught in one of it's bases. If enemy ships are on our bases, frankly, the fate of a certain screenplane is irrelevant. Notice that they don't speak of the craft being targeted by aviation - they speak of a naval surrounding, which is ridiculous.

Actually not ridiculous. It's not necessary for ships to close in on the shoreline to effectively blockade it given the range of modern weapons.

Probably because this is actually a discussion about aeronatics.

Because having a faster type of ship is a really bad idea?

Non-sequiter.

Another False Analogy Fallacy.

Where's the false analogy? A heavy WIG could carry naval weapon systems such as rockets, and harbor troops, being many times faster AND more maneuverable than a common light warship.

Because the WIG is actually a fucking aircraft, not any sort of ship and is not more manoeuverable than any sort of ship, only faster. Unfortunately, it's not even as fast as most modern military jets.

The WIGs are not designed to "fight", they're a hit and run type of weapon. If it gets under a fighter assault, it's ability to carry S-300/S-400 class defense systems would come in handy. If it comes under rocket assault, at least it has chances, unlike bombers, the use of rockets against which is honed for many years almost to perfection.

Uh huh. And just how many of those S-400s is the thing going to be able to carry given the limited number of launchers a Lun can mount? And the more S-400s it has to carry, the few P-270s it has available to attack ships with.

For some particular reason, screenplane prototypes have been ordered much after USSR's screenplane program. If the program and the technology are a failure, that's good enough to make conclusions and don't order screenplane designs. However, the opposite is true - projects of screenplanes still exist. China, actually, has it's own screenplane programme.

Which proves your alleged point... how, exactly?

And last: costs. The costs of a prototype - i.e. non-serial screenplane, which is basically hand-made, is about 50-60 mil. soviet roubles. The cost of a SERIAL Blackjack-class bomber, which could effectively attack CV groups with anti-ship missiles - not alone, obviously! - is over a hundred million.

Big. Fucking. Deal. The Blackjack's cost is at least justified by the fact that it is a demonstrably practical weapon system. That also doesn't really say anything about whether a Lun will ever prove out as one as well.

[K. A. Pital]

You simply decided to ignore the material in the articles which address exactly the practical problems with large WIG craft.

It adresses the problems of Alekseev's screenplane program designs, without even quanifying them. What is the turning radius, in meters? What is the acceleration? What is the capability for altitude climbing? They just don't quantify. That's ridiculous.

Difficult to spot on AEGIS radars

1) AEGIS is used to intercept winged missiles and air attacks, not subsonic surface skimmers.
2) AEGIS operates with surface-to-air interceptor missiles.
It's largely irrelevant whether you spot the skimmer or no, the important thing is whether you could react to it's attack in time, and with countermeasures. Anti-shipbuster missiles would be something that you could use against a skimmer. Something like AMRAAM, which allegedly has improved performance against low-altitude flying targets. Lower altitudes reduce the success chance of missile attack.

You actually think military R&D waits until a ship gets killed by a new antiship missile?

The problem is, anti-shipbuster missiles are designed for intercepting antiship missiles, not screenplanes. Moreover, the range of interceptor missiles is limited. Well, you know all that anyway.

You keep pretending that what is nothing more than a fancier-than-usual standoff platform somehow is going to get past the defence screens of a modern CVBG which not only has its CAP on continual rotation as well as Hawkeye AEW in the air but is also screened by AEGIS ships with defences designed to deal with the cruise missile threat as well as air attack.

Frankly, it's really a "nothing more than a fancy weapon platform", because non-fancy weapon platforms really tend to be noticed faster than "fancy". For example, a Hawkeye can spot a fighter at high altitude at 270 km afar. However, would it notice a surface skimmer with passive countermeasures (i.e. basic anti-radar countours and camo)? Somehow I think that such a skimmer would have a lot more chance to pass the AEW than a conventional type of attack - i.e. with a plane. So basically, a swift attack could be carried out by a plane or by a screenplane, but the latter is harder to track.

I hate to tell you this, but "afar" is limited by the maximum effective range of the missile the Lun mounts. In this case, the P-270 Moskit, which means a Lun has to close to within 65mn of the carrier group —which is well within the task force's CAP zone.

