ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

PapaDragon wrote:

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

On range (combat radious roughly the half):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-114#Specifications_(Il-114)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-18#Specifications_(Il-18D)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-38#Specifications_(Il-38)

Weak solutions, pro-Western commenters
Strong solutions, pro-Western commenters

The test works again.

Unfortunately for them the Russian Armed Forces and Ilyushin have better things to do.

I agree, Il-114 as a ASW platform is almost a joke.

At best, it could be used to secure surrounding waters at Nuclear subs bases, but nothing more.

Still Russia has to choose in a short time a successor for the Il-18, because the most modern aircrafts, with their large part of composites in the airframe, are not easily convertible to anything else than their original mission.

It would need to really know all the design details to assess whether it is a possible candidate, but just as a mere hypothesis I would vote for a Tu-204 derivative.

The pros are commonality with several special missions aircrafts already operated, an all metal airframe easing structural modifications, reasonable operating range, good internal volumes, quietness for crew's own comfort, good payload.

It could be developed into two versions, a full fledged ASW version with the whole sensors suite, sonobuoys discharge system, maybe internal weapon bay for torpedoes and depth charges, plus external pylons for additional payloads, like drop tanks, Elint/ECM/EW/Suirveillance pods, AShMs and so on.

A second version specialized on long range SAR, that will become very interesting to have if the northern route will gain popularity in the shipping market.

Of course, all of this would be possible only if Tu-204 is actually at ease flying most of its life low and slow upon the oceans.

What about an MC-21 or Il-96 derivative?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:What about an MC-21 or Il-96 derivative?

Il-96 too heavy class

An Il-96 derivative would be simply too huge.

Theoretically it would be in the same class of a Tu-142, absolutely useless for any standard ASW and SAR duty, and insanely expensive to operate in those missions.

The only mission I would see for an Il-96 would be as a very large tanker to refuel russian strategic lift fleet.

While Il-78s are good to refuel fighters and tactical aircrafts, to refuel Il-76s, Tu-22 and the likes I would see an aircraft like the Il-96 better suited, the more if supporting large scale redeployments in foreign countries.

Think of a massive air bridge involving not a single freight aircraft now and then, but half a dozen Il-76s and An-124s flying together day by day, maybe with escorts, to support a foreign country in critical situations.

The amount of fuel to unload would be so huge to make a tanker version of Il-96 more efficient than Il-78s.

MS-21 would likely be a nightmare, it is a new blank sheet project, meaning there is still absolutely zero feedback available on any conceivable real world performance in terms of dependability, tear and wear, hiccups and whatsoever, and even worst its airframe is made of a large percentage of composites.

Composites are just the wrong materials for both structural modifications and day by day demanding operations.

Any suspected damage would require special nondestructive test equipment just to assess actual status of any structural component involved, being the suspect event a landing exceeding maximum G allowed, a flight amidst a storm stronger than allowed by design parameters, any foreign object hitting against a wing or a stabilizer or a mishap during ground handling.

Composites are not always a safe choice, particularly when choosing an aircraft to be converted to a whole new role.

Peŕrier wrote:I agree, Il-114 as a ASW platform is almost a joke.

At best, it could be used to secure surrounding waters at Nuclear subs bases, but nothing more.

Still Russia has to choose in a short time a successor for the Il-18, because the most modern aircrafts, with their large part of composites in the airframe, are not easily convertible to anything else than their original mission.

It would need to really know all the design details to assess whether it is a possible candidate, but just as a mere hypothesis I would vote for a Tu-204 derivative.

The pros are commonality with several special missions aircrafts already operated, an all metal airframe easing structural modifications, reasonable operating range, good internal volumes, quietness for crew's own comfort, good payload.

It could be developed into two versions, a full fledged ASW version with the whole sensors suite, sonobuoys discharge system, maybe internal weapon bay for torpedoes and depth charges, plus external pylons for additional payloads, like drop tanks, Elint/ECM/EW/Suirveillance pods, AShMs and so on.

A second version specialized on long range SAR, that will become very interesting to have if the northern route will gain popularity in the shipping market.

Of course, all of this would be possible only if Tu-204 is actually at ease flying most of its life low and slow upon the oceans.

Well you have C295MPA which is fairly similar platform. And if you recall there was IL-76 based SAR naval variant project which was supposed to drop supplies, rafts etc into the sea as fast response.

Peŕrier wrote:An Il-96 derivative would be simply too huge.

Theoretically it would be in the same class of a Tu-142, absolutely useless for any standard ASW and SAR duty, and insanely expensive to operate in those missions.

The only mission I would see for an Il-96 would be as a very large tanker to refuel russian strategic lift fleet.

While Il-78s are good to refuel fighters and tactical aircrafts, to refuel Il-76s, Tu-22 and the likes I would see an aircraft like the Il-96 better suited, the more if supporting large scale redeployments in foreign countries.

