Some time ago, an article was published on the Voennoye Obozreniye website about the obvious problems and technical difficulties that arise when creating devices using the screen effect. In the heated discussion that broke out, the name “Pelican” was again voiced - an unrealized project of the Boeing corporation to create a super-heavy military transport ekranoplan. It should be noted that, taking into account the paradoxical love of the inhabitants of the former USSR for these strange semi-ships, semi-planes, any mention of foreign developments in the field of ekranoplan creation arouses keen interest and the desire to speed up their own developments in this direction, even to the detriment of all other programs of the military-industrial complex. Russians definitely love ekranoplanes, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Pioneers
In 1965, the popular British edition "Janes Intelligence Review" published sensational images of an unusually large aircraft hovering over the sea. The accompanying article reported on the "sea monster of the Caspian." Behind such an emotional nickname was a hidden admiration for the Soviet car.
Alas, Soviet specialists, who watched the tests of the "monster" with their own eyes, and not with the help of the cameras of the spy satellite, were disappointed with the capabilities of the giant ekranoplan KM ("model ship"). The "Caspian Monster" ate fuel like the devil (only 30 tons of kerosene was required for acceleration), and its speed, flight range and efficiency were several times lower than that of a conventional aircraft. In such conditions, the carrying capacity of the "monster" (200 tons - not so much) did not matter - it was easier, cheaper and faster to make 2-3 flights by transport aircraft. And the very insane appearance of the "Caspian Monster", with engines sticking out from everywhere, made you think about the meaning of this design. It was not possible to reduce the number of engines by increasing their power - chief designer Rostislav Alekseev already used the most powerful engines: ten RD-7 turbojets from the Tu-22 supersonic bomber! It is easy to imagine the technical risks involved in such a design.
However, this has already been said more than once, the principle of the ekranoplan itself has a critical drawback: to create an "air cushion", a flight height is required that is less than the aerodynamic chord of the aircraft wing (in other words, less than the wing width), i.e. just a few meters. Normal atmospheric pressure at sea level is 760 mm Hg. column, at an altitude of 10,000 meters, it decreases to 200 mm. rt. pillar - that's the whole answer: a swift plane flies in rarefied layers of the atmosphere, and an ekranoplan, hung with a dozen engines, howls and crashes through the densest air near the Earth's surface, while it constantly lacks thrust.
But on the whole, the idea seemed interesting - in the 90s, the Central Design Bureau named after V. I. R. E. Alekseeva was visited by an American delegation led by aircraft designer Burt Rutan, a well-known specialist in the field of unconventional aircraft designs. The result was not long in coming: in 2002, Boeing specialists announced a project for the Pelican-ULTRA super-heavy military transport ekranoplan.
Seventeen Abrams in one flight
When discussing the Pelican project, the opinion is most often heard about the unique capabilities of such machines during landing operations. The ekranoplan can take on board up to 17 main battle tanks M1 "Abrams" and deliver armored vehicles anywhere in the world at a speed of 250 knots (460 km / h) - tell me, which of the modern ships is capable of providing such incredible performance? The flight range of 16 - 18 thousand kilometers, coupled with the absence of the need for airfields (under the wing of an ekranoplan there is always an endless runway from sea water, right?) And the ability to quickly unload on an unequipped coast - all this gives an advantage in deployment speed and tactical surprise, expanding the sector to the limit possible landing.
… A salt sea without an edge without a bottom! But a strip of coastline flashes to us in the distance, Marine landing ships are coming! - hard-to-detect from ekranoplanes * fly like a whirlwind to the enemy coast, the sea boils over the stern from shells, but late - riddled cars, uplifting clouds of wet sand and pebbles, crash down onto the coast with a roar, a steel avalanche of armored vehicles and black jackets whips from their bowels.
The tank is not only the best remedy for traffic jams, armored vehicles are the main force in land battles. Unfortunately, tanks become a formidable weapon only when they feel solid ground under the tracks - in the open sea, they are only a pile of iron with negative buoyancy, which should be unloaded as quickly as possible ashore.
And now, the remains of ekranoplanes burn out on the beach, but now it doesn't matter anymore - the tanks have been successfully delivered to the bridgehead.
I will disappoint the reader. The story of a dashing landing on an enemy coast is just a figment of the imagination. The Pelican was never intended to be used as an amphibious assault vehicle and could not have been in principle. This is a purely transport vehicle. You will probably be surprised, but the American "super-ekranoplan" could not even land on the water surface! The landing system of 38 pairs of wheels finally convinces us that a well-equipped airfield with a long runway was needed to base the Pelican. such a landing gear design makes it impossible to take off and climb rapidly - the Pelican had to take off and land smoothly along a very shallow glide path, like some B-52 bomber.
Passion for the Pelican project
The Americans knew about the main contradiction in the creation of the ekranoplan: all the benefits achieved by increasing the lift are spent on overcoming the monstrous air resistance at low altitude. However, Boeing's engineers hoped that by correcting some, in their opinion, mistakes in the design of Soviet ekranoplanes, and applying the most modern technologies, they would be able to create an effective vehicle - the additional lift from the “air shield” would exceed all negative factors.
Of course, the Americans did not harbor any special illusions - from the very beginning it was clear that, taking into account that minimal benefit, the ekranoplan would have an advantage over the aircraft only on ultra-long routes (more than 11 thousand kilometers). Running a little ahead, I will say that even this was not achieved.
First of all, Boeing's engineers completely abandoned the sea-based - given the size of the Pelican, trying to take off from the surface of the water turned into madness. Try to accelerate a real ship with a draft of several meters up to a speed of 150 knots (the total displacement of the Pelican exceeded the displacement of the Guarding corvette!) - what should be the required power of the power plant to overcome the enormous resistance of water, waves and the force of water “sticking” to the hull ?!
