Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia revives Caspian Sea Monster
RT.com ^ | 7/17/2010 | RT.com

Posted on 07/18/2010 1:29:53 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld

The Russian government has commissioned the renewal of the “Caspian Sea Monster,” the legendary ground effect vehicle (GEV). Only 30 such crafts were built in the Soviet Union over two decades. Propeller The revival of GEV production was announced by the Alekseev design and construction bureau, which used to be the leading producer of such vehicles. According to its production branch director, Evgeny Meleshko, the bureau is working on a big model. It will spend two years making the new design with the first tests to be launched in 2012.

“For our company it’s a big project, and most of our specialists will be working on it,” Meleshko told Interfax news agency.

GEVs are high-speed naval vehicles that fly just over the surface thanks to a high-pressure air cushion created by its wings. The first prototype with a wingspan of 37.6 meters and a hull length of about 100 meters could travel at 250 knots and had a maximum take-off weigh of 544 tons.

The Soviet Union produced several models, including one for amphibian troops transportation and a cruise missile carrier. There was also a project for a strategic GEV armed with ballistic missiles.

(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: a90; aerodynamic; aerospace; caspiansea; coldwar; gev; groundeffectvehicle; hydrofoil; orlyonok; russia; russiannavy; sovietnavy; volgariver; wig

1 posted on 07/18/2010 1:29:59 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Wonder how a not quite airplane that can maneuver in 2 dimensions will stand up against real airplanes that can maneuver in three dimensions?


2 posted on 07/18/2010 1:38:50 AM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Release the Kraken


3 posted on 07/18/2010 1:40:01 AM PDT by Krankor (Slow down, you move too fast. You got to make the morning last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

It attains level flight near the surface of the Earth, made possible by a cushion of high-pressure air created by the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface known as ground effect.


4 posted on 07/18/2010 1:41:45 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

The big multi-engine ones are very impressive, but I imagine they really burn up the fuel.


5 posted on 07/18/2010 1:53:14 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
It attains level flight near the surface of the Earth...

That's what I'm saying, there is not much in the "Up or Down" maneuverability of this thing, easy pickings for an aircraft that has lots of "Up and Down" maneuverability.
Ground effect works great as long as there are no waves or sand dunes.

6 posted on 07/18/2010 1:53:28 AM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

International Maritime Organization recognizes three classes of ground effect craft:

1.Type A cannot operate out of ground effect.
2.Type B can jump to clear obstacles by converting kinetic energy (speed) into potential energy (height), but cannot maintain flight without the support of the ground effect.
3.Type C are certified as aircraft, with the ability to operate safely and efficiently out of ground effect.


7 posted on 07/18/2010 1:53:40 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

Type C are certified as aircraft, with the ability to operate safely and efficiently out of ground effect


8 posted on 07/18/2010 1:55:04 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
Type C are certified as aircraft, with the ability to operate safely and efficiently out of ground effect

Didn't know about type "C".
Types "A" and "B" would definitely be a thrill ride ;^)

9 posted on 07/18/2010 2:01:53 AM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; Mr. Mojo; James C. Bennett; mowowie; Captain Beyond; darkwing104; JRios1968; ...

Ping!


10 posted on 07/18/2010 2:05:51 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

Ping


11 posted on 07/18/2010 2:28:08 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Water is very smooth - not open ocean. I fail to see the modern utility in a prop plane that guzzles fuel and flies neither high nor fast and is sensitive to waves.


12 posted on 07/18/2010 2:57:37 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
Caspian Sea Monster Video

(Spent some time as an A.I. in the 70's trying to figure these guys out)

13 posted on 07/18/2010 3:02:30 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

I think they are bringing it back for military use.


14 posted on 07/18/2010 3:03:32 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Military use in inland waterways? Cause the water has to be sooth and then, unoccupied. Sea Monster versus commuter ferry. Sea Monster versus trawler. Sea Monster versus row boat/jet ski. So they want to cover long flat unoccupied bodies of water...hmmmm....


15 posted on 07/18/2010 3:08:11 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
Economy-size cruise missile launcher.


16 posted on 07/18/2010 3:09:09 AM PDT by 300winmag (Overkill never fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

“amphibian troops transportation” Hmmmm....doesn’t seem practical. It does mention ballistic missile...so...assuming one is riding up on hostiles, you hope their waterways are clear and calm? For the Black Sea or some other neighbor?


17 posted on 07/18/2010 3:12:07 AM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

I do believe that this “somewhat” limited aircraft wannabe is an ideal mass troop carrier for any high speed invasion.

How many Russian troops in just one aircraft? a thousand, or more?

I can imagine 6 of these aircraft all wave skimming to make a beach head landing.

I personally think its a very admirable Russian design that is overlooked by western over-tech thinking.


18 posted on 07/18/2010 3:12:33 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

The Soviet Navy ordered 120 Orlyonok-class ekranoplans. ut this figure was later reduced to fewer than thirty vehicles, with planned deployment mainly in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea fleets.A few Orlyonoks served with the Soviet Navy from 1979 to 1992. In 1987, the 400-ton Lun-class ekranoplan was built as a missile launcher.