A "Lun" is an old Alexeev design screenplane. I'm talking about the perspectives of using screenplanes as naval platforms today.

Once Standard SM-2 had been given an IR auxiliary homing system, it was more than capable of shooting the P-270s out of the sky.

Not only is that debatable, I would like that guy to point the "area" where exactly an SM-2 has a chance of shooting down the 3M80:

He also insists that hypersonic missiles can't make maneuvers which is particulary appaling in the light of the Moskit being capable of evasive manuevers with half the g forces of AA missiles (10 ed vs. 20 ed for AA interceptors). And not only that, but he has to take into account the reaction time of the anti-missile system - i.e. the time between spotting the approaching projectile and launching the anti-missile, which is quite small given the fact that the Moskit has considerable speed even at launch, not speaking of the low-flight where it could reach 2,5 M. The range for spotting a "streaker" of Moskito type is considered to be 25 km, which gives the AMS approximately 25 seconds to react.

Bear in mind that Aegis was tested against MA-31 targets (based on X-31 missiles), and the results were not in favor of Aegis - most targets hit the mark. So, practically, Aegis was tested against hypersonic missiles, and although it's capable of downing some of them, the overall result was negative. If we have practice with much less advanced hypersonics, we can expect the Moskito to be pretty good against AEGIS-fitted ships. Similar to Moskito projectiles - Vandal drones - reportedly penetrated AEGIS on multiple tests.

Besides, nothing stops us from fitting the screenplanes with hordes of much cheaper and lightweight Uran-type missiles, if we find "Moskit" questionable - personally, I think the "Moskit" is pretty adequate for attacking CV groups, and the US with it's AEGIS systems are not the only possible adversary.
For the Caspian, where the "Lun" resides, the "Moskit" is overkill that could rip anything the possible "enemy" would come to bear.

That's right —put more weapon systems on, increase the craft's weight, and complicate the design even further to produce a heavier, slower craft which makes it even more of a target.

Heavy != slow. "Lun" could fly with a total mass of 400 tons (own mass - 243 tons), the KM flew with a total mass of 550 tons. Both were quite fast for their time, and frankly, 550 kph is pretty good even for today.

The moment an ekanoplan rises to any appreciable altitude, it becomes a target for any fighter- or ship-launched missile in the area.

Sure. Maneuvers are limited to a narrow corridor - anyway, because a steep rise is not something a screenplane can do.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?!

Because there's a point in having faster naval missile platforms?

A hit-and-run weapon which cannot take evasive action very well and will get its ass jumped by multiple fighters on the way in.

Why precisely can't it take evasive action? The KM, for example, according to the test notes, could make steep turns even at 400 kph, without damaging it's superstructure.

CVNs most definitely keep fighters in the air all the time.

If it's operating with all of it's fighter forces in our immediate vinicity, something is clearly wrong with our defenses. In that case you could carry out any type of attack and achieve nothing.

It's not necessary for ships to close in on the shoreline to effectively blockade it given the range of modern weapons.

What is the max range of surface-target missiles? I rather doubt that it's over a few hundred kms.

Because the WIG is actually a fucking aircraft, not any sort of ship

So where are those aircraft capable of mounting things like S-300 class AA defenses or heavy anti-ship missiles?

is not more manoeuverable than any sort of ship

Well suuure. That's going overboard.

Unfortunately, it's not even as fast as most modern military jets.

So? Modern military jets can carry heavy weaponry and fly as low?

And just how many of those S-400s is the thing going to be able to carry given the limited number of launchers a Lun can mount?

Given the fact that S-400 missiles are not as heavy as Moskits, quite a lot.

And the more S-400s it has to carry, the few P-270s it has available to attack ships with.

