Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Take A Look Inside The Soviet Union's Gigantic Nuclear Equipped Ekranoplane
Business Insider ^ | January 27,2012 | Robert Johnson

Posted on 01/27/2012 7:51:43 AM PST by Hojczyk

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-56 last
To: DuncanWaring

I’m trying remember how the book described the reason for my claim. Yes, I know we knew about the danger but the author described something that made the sharing of the particulars beneficial to crew that died in ‘67.
Do you recall seeing the famous class pictures of cosmonauts? Ones that later showed classmates airbrushed out? One was the young cosmonaut who perished in the O2 chamber, the other, if I recall was a alcholic who died in disgrace. If you have the time read the book of above, it was well documented and sourced..

51 posted on 01/27/2012 2:38:15 PM PST by cardinal4 (Bolton/Arpaio 2012 "Kick the UN across the border!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Click an eyeball!

Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!
Abolish FReepathons
Donate Monthly

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up!

52 posted on 01/27/2012 3:08:06 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
I frankly don't see the advantage of nuclear propulsion in an aircraft. Nuclear propulsion gives you the advantage of long time on-station and stealth in an underwater environment. That is great for subs where you can dive deep, take advantage of thermal layers, hide under the ice, and don't have radar painting you in the sky. Long time on-station for an aircraft has no particular advantage when your job is to get to a target, deliver your weapons, and get out again. Stooging around up in the sky just makes you more of a target. Combine that with the limited cargo capacity of the nuclear airplane (because of the shielding) and I don't think you have a very good bet. Missiles on land or at sea are a better deterrent.
53 posted on 01/27/2012 3:36:28 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803

The Ground Effect Vehicles had turbofans. They had the potential to carry nuclear warheads in the missiles they carry. This is REALLY BAD WRITING. Why should I trust anything in a “business” publication that runs intentionally misleading headlines?

54 posted on 01/27/2012 3:50:38 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chimera

That is why the idea was abandoned. I am glad we tested out several options when we developed our nuclear deterrent. It was much better than just putting all the eggs in the same basket.

The best options won out in the end.

55 posted on 01/28/2012 9:17:56 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
I just hope Obama doesn't end up gutting it in the name of “social justice”, and throwing more money down the welfare black hole. I still think we need a deterrent against Russia and China. Deterrence won't do much against fanatic wackos like Iran and the Norks, but at least we'll have some retaliatory capability to turn them into glass if they try anything against us.
56 posted on 01/28/2012 9:55:57 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-56 last

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
Topics · Post Article

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