ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

AlfaT8 wrote:As for the Tu-204, the only thing i can see is a revamped Tu-214R.
There is also the MS-21 and the SuperJet-100 (if i am reading these specs right), although the Tupolev will probly take less time to get to service.

The SSJ-100 has already been dismissed by the military if I'm not mistaken and the MS-21 will be prioritary used for civilian customers, so in a middle to short term: a Tu-204/214 based variant would definitely be the best option to replace the IL-38N.

Even if the IL-38N have been modernised, they won't soldier on forever...

Dorfmeister wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:As for the Tu-204, the only thing i can see is a revamped Tu-214R.
There is also the MS-21 and the SuperJet-100 (if i am reading these specs right), although the Tupolev will probly take less time to get to service.

The SSJ-100 has already been dismissed by the military if I'm not mistaken and the MS-21 will be prioritary used for civilian customers, so in a middle to short term: a Tu-204/214 based variant would definitely be the best option to replace the IL-38N.

Even if the IL-38N have been modernised, they won't soldier on forever...  

Aren't they pushing for Il-114 as ASW aircraft?

Saw a prototype a while back.

Dorfmeister wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:As for the Tu-204, the only thing i can see is a revamped Tu-214R.
There is also the MS-21 and the SuperJet-100 (if i am reading these specs right), although the Tupolev will probly take less time to get to service.

The SSJ-100 has already been dismissed by the military if I'm not mistaken and the MS-21 will be prioritary used for civilian customers, so in a middle to short term: a Tu-204/214 based variant would definitely be the best option to replace the IL-38N.

Even if the IL-38N have been modernised, they won't soldier on forever...  

No, no, i am not proposing a replacement for the Il-38s, they just got upgraded, but a Russian competitor to the P-8.

PapaDragon wrote:Aren't they pushing for Il-114 as ASW aircraft?

Saw a prototype a while back.

Unlikely, considering it's range or lack there of.
On top of that it's propeller driven.

There really isn't a justifiable replacement for Il-38 currently for such a roll. As some said, maybe the A-40 would have been good but that plane got cancelled long time ago. I mean, they could dust off the blueprints, make some modern adjustments, and try again. But I imagine due to money being allocated new equipment meant for direct fighting then I imagine it will take a back burner till 2025 or after. Il-38 while being old, still has a lot of room for improvements and can be upgraded even further with more advanced capabilities. Much cheaper option while still being effective at what it does.

AlfaT8 wrote:...............

PapaDragon wrote:Aren't they pushing for Il-114 as ASW aircraft?

Saw a prototype a while back.

Unlikely, considering it's range or lack there of.
On top of that it's propeller driven.

I assumed propeller is an advantage for this type of work.

In that case then it's definitely Tu-204/214 as the best option. MS-21 will be booked with civilian orders for years and it is kinda a waste to use such fancy bird as ASW.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Dorfmeister wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:As for the Tu-204, the only thing i can see is a revamped Tu-214R.
There is also the MS-21 and the SuperJet-100 (if i am reading these specs right), although the Tupolev will probly take less time to get to service.

The SSJ-100 has already been dismissed by the military if I'm not mistaken and the MS-21 will be prioritary used for civilian customers, so in a middle to short term: a Tu-204/214 based variant would definitely be the best option to replace the IL-38N.

Even if the IL-38N have been modernised, they won't soldier on forever...  

No, no, i am not proposing a replacement for the Il-38s, they just got upgraded, but a Russian competitor to the P-8.

PapaDragon wrote:Aren't they pushing for Il-114 as ASW aircraft?

Saw a prototype a while back.

Unlikely, considering it's range or lack there of.
On top of that it's propeller driven.

Turboprops have certain advantages for ASW aircraft, however P-8 is what i like to call "strategic ASW aircraft". However imo there should be two types of fixed-wing ASW platforms, one based on liner like P-8 is, and one on smaller turboprop driven aircraft. Like lets say CASA is, or IL-114.