Well, so? Are we exploiting the screenplanes autonomously? I believe not. Its' not a wunderwaffe, just a weapon platform, that could find it's niche. Use a screenplane group with AA screenplanes and P-270 screenplanes. However, I believe that something similart to a Lun-class, fitted with S-400 and, say, 4 Moskits could also be an option. A KM-class could carry all the weaponry of a Lun and additional anti-air defenses easily. They're not that heavy. And remember also - how strong is the CV battlegroup AEW group, what, 4 AEW planes? If so, a few screenplanes armed with a dozen S-400 class could essentially cripple a CVBG's AEW. After that fact, the CVBG would have to take measures, because it's battle-worthiness would suddenly be drastically reduced. Or, if talking straight, they would have to get the fuck out of there, before air- or sea-based shipbusters even come into play.

Which proves your alleged point... how, exactly?

My point is that you could use screenplanes as naval weapon platforms. ALL.

Big. Fucking. Deal.

Yeah, big fucking deal. Because not everyone can afford throwing 500 billion in their military budget. The whole screenplane program with all the prototypes cost around 500 million. The Blackjack is obviously practical, but I can't see it's R&D being substantially cheaper than the screenplane program.

And as I said, I don't say screenplanes ARE practical as weapon platforms NOW, however they CAN BE practical if used in tie with other types of weaponry and upgraded with modern requirements - increased passive countermeasures, AA defenses, more speed.

[K. A. Pital]

And, just to refine my concept so that it's understood:
Future screenplane use based on current achievements:

This is a map of USSR's ekranoplan programme (edit - found a better map, the first one was incorrect on many things like the civil "Lun" having 6 engines and else,..):


As you can see, military ekranoplans have three branches of development - the two Alexeev branches (big and medium size), Bartini branch.

1) The most immediate and easy usage: screenplanes as troop transports.
KM-class as a troop transport:

The KM-class could reportedly carry several hundred troopers in it's belly, making it a serious contender for storm-landings.

Some smaller ekranoplanes, like Lun and Orlyenok were actually tried out as landers.
Orlyenok-class coming ashore:

Orlyenok-class debarking a BTR.


The advantages in rough cargo transporting price over large distance would arise with the use of an ekranoplane larger than the KM, like the Boeing-proposed Pelican ULTRA ekranolet (a plane that relies on WIG effect to move over large distances).


If we're speaking of military landing operations, however, something close to a KM-class would be sufficient. It could transport troops in mere hours over smaller internal and external seas, does not require special landing grounds and is immune to minefields. For the deployment of rapid-reaction units over seas, nothing could compete with such a machine, especially if it couldeffectively operate on 3000-6000 km distances.

Also, such a cargo craft could delived anti-air defense complexes with the troops, so that they are not unprotected from a sudden airstrike.

2) Screenplanes as anti-ship weapons.
Given the practical implementation of this idea in the Alexeev designs ("Lun"), it's pretty well understood that such a ship can function. Given it's characteristics, the "Lun", with minor advances, could practically attack any small targets, which lack advanced AA defenses and radars - with great speed. For example, it could effectively assault any small states' fleets such as some of the CIS and Russia-neighboring states, or even could be used against the Chinese Navy, should such a conflict arise. The "Lun"-class is capable of moving up to 500 kph and fire it's Moskito 3M80 rockets at cruise speeds. An attack of a "Lun" against aerially unsupported ships could spell certain doom for them.

CV battlegroups are very hard to approach and would require stealthier and better protected screenplanes, with higher speeds of operation and powerful offensive and defensive weaponry. They were never intended as targets for such small and undefended craft as "Lun".

A larger Bartini line of screenplanes, which, with a tonnage above 1000 tons, would not be dependand on any weather conditions, could carry dozens of heavy anti-ship and anti-air weapons, but move with speeds many times faster than a conventional ship and be used as an attack weapon against carrier groups.

3) Screenplanes as mobile AA defense complexes for the Navy
Perspectively, a heavy screenplane could carry AA missile complex to defend landing points or ships against aerial attacks. It's advantages are always the same - it's fast, and could deliver sufficient firepower to a certain point a lot faster than a conventional ship.

4) Screenplanes as aircraft or heli carriers
Perhaps the most intriguing idea ever. It requires tons of money, but it could change the shape of warfare - imagine CVs moving at speeds of 500 kph. Bartini line of heavier screenplane projects (1000 ton - 50 000 ton) is exactly where to look for this.
A Bartini aircarrier screenplane model, tested at TSAGI poligon:

Bartini had projects for enormous vessels that could outrun the conventional ships and yet carry the same weaponry.

Such, from my humble POV, are the perspectives for screenplanes in the military.

[thejester]

...except for the problem that they require the absence of virtually all swell to work. How often are you going to find this on the open ocean?

[Vympel]

Orlyenok-class debarking a BTR-80.

Nitpick: It's definitely a BTR, but not an -80. Looks more like a BTR-60PB. It's too high, the front is the wrong shape, and the hatches are wrong.

[MKSheppard]

The big problem is they all require relatively calm seastates to work; in anything but calm weather, problems begin developing.

[MKSheppard]

Difficult to spot on AEGIS radars which has a resolution in the 5 nanometre^2 range? Don't think so.

Actually, there's something called the radar horizon, it's why you can spot aircraft flying high further away with ground based systems.



And Degan, now using Stuart as a source?

[K. A. Pital]

MKSheppard

The big problem is they all require relatively calm seastates to work; in anything but calm weather, problems begin developing.

Well, true, and the smaller the machine is, the more you need to think of the weather. That's why both Bartini and Alexeev pushed for larger ekranoplans. Bartini believed that upwards from a thousand tons the ekranoplans would be relatively independent of weather - for smaller machines, Bartini envisioned ekranolets - like the Pelican craft proposed by Boeing, it's essentially a plane that uses WIG effect and can, if necessary, rise to higher altitudes.
And weather is very important for most Navy ships and aviation, not just ekranoplans. And if smaller ekranoplanes are to be used a rapid-reaction force, they would not be driven out of their bases/motherships in bad weather. Of course, that limits their use, but that's objective reality.

P.S. Who is this Stuart person?

Vympel
Yeah, now I see too. Probably not a BTR-80, but that's what the inscription in the original article said. I didn't pay attention.

[Patrick Degan]

You simply decided to ignore the material in the articles which address exactly the practical problems with large WIG craft.

It adresses the problems of Alekseev's screenplane program designs, without even quanifying them. What is the turning radius, in meters? What is the acceleration? What is the capability for altitude climbing? They just don't quantify. That's ridiculous.

No, they don't quantify to your satisfaction. But wide turning radii in large WIG craft are observable and have been documented, and that factor increases with the size of the craft. And the basic relationships of aircraft weight and wing area required for lift are not negated simply because you wish to handwave them away.

Difficult to spot on AEGIS radars

1) AEGIS is used to intercept winged missiles and air attacks, not subsonic surface skimmers.
2) AEGIS operates with surface-to-air interceptor missiles.

Wrong answer:

The SPY-1D(V) radar upgrade is the newest improvement to the SPY-1D. The SPY-lD(V) littoral radar upgrade will supersede the SPY-1D in new-construction ships beginning in FY 1998, and will deploy in DDG 51 Flight IIA ships starting in approximately 2003. The third variant of this radar, known as the Littoral Warfare Radar, will improve the radar's capability against low-altitude, reduced radar cross-section targets in heavy clutter environments and in the presence of intense electronic countermeasures. The SPY-1D radar system is the multi-function, phased-array, three-dimensional (range, altitude, and bearing) radar which conducts search, automatic detection, and tracking of air and surface targets. The SPY-1D also provides mid-course guidance for the SM-2 missile, and has also demonstrated a capability to track theater ballistic missiles. The AN/SPY-1D(V), under development for installation in some Flight IIA ships, is an improved system with better performance against targets in clutter, additional moving target indicator (MTI) waveforms, and greater ability to counter deceptive Electronic Attack measures.

Next:

It's largely irrelevant whether you spot the skimmer or no, the important thing is whether you could react to it's attack in time, and with countermeasures. Anti-shipbuster missiles would be something that you could use against a skimmer. Something like AMRAAM, which allegedly has improved performance against low-altitude flying targets. Lower altitudes reduce the success chance of missile attack.