19 posted on 07/18/2010 3:13:25 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

These craft were originally developed as very high-speed military transports, and were based mostly on the shores of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea


20 posted on 07/18/2010 3:15:52 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk; ransomnote; 300winmag


This is the Lun class ground effect vehicle.It was used by the Soviet & Russian navies from 1987 to sometime in the late '90s.The sole vessel of her class, MD-160 entered service with the Black Sea Fleet in 1987.It was fitted with six missile launchers, mounted in pairs on the dorsal surface of the fuselage, and advanced tracking systems mounted in the nose and tail.
21 posted on 07/18/2010 3:25:28 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtaeRZjWNc BUMP for later full viewing
22 posted on 07/18/2010 3:26:16 AM PDT by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk; ransomnote; 300winmag

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/?area=postView&id=886

More Stuff


23 posted on 07/18/2010 3:34:19 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

I know of these “aircraft” but looking at them it still gives me a shiver, these are truly menacing, its like looking at a combination battleship, LCAC and a 747 all morphed together.


24 posted on 07/18/2010 3:45:27 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

I would like to own one.


25 posted on 07/18/2010 3:46:40 AM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

For those of you concerned about these vehicles clearing water-based obstacles, consider that ground effect occurs up to an altitude equivalent to the wingspan of the vehicle, with maximum efficiency occurring at one-half of that altitude. If one of these things has a 100-foot wingspan, it can stay in ground effect at 100 feet above the surface, with maximum efficiency at 50 feet. Some of these vehicles can also do short-distance hops up to several hundred feet, to clear taller obstacles. Don’t forget that they can fly at 500 knots.

These things are awesome marvels of aeronautical engineering.


26 posted on 07/18/2010 4:05:00 AM PDT by kerosene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kerosene

Not exactly stealthy, tho...


27 posted on 07/18/2010 4:21:38 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
The Spruce Goose makes more sense and actually flew once. Spruce Goose
28 posted on 07/18/2010 4:21:59 AM PDT by JSteff (((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

Bump for later


29 posted on 07/18/2010 4:41:45 AM PDT by NY Attitude (Make love not war but be prepared for either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Looks like a grandchild of the Spruce Goose!


30 posted on 07/18/2010 4:50:29 AM PDT by chipper dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

We might not worry about it but I guarantee that the nation of Georgia has the shivers. This is a “Threat Axis” multiplier which has to be factored in for proper military preparedness. Every country along the Caspian and Black Seas now has something else to worry about in this area if the Russian Bear gets irritated enough.


31 posted on 07/18/2010 5:03:32 AM PDT by SES1066 (Cycling to conserve, Conservative to save, Saving to Retire, will Retire to Cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

It’s an interesting idea but quiet they’re not. Hopefully, the Russians will use modern high-bypass jet engines and turboprops with quieter blades for a commercial version.


32 posted on 07/18/2010 5:13:46 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun; Eric in the Ozarks; sonofstrangelove
Well, it certainly cannot outmaneuver a real plane, and it is not stealthy. However - let's have another look. It was built for 2 purposes ...carrying troops highspeed, and carrying ASCMs to target ships and/or CMs to target land targets. In the first role ...conventional troop carriers also cannot outmaneuver planes, thus there is no advantage lost there. However, this approach is much faster, and is more or less invincible to submarines (and you never really know where an American submarine could be waiting to give you a MK48 nightmare). On the second role ....carrying supersonic Cruise missiles (be they nuclear land attack variants or anti ship variants). Well, it may seem unstealthy ....but think of what the alternative was. Tu-95 Bears flyinghigh up with a belly of supersonic cruise missiles ...far easier to target than a similar size 'plane' ALWAYS flying a maximum of 100 feet above sea level.

It may seem ungainly, but it is really a beautiful design

33 posted on 07/18/2010 6:18:10 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kerosene
Don’t forget that they can fly at 500 knots.

If they fly 100 ft. over the surface, why couldn't these planes be used for commercial transportation? It seems that they would be more fuel efficient. And their design looks crash landing-friendly.

34 posted on 07/18/2010 6:27:32 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

//It seems that they would be more fuel efficient//

Not at 500 knots, or maybe any speed using jet engines. Both the aircraft and the engine is more efficient at high altitude.

That however does not mean this platform does not have some very effective uses. Think about if China perfected this technology and their threat against Taiwan.


35 posted on 07/18/2010 9:56:37 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I agree


36 posted on 07/18/2010 6:28:17 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun
When I did work on the LCAC the one thing that really got my attention was the incredible rate of oxidation. If you think keeping a boat in in salt water is a maintenance headache multiply by 100 due to the misting caused by the lift fans.
I would think that these craft would be in same category as the LCAC in terms of maintenance and would bring in to question their availability/reliability.
37 posted on 07/19/2010 6:37:24 AM PDT by Boiler Plate ("Why be difficult, when with just a little more work, you can be impossible" Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

There’s been some strange stuff made. I always likes the Sea Dart and Martin Sea Master.


38 posted on 07/19/2010 6:43:18 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Live jubtabulously!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

IMO it is very efficient vs airplane since it takes much less enegry to utilize a ground effect comparing to horizontal flight. Same is about payload.
This thing is a hybrid of an airplane and a boat with pros and cons from both.


39 posted on 07/19/2010 7:46:15 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Both the aircraft and the engine is more efficient at high altitude.

Less wind resistance? I guess that makes sense.

40 posted on 07/26/2010 3:08:58 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove; All
Ouch...

On the Stealth, they could work on it.

Fuel consumption? Think turbo-compound Rotary or 2 stroke Diesel, turbo-compounded.

And Zero is cutting everything defense.We could do it, but not anytime soon. This is a serious delivery system of weapons and personnel.

41 posted on 07/26/2010 3:17:09 PM PDT by taildragger ((Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson