Take A Look Inside The Soviet Union's Gigantic Nuclear Equipped Ekranoplane

Business Insider ^ | January 27,2012 | Robert Johnson

[Red Badger]

Operation TIMBERWOLF ?..............

[hoagy62]

Couple of things:

In regard to the Lun...there is some footage of the thing actually flying and firing its rockets. If you do a YouTube search for ‘Lun-class”, you’ll find it. It’s from a Russian documentary of the ekranoplanes, and the narration is in Russian. However, if you click through, you’ll recognize the Lun.

Second, in regard to the nuclear airplane concept...the Air Force finally deemed the concept as too expensive to make both safe and workable. However, they had thought of “Project Pluto”. It was a nuclear-powered cruise missile/unmanned bomber that, once it’s nuclear engine was turned on, would go blasting at supersonic speeds (likely Mach 3) and low altitude towards several targets in the Soviet Union. It would’ve carried multiple nukes onboard, dropping them on several targets before self-destructing over the last target.
Not only that, but the shock wave from flying at Mach 3 so low to the ground would have caused serious damage along its flight path...and the exhaust was also going to leave a pretty nasty radioactive trail.

They dropped the idea when intercontinental ballistic missiles proved to be easier to design and build then previously thought.

I imagine it as what I call a “middle-finger” type of weapon...where you not only destroy cities but screw up the environment of your enemy for decades to come.

[TXnMA]

Video of it in action -- including firing missiles while at speed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0y9UHyOhbo

There appears to be several more similar videos available via the "sidebar" at that same URL...

[Yorlik803]

NASA only had three fatal accidents. Two were shuttles and one Apollo. Of course the shuttles carried more people than Russian spacecraft so the body count would be higher.
Russians seem to have a fatalistic view of life. They do things that are either dangerious or stupid. Like a whole country of drunk rednecks .

[DuncanWaring]

Then Grissom was just an anomaly?

What's that got to do with the fact that it was known well before the untimely demise of the Apollo 1 crew that combustion occurs more rapidly in a 100% oxygen environment, even without the Russians?

[Lazlo in PA]

Man. The shoddy, crooked welds and overall design just scream Soviet Union. From the look of the pics, more time was spent drinking Vodka than designing and constructing a decent plane.

[DuncanWaring]

Then Grissom was just an anomaly?

What's that got to do with the fact that it was known well before the untimely demise of the Apollo 1 crew that combustion occurs more rapidly in a 100% oxygen environment, even without the Russians?

[cunning_fish]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Russians seem to have a fatalistic view of life. They do things that are either dangerious or stupid. Like a whole country of drunk rednecks .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbgyy04_OV0

OMG INSANE Russian teens #### off the top of some tall tower

:)

[reg45]

So what! The medal would get vaporized.

[reg45]

We should license the design. Imagine a car ferry that could go from Chicago to Traverse City in one hour.

[cardinal4]

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..

[TheOldLady]

Click an eyeball!

Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!
Abolish FReepathons
Donate Monthly

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

[chimera]

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.

[rmlew]

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?

[FreeAtlanta]

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.

[chimera]

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.