PapaDragon wrote:MS-21 will be booked with civilian orders

From what i know, the Avionics of the Irkut MC-21 is designed together with Thales and Honeywell as it was purposed to be a Civilian plane... <--- Hence the Russian MOD is technically NOT allowed to purchase it unless they were to create another variant which ditches all Western avionics for Russian ones... Possible but will take a while to redesign probably... I may be wrong tho....

max steel wrote:.P-8 does not have Magnetic Anomally Dectection sensors.US Navy chooses not to use it

Yes... the USN ditched the MAD for another system that uses a hydrocarbon sensor to detect fuel vapors from diesel-powered submarines and ships instead... I don't know the effectiveness of this system tho but considering the USN also has high standards for their equipment design requirements... I assume that it will slightly lower or JUST as effective at detecting subs as Contemporary US MAD systems tho BUT i may just be overestimating it...

max steel wrote:I don't know why many people carry the preconceived notion that US ASW skills are extraordinary.

Because US technology in Passive Sonar was superior to the soviets during the mid cold war until the akulas but at that point, people already had their minds implanted with the niche that the US Sonars are God like when the Soviets have improved it on their Newer subs ( Akula II, Kilo class and any newer subs than these two).... With Maskirovka in mind, i doubt the Russians will change the people's mindset as Severely underestimating Russian Systems MIGHT be good for the MoD.... or we could be swallowing a shit ton of Russian Propaganda as well... Goes both ways Both nation has propaganda efforts.... but for now, i'm for the prior instead of later

militarov wrote:Turboprops have certain advantages for ASW aircraft

Is it? I'm curious to see how actually... Isn't Turbojet just better in terms of combat efficiency as you have better speed control and such? Getting the hell out seems like a good thing to be able to do once the enemy has had enough of your presence and decides to try shoot you down.... also Better power plants for more power demanding avionics no?


TBH, i think Russia's best option for medium Range ASW right now is the A-40s to run together with the IL-38Ns together And for Long range.... Tu-204s but that plane's Range is shit tbh so i'd say modify an Il-96 PS-90A1? But i don't think there are any Il-96 400s that are being turned for military purposes are there? Only a tanker variant was proposed no?

Yes... the USN ditched the MAD for another system that uses a hydrocarbon sensor to detect fuel vapors from diesel-powered submarines and ships instead... I don't know the effectiveness of this system tho but considering the USN also has high standards for their equipment design requirements... I assume that it will slightly lower or JUST as effective at detecting subs as Contemporary US MAD systems tho BUT i may just be overestimating it...

The Soviets have been using fuel sniffing technology for years and it is not a good replacement for MAD.

The smell of burnt diesel does not tell you if it is a sub or a fishing boat or commercial container ship... you use such information to narrow your search for a target.

MAD is no good for such things... it is used in the final kill stage to precisely locate the underwater target... a huge change in the earths magnetic field that moves and is underwater is a submarine... a fuel sniffer wont give you that sort of pin point information.

Is it? I'm curious to see how actually... Isn't Turbojet just better in terms of combat efficiency as you have better speed control and such? Getting the hell out seems like a good thing to be able to do once the enemy has had enough of your presence and decides to try shoot you down.... also Better power plants for more power demanding avionics no?

Most ASW operations involve flying low and slow... dropping expendible sonobouys and then using their information to triangulate the location of an enemy sub and then using that information to fly patterns using MAD to get a much more precise location followed by an attack with depth charges or torpedoes.

Turbofans are great for long range high altitude subsonic cruise... turbojets would be good for supersonic flight or less efficient subsonic flight... turboprops as used on the Il-38 and Tu-142 and also the P-3 Orion are standard engine equipment for such roles.

P8 always can be equiped with MAD on request, i belive Indian contract features MAD installed. However that is due to fact US allegedly refused selling same grade acoustic sensors to India as ones installed on domestic variant, so they had to opt for MAD to suplement it. USN claims MAD is of limited use on altitudes P-8 is flying, and that extremly sensitive acoustic sensors they developed are giving far better results.

GarryB wrote:Turbofans are great for long range high altitude subsonic cruise... turbojets would be good for supersonic flight or less efficient subsonic flight...

Sorry.... Yeah i meant TurboFan engines... like the Kawasaki F-7.... Seems that newer Medium range ASW have started to use Turbofan more often than Turboprop....

Militarov wrote:USN claims MAD is of limited use on altitudes P-8 is flying, and that extremly sensitive acoustic sensors they developed are giving far better results.

MAD sensors becomes ineffective beyond 500 feet altitude from what i heard.... I assume their sensors are upgraded Sonobouys... newer VLAD or DICASS sonobouys maybe?

Hi I am new to this forum and thought this was a really interesting new item on navy recognition, (cannot post links yet)


The BE-12 is probably quite an unsung platform as it seems like a workhorse that never was a "glamour" platform. It seems to be able to operate in pretty heavy seas. How does it compare to the Shin meiwa?

I see only 9 are left operating, I assume there must be quite a few still in storage as it would not make sense to engineer an upgrade for 9 frames. Any idea how many may be put back into service?

I think I saw one of those at the Air Force museum. That is a good place for it. It will never be brought back and it doesn't compare to any quad engine sea plane. We are currently trying to market the Be-200 but no one wants it. With China and Japan trying to market seaplanes the space is getting too crowded.

Vladimir79 wrote:I think I saw one of those at the Air Force museum.  That is a good place for it.  It will never be brought back and it doesn't compare to any quad engine sea plane.  We are currently trying to market the Be-200 but no one wants it.  With China and Japan trying to market seaplanes the space is getting too crowded.  

Why do you need more then 2 engines? All the latest airliners have 2 engines. For MAritime patrol the US uses the P3 based on the Lockheed Electra and now being replaced by the P8 based on the almost as ancient 737!!! The BE 200 cannot handle high seastate and I don't believe it is a good choice of MPA due to lack of loiter time, although I am not 100% sure on this as so little data is available.

mnztr wrote:

Why do you need more then 2 engines? All the latest airliners have 2 engines. For MAritime patrol the US uses the P3 based on the Lockheed Electra and now being replaced by the P8 based on the almost as ancient 737!!! The BE 200 cannot handle high seastate and I don't believe it is a good choice of MPA due to lack of loiter time, although I am not 100% sure on this as so little data is available.

You cannot operate turbofans in high sea state which is why Chinese and Japanese seaplanes are quad engine turboprops. We do not use Be200 as MPA for the vary reasons you state. Seaplanes in general seem to be going to the way of the Dodo.

Vladimir79 wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Why do you need more then 2 engines? All the latest airliners have 2 engines. For MAritime patrol the US uses the P3 based on the Lockheed Electra and now being replaced by the P8 based on the almost as ancient 737!!! The BE 200 cannot handle high seastate and I don't believe it is a good choice of MPA due to lack of loiter time, although I am not 100% sure on this as so little data is available.

You cannot operate turbofans in high sea state which is why Chinese and Japanese seaplanes are quad engine turboprops.  We do not use Be200 as MPA for the vary reasons you state.  Seaplanes in general seem to be going to the way of the Dodo.    

Nothing to do with the use of turbofans, but take off and landing speeds, and runway req. The Shin Meiwa has a 5th engine specifically to create boundary layer airflow. It can fly extremely slow and land in 10ft waves as a result. The BE 12 can handle 4ft waves the 200 the same. But the BE-12 probably has a shorter take off but I do not have the data to confirm.

Maritime patrol aircraft perform lots of roles, but the only role where actually landing on the water would be of any use would be search and rescue... and in that role it is just as easy to drop an inflatable rescue pod as to land.

There are aerodynamic and structural costs and huge operational costs to landing an aircraft in sea water... to land in water you need to have the right shape... a shape not the most efficient for flying through the air. You also need to position the engines to keep them out of the sea spray which is not ideal... just look at any civilian airliner... they have underwing pods because that is the easiest place to put them for easy access to service and maintain them.

So immediately you reduce flight range and speed for the ability to land in the water.

They will have decades of statistics of the operational use of MPA and sea planes and they can see for themselves how often landing on water was needed or useful and they can judge for themselves what is useful or not.

For fire fighting being able to scoop up water from a nearby lake is very useful but MPAs don't need to do that.

I would have thought being able to land an aircraft on the sea surface would allow the use of variable depth sonar of a much higher quality than expendable sonar (if you make them too sensitive then they become too expensive to be expendable...)

Of course if you are searching a huge area then you can cover more area faster dropping expendable sonar buoys all over the place than landing and using dipping sonar.

Personally I think the Tu-214 will become a widely used MPA, or perhaps the Il-214, and the Il-112 will be used for shorter ranged operations and UAVs will be adapted for the role near friendly ships...

I would love to see them reactivate the A-42 and fit it with more powerful new engines so the four engine design can be changed to a twin engine design... even if it is fitted with propfans...

mnztr wrote:

Nothing to do with the use of turbofans, but take off and landing speeds, and runway req. The Shin Meiwa has a 5th engine specifically to create boundary layer airflow. It can fly extremely slow and land in 10ft waves as a result. The BE 12 can handle 4ft waves  the 200 the same. But the BE-12 probably has a shorter take off but I do not have the data to confirm.

It's takeoff and landing speeds is directly related to its choice of engines as is it's hull form which determines its sea worthiness in high sea state.  If you pick turbofans you have to make certain aerodynamic choices differently than if you pick turboprops and unfortunately for Be200 they made the wrong choice. But then it doesn't look like anyone even cares about seaplanes now.

Vladimir79 wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Nothing to do with the use of turbofans, but take off and landing speeds, and runway req. The Shin Meiwa has a 5th engine specifically to create boundary layer airflow. It can fly extremely slow and land in 10ft waves as a result. The BE 12 can handle 4ft waves  the 200 the same. But the BE-12 probably has a shorter take off but I do not have the data to confirm.

It's takeoff and landing speeds is directly related to its choice of engines as is it's hull form which determines its sea worthiness in high sea state.  If you pick turbofans you have to make certain aerodynamic choices differently than if you pick turboprops and unfortunately for Be200 they made the wrong choice.  But then it doesn't look like anyone even cares about seaplanes now.

No one cares about sea  planes? Did you not hear about the Avic AG600?

Vladimir79 wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Nothing to do with the use of turbofans, but take off and landing speeds, and runway req. The Shin Meiwa has a 5th engine specifically to create boundary layer airflow. It can fly extremely slow and land in 10ft waves as a result. The BE 12 can handle 4ft waves  the 200 the same. But the BE-12 probably has a shorter take off but I do not have the data to confirm.

It's takeoff and landing speeds is directly related to its choice of engines as is it's hull form which determines its sea worthiness in high sea state.  If you pick turbofans you have to make certain aerodynamic choices differently than if you pick turboprops and unfortunately for Be200 they made the wrong choice.  But then it doesn't look like anyone even cares about seaplanes now.

No take off and landing speeds are related to lift vs weight, aerofoil and high lift devices. The Shin Meiwa has special blow flaps so it can land and take off at a very low speed. Engines only help you get to takeoff speed sooner, but its the wings that generate the lift.

The A-42, which the Be-200 is based on has four engines... two large external turbofans and two small booster jet engines used on takeoff to enhance power.

Later models were shown with upgraded PS90 engines and certainly some of the new engines they are developing would also allow the two extra hidden engines to be removed... which should improve performance by removing a bit of dead weight.

One model shown had the main rear engines replaced with propfans (like the An-70).

It is still a very niche design that will never be produced in hundreds of aircraft let alone thousands.

Nice animation of IL 114 ASW plane:

Isos wrote:Nice animation of IL 114 ASW plane:

If they can develop ASW aircraft out of Il114 and build them in numbers it will both solve plenty of headaches​ for Navy and save them loads of cash

Isos wrote:Nice animation of IL 114 ASW plane:

Source of the video?

its an illustration guys, nothing more. I had seen it days ago thats why i didnt post it

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:Nice animation of IL 114 ASW plane:

Source of the video?

No source. Just random video on youtubei found.