First pic of the Chinese Ekranoplan being operated at sea

I wonder how they're going to get these things into the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal, because they obviously can't fly there and it seems impractical to get them there by road as you would have to dismantle them and then reassemble them on site, which seems like a big disadvantage for something that's suppose to provide sudden and heavy fire support, unless you go through the herculean effort of building a motorway all the way from China to there so you can deploy it in one piece.
Clearly this thing isn't meant for the open sea where it can only safely fly for an hour during slack tide during calm weather and is completely out performed by a traditional dedicated bomber craft flying low.

ekranoplanes are ugly crap
>DAMP 0

>>63943825
It looks like a transport for manpower and supplies, which is also one of the main roles that the soviets had for their Ekranoplans.

>>63943825
simply because of lack of operational adaptability this thing is bust, the area around taiwan is specifically known for having temperamental and unpredictable wheather systems.
>we planned our attack on this day
>oops there's a little too much wind, too many waves, guess all these ekranoplane assets are just useless now.
this is why the concept never went anywhere in the first place.

>>63943111 (OP)
>another chinkshill thread

>>63943111 (OP)
Eh, ekranoplans are cool. Even if this one was made by West Taiwan.

>>63943111 (OP)
Based. They should make an Ekranoplan aircraft carrier next like the one that the soviets had planned before It's main designer died. It would be much faster than any of the aircraft carriers that the US has in service (crossing the Pacific or Atlantic ocean in 1 day) and on top of that all carrier planes could take off and land vertically without the need of a specific VTOL design like the Harrier or the F-35B, due to the speed of the Ekranoplan and Newton's first law: https://youtu.be/GCJ-nDz7B1U

>>63943880
I'm sure some /k/ autist will arrive quickly and explain why this wouldn't work but I don't care, this is the coolest shit I've seen all week. based.

So it is a turboprop, not a turbofan?

>>63943831
>ekranoplanes are ugly crap
You take that back! As implessive as this chinkshit thread is, ekranoplans did nothing wrong, and should be cherished.

>>63943943
never
only the current multirotors can compete in ugliness

>>63943970
You are a vile human being that inserts objects in his ass while shilling for Russia in a call center that services prime multipolar hours.

>>63943930
Implessive

>>63943880
>Ekranoplan aircraft carrier
I will not tell you why it wont work, that should be fairly obvious. Not to mention the aircraft have no way of returning to their 'carrier' once they have launched.

>>63944563
>the airplanes returned to the airplane on their own power
Shitposting aside, there was a plan for such a quick response Soviet carrier whose planes would then land on normal military airfields.

Airlifters are fat slow targets, Mike Sparks to the compulsively contrary. China should build hundreds.

>>63944563
Literally just slow down the Ekranoplan to the landing speed of the plane

>>63943111 (OP)
No way. Are they that retarded?

>>63943880
Which Ace Combat is this?

>>63944690
It's from the same guy who made the Martini Beriev VVA-14.

>>63944658
>slow down an ekranoplan
See, there is something you forgot to take into effect. I will give you a few lifetimes to figure it out.

>>63943111 (OP)
It's a gev, not an ekranoplan

>>63944563
Seems like it could be okay for launching drone or sams or cruise missiles if it could into stealth or dive or something

>>63943853
I think the Chinese plan is to build up such a redundancy of forces that even if an entire facet of it is immobilized for some reason like weather they'll just have something else slotted in to fulfill a similar purpose. They have a massive quantity of resources to throw at this problem.

>>63945036
Aren't they the same thing?

>>63946479
Sure, but at that point you would be better off fielding long range aircraft for that shit. A ground effect vehicle is too situational when taking into account oceans and their varying weather. These would be at home on a lake (or the Black Sea). The Taiwan strait is neither.

>>63946501
Huge and long range transport aircraft are not very survivable in a high end conflict

>>63946501
>>63946479
ok so here's an idea
>nuclear-powered stealth submarine but instead of IRBMs or cruise missiles it's filled to the brim with attack drones
>pulls up to your coastline and hits you with the swarm
explain to me why this wouldn't be a new meta

>>63946494
No. Ekranoplans are GEV's but not all GEVs are ekranoplans, it's like calling any car you see on the road a honda civic. It's just that specific model

>>63943853
It's more that these planes are a 'nice-to have' situational/backup plan #32. The more resources and plans you have, the less likely none of them will work. It's kind of like buying a weird specialized tool - sure, you'll probably have it lying around in your garage forever, but you never know when you might need it to save the day.

>>63943825
Its nowhere near as big as the late Soviet Ekranoplans, if they can get the wings off it can be road trailered with a little difficulty.

The problem with Ekronoplans is that the sea is never calm 100% of the time, and their turning radius is so fucking big you need seperate vehicles surveying the area miles ahead

>>63947381
even better, a cruise missile that doesnt carry an explosive payload but just drops a shit ton of drones above the desired area

>>63943111 (OP)
it's more seaplane like, so I can probably maintain altitude at a lower efficiency when not in ground effect

did someone say ekranoplane carrier

You dumb niggers are going to create another "the FAL was never full auto" moment with your astounding ignorance

>>63949183

>>63943111 (OP)
All the disadvantages of a plane but it can't fly away. Hovercrafts have solved this problem long ago.

>>63955367
Hovercrafts don't have the range nor the speeds of Ekranoplans

Implessive

>>63943861
>t. scared SEAnigga

>>63949183
There are so many ways this could go wrong.

>>63949042
>the sea is never calm 100% of the time, and their turning radius is so fucking big you need seperate vehicles surveying the area miles ahead

It is calm enough for them to fly over 99,9% of the time en route and calm enough for them to take off and land at their destination 98% of the time. And if you need to turn a bit tighter than they can in the air just give reverse thrust, slow down a bit until it touches the water, lower a few small fins and turn on the water, then accelerate and take off again. Easy peasy. No that turning radius would ever matter over the Pacific

>>63944563
>Not to mention the aircraft have no way of returning to their 'carrier' once they have launched.
Why would they have no way of returning? If they can take off topped off with fuel and ammo they can land again in the same way, and far more easily too as they will be much lighter upon their return.