Ekranoplan
englishrussia.com
englishrussia.com
Wings of Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr8N0Z4Cl0U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle#Advantage...
Ground effect [1] is a really interesting phenomena.
320kg warhead flying at mach 3. They're comparable to the Harpoon except carry 50% more payload and fly 3 times as fast.
On the sides of the cabin are the engines.
The MD-160 was intended (in the 1980s) to be a can-opener for US carrier battle groups -- able to close at 300 knots in nap of earth, evading detection, then launch six Moskits at once. (By way of comparison a Tu-22M or Tu-95 could only carry one or two Moskits.) Luckily the USSR ran out of money before they could build more than one of the things, which now sits in mothballs (despite various proposals to build more as, e.g., passenger ferries or high speed mobile disaster-relief hospitals).
>While things have moved on, there's still some question over whether western naval defense missiles such as Standard or Aster can intercept a Moskit
In April 2012, the French Navy successfully shot and downed an American GQM-163 Coyote target. The GQM-163 Coyote was simulating a sea-skimming supersonic anti-ship cruise missile traveling at speeds of Mach 2.5 (3000 km/h) with an altitude of less than 5 meters. The Aster 30 missile was fired by the Horizon class frigate Forbin (D620), also present during the shoot was Forbins sister ship Chevalier Paul (D621). The successful shooting represents the first time a European missile defence system has intercepted and destroyed a supersonic, sea-skimming "missile". The trial was described as a "complex operational scenario".
But, 2.5 mach and "test case" with your own hardware, can never know what a Russian missele is programmed to do.
PS: Why did you answer your own question?
EDIT: The documentary provided above by manaskarekar says the same: http://youtu.be/xr8N0Z4Cl0U?t=23m11s
"Isn't that just the wrong way?"
"Yeah but faster"
The 7500 meter figure, is that with cargo or without? Aircraft can typically do pretty amazing things with an empty cargo hold and a few sips of fuel in the tanks.
Honestly, I'm really having trouble seeing this thing as anything but a Soviet propaganda project with no real economic argument for it.
The thick, warm, rich air at sea level is not exactly the best operating environment for turbojets. And if there really was a benefit to harnessing the ground effect that outweighed the negative effects of low altitude, why not use a proper aircraft like an Antonov and just fly it low enough to take advantage?
And I assume the 50%/50% figure above is in relation to contemporary Soviet aircraft? Which where, themselves, thirsty compared to contemporary western aircraft let alone modern aircraft. The thing had 8 (Eight!) turbojets!
Re: the Antonov, I think the idea is that it needs to be very low to utilize ground effect, and the only way to do this safely is over water with a hull capable of emergency water landings at the very least.