The best project was recognized as the "ground" ekranoplan, taking off only from airfields. In addition to reducing the required engine power, this allowed engineers to bypass many of the design difficulties associated with supporting offshore operations. The design of the machine was facilitated, for the sake of saving weight, the cargo compartment was made unpressurized.
And then big problems began. First of all, what kind of power plant is capable of moving this monster out of place? Max. the takeoff weight of the Pelican is 4.5 times greater than that of the largest aircraft in history, the An-225 Mriya (2700 versus 640 tons). "Antonov" needed 6 jet engines … does the ekranoplan really need 24?
Boeing engineers planned to install eight incredible turboprop engines on the Pelican, created on the basis of the LM6000 gas turbine plant, with a capacity of 30-40 thousand hp. each! Placed in pairs in four fairing nacelles, they rotated 4 pairs of cyclopean propellers with a diameter of 15 meters. Any investor would probably be wary of hearing such numbers - it is enough to estimate the cost and laboriousness of servicing a propeller the size of a five-story building.
As the project was developed, other shortcomings surfaced - it turned out that there were no airfields suitable for basing a "miracle" with a wingspan of 190 meters. They had to install a wing folding mechanism - the dimensions were reduced to 120 m. For comparison: the wingspan of the huge B-52 bomber is 53 m, but the world record holder in aviation is the An-225 Mriya - the Antonov's wingspan is as much as 88 m!
Those. it was clear to any more or less literate person that the Pelican project was a dead issue. After the publication of the first characteristics of the miracle ship, the Boeing leadership in 2003 dispersed the "initiative group" of ekranoplan enthusiasts, and the Boeing Phantom Works research division switched to the development of the sixth generation fighter concept. I must say, Phantom Works engineers have always been entrusted with the most "inadequate" projects, since this department was not engaged in the design of real aircraft; it is just a scientific division focused on finding promising technical solutions for the aerospace industry.
Well, the American creators of ekranoplanes, like their Soviet colleagues, have come to a natural ending. Mother nature cannot be deceived.
Sea cruises
How will the poor American Marines now fight without ekranoplanes? Yes, as usual - for the delivery of expeditionary forces to foreign shores, the transports of the Shipping Command are used.
For example, here is a series of high-speed military transports of the "Algol" type: 55,000 tons of full displacement, max. speed 33 knots (60 km / h). Hooray! - the supporters of ekranoplanes will be delighted, - the ship is 8 times slower than that of ekranoplanes! True, but at the same time, the carrying capacity of the "Algol" is 25 times higher. The cost of operating costs of a ship and an ekranoplan cannot be compared at all - sea transport has always been the cheapest means of delivery.
During the transfer of troops to the Persian Gulf, huge transports could take on board 183 Abrams tanks, 46 trailers with 20-foot containers, 1 million liters of drinking water and several million liters of fuel and lubricants. To compare the ekranoplan with the Algol is simply insulting.
By the way, the military transports "Algol" are by no means ultra-modern ships - their age has long passed over 40 years. Just old Dutch container ships that underwent a deep modernization in the 80s. The shipping command often uses this technique - for example, in the early 2000s, the high-speed transport Lance Corporal Roy Whit, a former gas turbine ship of the Black Sea Fleet of the Captain Smirnov class, entered service.
But fans of ekranoplanes are unlikely to be convinced by these simple truths …
When there are no other excuses left, the last argument is used: the ekranoplan can be useful in extreme situations - the cruising speed of the ekranoplan is 8 times higher than that of the fastest military transport. So what? A transport aircraft has a speed 15 times higher, while the cost of the flight is lower. The conclusion is obvious.
Very often the opinion is heard: "An ekranoplan is not a ship or an airplane, therefore they cannot be compared."It is possible and even necessary to compare. The ekranoplan tries to duplicate the tasks of naval and aviation technology and, it should be admitted, it turns out badly.
Critics of the construction of "half-ships, half-aircraft" are often accused of negative rhetoric and the absence of any constructive proposals. This is not true: every time I urge fans of ekranoplanes to name at least one distinct advantage of this type of technology and the possible scope of its application.
WIGs cannot be used as vehicles: where efficiency is required, aviation works, and for the delivery of large consignments of cargo, sea transport is better suited. However, one should not discount the aircraft carrying capacity - heavy transport aircraft An-124 Ruslan, C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster can easily lift 1-2 main battle tanks and, if necessary, are capable of delivering a grouping in a short time. from 50-100 tanks to any corner of the world.
The combat use of ekranoplanes raises more questions than answers. An ekranoplan is bad in the role of a missile carrier - it is several times inferior to a combat aircraft in speed and maneuverability, and, unlike a ship, does not have any defensive means (it will not work to install them - the ekranoplan simply cannot take off). In such conditions, the speed of 400-500 km / h does not matter at all - enemy aircraft will quickly detect and sink a slow-moving unarmed target.
The landing capabilities of the ekranoplan are clearly seen on the example of the Pelican and Orlyonok projects. The first was carrying many tanks, but could not land on the unequipped coast. The second one was unpretentious when choosing seats, but could not lift even one tank.
The most senseless proposal is the Rescuer marine ekranoplan. Flying at a height of several meters at great speed, he sees nothing further than his nose. The "rescuer" simply will not find those in distress.
By the way, an interesting fact: the Eaglet ekranoplan and the old An-12 transport aircraft had the same carrying capacity (20 tons). The transport aircraft surpassed the Orlyonok in cruising speed (350 versus 650 km / h) and flight range (1500 km versus 4500 km). At the same time, 18 thousand liters of kerosene splashed in the fuel tanks of the An-12, and 28 thousand liters were poured into the tanks of the ekranoplan!
Well, who needs such an unlucky vehicle?