Think of a massive air bridge involving not a single freight aircraft now and then, but half a dozen Il-76s and An-124s flying together day by day, maybe with escorts, to support a foreign country in critical situations.

The amount of fuel to unload would be so huge to make a tanker version of Il-96 more efficient than Il-78s.

MS-21 would likely be a nightmare, it is a new blank sheet project, meaning there is still absolutely zero feedback available on any conceivable real world performance in terms of dependability, tear and wear, hiccups and whatsoever, and even worst its airframe is made of a large percentage of composites.

Composites are just the wrong materials for both structural modifications and day by day demanding operations.

Any suspected damage would require special nondestructive test equipment just to assess actual status of any structural component involved, being the suspect event a landing exceeding maximum G allowed, a flight amidst a storm stronger than allowed by design parameters, any foreign object hitting against a wing or a stabilizer or a mishap during ground handling.

Composites are not always a safe choice, particularly when choosing an aircraft to be converted to a whole new role.

Depends on composite. We tested certain materials here in one company, of Israeli origin which is used in aircraft and UAV production, erosion of damaged areas and heat threatment with application of fixtures, you can literally fix mechanical damage of immense proportions in matter of days if not hours. Naturally i ignore here issues of cabling etc which prolong the process.

Times of full riveting of steel are gone i am afraid.

Peŕrier wrote:

MS-21 would likely be a nightmare, it is a new blank sheet project, meaning there is still absolutely zero feedback available on any conceivable real world performance in terms of dependability, tear and wear, hiccups and whatsoever, and even worst its airframe is made of a large percentage of composites.

Composites are just the wrong materials for both structural modifications and day by day demanding operations.

Any suspected damage would require special nondestructive test equipment just to assess actual status of any structural component involved, being the suspect event a landing exceeding maximum G allowed, a flight amidst a storm stronger than allowed by design parameters, any foreign object hitting against a wing or a stabilizer or a mishap during ground handling.

Composites are not always a safe choice, particularly when choosing an aircraft to be converted to a whole new role.

Well so you know it but neither Russian nor American neither European planners dont? and in passenger traffic you dont need to do so? of coruse not to mention thet Boeing 37 MAX or new airbus has plenty of composites.

Yes, riveting era is coming to an end, but just not yet.
Both civilian and military aircrafts made largely from composites require highly specialized equipment to assess actual parts' integrity and condition after suspect events.

It is true for A350 and B787 operations in the commercial aviation industry, It is true for NH-90 in the military world, to name just a few cases.

And while metal structures could sometimes just be cut or bolt on to perform a modification, load bearing composite structures sometimes have to be just swapped with new redesigned ones.

The US chose the B737 as a platform for the P-8A because of the proven design, the large civilian operating base, AND the ease of conversion and maintenance, and being an almost all metal aircraft plays a big role in the ease of conversion and maintenance.

Airbus as well has several times proposed its A31x/A32x family as a base for both AWACS and ASW versions.

Tu-204 falls just in the same Class, It is a proven design even if built in small numbers and modifications should be relatively easy judging by the number of special versions already developed from It.

Peŕrier wrote:Yes, riveting era is coming to an end, but just not yet.
Both civilian and military aircrafts made largely from composites require highly specialized equipment to assess actual parts' integrity and condition after suspect events.

It is true for A350 and B787 operations in the commercial aviation industry, It is true for NH-90 in the military world, to name just a few cases.

And while metal structures could sometimes just be cut or bolt on to perform a modification, load bearing composite structures sometimes have to be just swapped with new redesigned ones.

The US chose the B737 as a platform for the P-8A because of the proven design, the large civilian operating base, AND the ease of conversion and maintenance, and being an almost all metal aircraft plays a big role in the ease of conversion and maintenance.

Airbus as well has several times proposed its A31x/A32x family as a base for both AWACS and ASW versions.

Tu-204 falls just in the same Class, It is a proven design even if built in small numbers and modifications should be relatively easy judging by the number of special versions already developed from It.

I agree in 2 points:

1) US used platform produced long, with large proven base

2) Tu-204/214 falls in this class


BUT

Tu production capacities are nowhere near required production rates. Not only composite materials but also modern engines require more complicated diagnostic devices for maintenance.
That's called progress, isnt it? Besides with progress additive technologies will have wider penetration perhaps new parts can be made locally in any major air base.

Apart from speculation: either Russians will use MS-21 as basis or PAK-DA, less likely but still ASW modifications of Il-476 or Il-276

What about ssj-100 ?

At three to four aircrafts a year, present Tu-204 production line is just what It takes to provide a successor to the Il-38s.

The real point is whether the airframe is really suited for the required modifications.

The Il-476 is simply too large and expensive, and It would provide near zero comfort both to Mission crew and some EM sensibile equipment.

Il-276 would be a far more sensibile choice, provided its airframe could be adapted to the specific Mission requirements.

If an ASW derivative has been already foreseen in the drawing board stage, It could well turn out as the Il-38 substitute.

For me the future of the Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine Warfare is different. Basically the loitering work will be assumed by UAVs of different size but mostly shipborne, while the combat work will be assumed by a mix of different options.

The main reason for this is in the costs:

- To carry important loads of weapons while loitering, to be not used, includes important requirements on the aircrafts that are not necessary. Today there are enough long range weapons systems to allow a new operational system in which the weapons only travel when are used.
- To carry persons while loitering also ads important requirements on the aircrafts that neither are necessary today. In the age of UAVs the operators of the aircrafts and the sensors can work from ships.
- The costs of operation of the Maritime Patrol and ASW aircrafts under the current model are not cheap. It leads to have the aircrafts on land most of the time. It allows not a continuous work, except in the case of focusing several aircrafts in a concrete area of trategic importance.

It was a nice series of comments in the topic of the naval aviation where all this was explained, like two years ago, but misteriously disappeared.

1) Maritime Patrol, Early Warning, Reconnaissance, Surveillance: This part of the work likely will be done by UAVs of basically 3 sizes:

- UAVs of small size for use from every ship.
- Helipad based long range UAVs. (New).
- Aircraft Carrier/Land based long range UAVs. (New).

Likely the most important would be the second type. The main requirements for this second type would be:

- Unmanned.
- Shipborne.
- Long range.
- VTOL.
- Size well addapted (maximized) to use in the helipads of the current combat ships. It means not bigger than current combat helicopters and lighter than them (maybe 5-7 tons).
- Long range, maximized thanks to carry only combustible and sensor loads. It means unarmed.

The first time I commented all this, it was almost nothing like that, but now there are public projects in Russia that would be very useful for this purpose only addapting its size to the current helipads of the combat fleet:

http://www.russianhelicopters.aero/ru/press/news/vr_konvertoplan_2019/
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.russianhelicopters.aero%2Fru%2Fpress%2Fnews%2Fvr_konvertoplan_2019%2F

https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/1027612/na_maks-2017_priedstaviat_ekspierimientalnyi_biespilotnyi_konviertoplan_vrt30
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Flife.ru%2Ft%2F%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BE%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8%2F1027612%2Fna_maks-2017_priedstaviat_ekspierimientalnyi_biespilotnyi_konviertoplan_vrt30



This would the list of combat ships that would be able to operate UAVs of this type with the size addapted to the current helipads (it would make a strong share of points of maritime patrol and early warning able to operate without stop):

01 Project 11435 aircraft carrier
03 Project 1144
03 Project 1164
01 Project 1134B
09 Project 1155
06 Project 956
01 Project 61/01090
02 Project 11351
02 Project 11540
03 Project 11356
05 Project 20380/5
36 TOTAL SHIPS AT THE BEGIN OF 2018

The project of the picture is of 1.5 tons. A pretty and likely solid design only a little smaller than the necessary size to be well addapted to the current helipads of the combat ships. This is coming faster than what many people expect, and the current fleet of subsonic strategic bombers for maritime patrol can afford some years without replacement.

2) Anti-Submarine Warfare: This part of the work will be likely done by a combination of weapons (without mention land based tactical weapons of shorter range from the coast):

- Submarines (missiles, torpedoes,...)
- Ships (missiles, torpedoes,...)
- Shipborne combat helicopters. In the near future likely to become also unmanned.
- Aircraft Carrier/Land based long range armed UAVs. (New).
- Land based long range ASW missiles. (New).
- Land based Strategic bombers.

As commented I expect a new operational model for the use of Anti-Submarine weapons. A model where the weapons and ammunitions move from land or ships only to be used. The apparition of cheaper systems of long range weapons and the apparition of UAVs allow to it.

In the case of the ammunition (missiles, torpedoes,...) launched from ships and submarines, is likely a development of new solutions to increase the range. For me this is more likely than the development of ship based armed UAVs of small or helipad size.

Other option from the ships would be the use of combat helicopters, which natural evolution tends to make them unmanned in the future.

Also I expect big long range UAVs that can be used both from aircraft carriers or from land. They would be able to carry enough weapons and ammunition until long ranges. I think its natural size has a limit that is coincident with the limit of size of the aircrafts operated in aircraft carriers of big size. I do not expect UAVs too big to be operated from aircraf carriers unless they are spacecrafts (satellites,..).

Other possible option, in this case from land, is the development of land based long range missiles with conventional anti-ship and ASW loads.