Or the fighter uses its guns.

You actually think military R&D waits until a ship gets killed by a new antiship missile?

The problem is, anti-shipbuster missiles are designed for intercepting antiship missiles, not screenplanes. Moreover, the range of interceptor missiles is limited. Well, you know all that anyway.

Yes, we do know all that. So do the designers for systems like SM-2, which can deal with the Moskit threat. The screenplanes can be left to the fighters.

You keep pretending that what is nothing more than a fancier-than-usual standoff platform somehow is going to get past the defence screens of a modern CVBG which not only has its CAP on continual rotation as well as Hawkeye AEW in the air but is also screened by AEGIS ships with defences designed to deal with the cruise missile threat as well as air attack.

Frankly, it's really a "nothing more than a fancy weapon platform", because non-fancy weapon platforms really tend to be noticed faster than "fancy". For example, a Hawkeye can spot a fighter at high altitude at 270 km afar. However, would it notice a surface skimmer with passive countermeasures (i.e. basic anti-radar countours and camo)? Somehow I think that such a skimmer would have a lot more chance to pass the AEW than a conventional type of attack - i.e. with a plane. So basically, a swift attack could be carried out by a plane or by a screenplane, but the latter is harder to track.

Unfortunately, in order to exploit the ground-effect and retain stability, the design options for a WIG craft are going to be very limited in terms of trying to also create a stealth profile.

I hate to tell you this, but "afar" is limited by the maximum effective range of the missile the Lun mounts. In this case, the P-270 Moskit, which means a Lun has to close to within 65mn of the carrier group —which is well within the task force's CAP zone.

A "Lun" is an old Alexeev design screenplane. I'm talking about the perspectives of using screenplanes as naval platforms today.

The Lun is the one actual example of a WIG craft developed as a military attack vehicle which can be pointed to in this discussion, and thereby sets a standard. And the range of the missile still limits just how "afar" is defined, no matter what platform it's mounted on.

Once Standard SM-2 had been given an IR auxiliary homing system, it was more than capable of shooting the P-270s out of the sky.

Not only is that debatable, I would like that guy to point the "area" where exactly an SM-2 has a chance of shooting down the 3M80

Um, he did point out the area where the Moskit could be downed.

He also insists that hypersonic missiles can't make maneuvers which is particulary appaling in the light of the Moskit being capable of evasive manuevers with half the g forces of AA missiles (10 ed vs. 20 ed for AA interceptors). And not only that, but he has to take into account the reaction time of the anti-missile system - i.e. the time between spotting the approaching projectile and launching the anti-missile, which is quite small given the fact that the Moskit has considerable speed even at launch, not speaking of the low-flight where it could reach 2,5 M. The range for spotting a "streaker" of Moskito type is considered to be 25 km, which gives the AMS approximately 25 seconds to react.

And that argument might have some validity if warships lacked modern C3 and if the 25 second interval was the total close-time from launch point to target instead of merely the terminal intercept phase of the flight.

Bear in mind that Aegis was tested against MA-31 targets (based on X-31 missiles), and the results were not in favor of Aegis - most targets hit the mark. So, practically, Aegis was tested against hypersonic missiles, and although it's capable of downing some of them, the overall result was negative. If we have practice with much less advanced hypersonics, we can expect the Moskito to be pretty good against AEGIS-fitted ships. Similar to Moskito projectiles - Vandal drones - reportedly penetrated AEGIS on multiple tests.

And that was in the early/mid-1990s, before the upgrade to the primary AN/SPY-1 radar suite and the introduction of the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, which tested successfully in 23 intercepts out of 24 tries against various simulated cruise-missile threats during OPEVALs in 1999. RIM-116 is being added to the ships of the U.S. Navy and the German Bundesmarine as we speak, and complements the SM-1 Standard missile, the ECCM suites on AEGIS ships and the Phalanx CIWS.

Besides, nothing stops us from fitting the screenplanes with hordes of much cheaper and lightweight Uran-type missiles, if we find "Moskit" questionable - personally, I think the "Moskit" is pretty adequate for attacking CV groups, and the US with it's AEGIS systems are not the only possible adversary.

You are entitled to think what you wish, of course.

That's right —put more weapon systems on, increase the craft's weight, and complicate the design even further to produce a heavier, slower craft which makes it even more of a target.

Heavy != slow. "Lun" could fly with a total mass of 400 tons (own mass - 243 tons), the KM flew with a total mass of 550 tons. Both were quite fast for their time, and frankly, 550 kph is pretty good even for today.

But complete crap against a fighter plane.

The moment an ekanoplan rises to any appreciable altitude, it becomes a target for any fighter- or ship-launched missile in the area.

Sure. Maneuvers are limited to a narrow corridor - anyway, because a steep rise is not something a screenplane can do.

Which sort of helps make my case, actually.

A hit-and-run weapon which cannot take evasive action very well and will get its ass jumped by multiple fighters on the way in.

Why precisely can't it take evasive action? The KM, for example, according to the test notes, could make steep turns even at 400 kph, without damaging it's superstructure.

A vehicle which requires several hundred metres to make a turn and cannot climb quickly if it had to cannot successfully evade a faster and more manoeuverable plane coming up on it.

CVNs most definitely keep fighters in the air all the time.

If it's operating with all of it's fighter forces in our immediate vinicity, something is clearly wrong with our defenses. In that case you could carry out any type of attack and achieve nothing.

Face it —anybody who's relying on coastal defence craft to protect them from a U.S. CVBG has pretty much already lost the fight.

It's not necessary for ships to close in on the shoreline to effectively blockade it given the range of modern weapons.

What is the max range of surface-target missiles? I rather doubt that it's over a few hundred kms.

Depends on the type. For Harpoon, it's something like 60+nm. Tommohawk can be launched from ten times that distance but it's role is for attack against inland targets.

Because the WIG is actually a fucking aircraft, not any sort of ship

So where are those aircraft capable of mounting things like S-300 class AA defenses or heavy anti-ship missiles?

How does that defeat the point that a WIG is an aircraft and not a ship, and how does that negate its vulnerabilities?

Unfortunately, it's not even as fast as most modern military jets.

So? Modern military jets can carry heavy weaponry and fly as low?

You just won't even try to evaluate a comparison between whole systems instead of mere weapons, will you? It isn't enough to simply look at one aspect of the problem.

Are we exploiting the screenplanes autonomously? I believe not. Its' not a wunderwaffe, just a weapon platform, that could find it's niche. Use a screenplane group with AA screenplanes and P-270 screenplanes. However, I believe that something similart to a Lun-class, fitted with S-400 and, say, 4 Moskits could also be an option. A KM-class could carry all the weaponry of a Lun and additional anti-air defenses easily. They're not that heavy. And remember also - how strong is the CV battlegroup AEW group, what, 4 AEW planes? If so, a few screenplanes armed with a dozen S-400 class could essentially cripple a CVBG's AEW. After that fact, the CVBG would have to take measures, because it's battle-worthiness would suddenly be drastically reduced. Or, if talking straight, they would have to get the fuck out of there, before air- or sea-based shipbusters even come into play.

Yes, that might potentially be a problem. Fortunately, each Nimitz-class CVN carries four or five Hawkeyes and four EA-6B Prowlers (ECM platforms) for Wild Weasel protection in its airgroup.

[phongn]

A few random notes -

Stuart Slade is a military analyst with (IIRC) prior experience in air-defense, nuclear targeteering and warship design. He's a reliable (though obviously not infallable) source, especially on air defense and naval matters.

SM-2 has an antiship mode, though is limited to the radar horizon. Most ships also tote Harpoon ASMs (though against a target as fast as a WIG, I'd suspect there would be severe targetting problems). ESSM is also in the fleet and it is a very good short-to-medium-range SAM and while usually vertically launched, its tipover time is much shorter than SM-2.

As for S-400, etc - I don't think they're designed to work from a platform flying at a few hundred knots. They're also not really useful for all types of threats (notice how the USN has a number of air-defense systems on her ships, ranging from the big SM-2 to ESSM to RAM to Phalanx)