And between the mix, of weapons, I think also the Strategic Bombers (Tu-PAK-DA (New), Tu-160, Tu-22, Tu-95/142, Il-38) have an important place, specially important while the cited new types of weapons emerge. It is necessary to remember that the current Maritime Patrol and ASW aircrafts are Strategic Bombers by nature, as military concept. Free of the need of loitering, Strategic Bombers for ASW need not to be slow, and the speed becomes an interesting feature. Under this new type of operational model, the speed of the modern Strategic Bombers is a positive feature. Fast approach to the detected submarines is not a bad feature. In the future I expect every new design of strategic bomber, including the modernization of the Tu-160, well addapted to the use of maritime weapons, basically because only will be one design of Strategic Bomber by armament generation, and the design needs to be open enough to cover all the strategic bombing potential types of missions on land and on sea.

For me the design, development and construction of new maritime patrol and ASW aircrafts in the old mold makes not sense at this point. The necessary for a new model of maritime patrol and ASW can be ready in 10 years, and this is far less than the life of a new aircraft built now:

- This is the reason why I was able to preview here the cancellation of the contract of the Be-200 for the Russian Armed Forces.
- This is for me the reason of why we have not news about developments in the old mold of the maritime patrol and ASW.
- This is why we see instead the development of new Russian VTOL UAVs of increasing size.
- And this is for me the reason of why the current Tu-95/142 and Il-38 are being modernized.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:UAV's in no way should replace everything they can be jammed outta the sky, hacked etc and then you lose your aerial assists.

UAV's have a place but being pure machine makes them a gigantic weakness.

Don't argument with him. The kid is in the phase "let's replace everything with drones". Let's wait him to heal himself

Well, all of the aforementioned assets are already integral part of any serious ASW force.

Unmanned platform will likely see an ever increasing role, particularly to help step up both spatial density and persistence of the surveillance sensors.

Still, ASW will remain a highly time sensitive task: you pick up a trace, there is no guarantee you will be able to track it down long enough to enable other, armed platform to join up the hunt.

So i do not see any chance that the actual fighting role could be delegated to some asset taking off on call, it will have to be already airborne and flying quite close, so to be able to pick up itself the trace in a very short time.

Then there will still be a larger platform provided both with the full sensor suite, enough fuel fraction to have comparable persistence with the pure surveillance assets, and a range of weapons.

It will be costlier, and larger, and because of it less expendable.

Then comes the problem related to control and communications: flying low upon water leaves just the satellites' link as only viable datalink with remote, land based or shipborne command posts, and it could prove hard to provide the required bandwidth to hundreds or thousands of communications terminal (aircrafts, ships, special forces, land forces, each desiring to receive and send data and imagery high speed, near real time and 24/365 in whatever weather or location in the globe).

It could even prove itself dangerous to have bidirectional communications, because it could give away Command posts location coordinating the unmanned assets.

Ideally, I see more likely any single, large and manned ASW aircraft to perform its mission together with a number of smaller, unmanned surveillance assets.

Flying just few minutes away each other, the manned aircraft will be able to scan far greater expanses of water and to scan the same spot twice or more within few minutes without having to turn.

Datalinks will be on far shorter, line of sight distances, enabling the use low power emitters and highly directional aerials, reducing the chances of interception by the enemy.

At last, having the crew responsible to clear the use of weapons right on the spot will likely reduce the danger of misjudgements and blue on blue incidents.

What they need is a new big tactical and cheap bomber like a modernized tu-22 blinder to use kh-32 in big numbers.

It could also share data with maritime patrol aircrafts to lunch deapth charges in big numbers or sunoboys that could be used then by other plateforms like ka 27 or il 38.

I'm not a fan of the su-34 which is useless as su-30 can do its job more or less for maritime role with some upgrades and it is not big enough to replace a bomber like tu-22 or tu-22M. For antiship role it is decent but a modern heavy bomber can do much more because of more internal space and a larger crew. Modern electronics are thousands times smaller than at the time of soviets union. A modern computer allows to use almost any type of weapon and detectors are also smaller.

If design simply it could also use basic stealth technology that would make it reach 1 or 2 m2 while not blowning up the budget and keeping a simple design and an expensive one like a B-2 flying wing.

Having a modern cheap and capable plateform but equiped with stat of art missiles is the best way to counter US navy.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:UAV's in no way should replace everything they can be jammed outta the sky, hacked etc and then you lose your aerial assists.

UAV's have a place but being pure machine makes them a gigantic weakness.

Don't argument with him. The kid is in the phase "let's replace everything with drones". Let's wait him to heal himself

Don't try to argue with him in general.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:UAV's in no way should replace everything they can be jammed outta the sky, hacked etc and then you lose your aerial assists.

UAV's have a place but being pure machine makes them a gigantic weakness.

Don't argument with him. The kid is in the phase "let's replace everything with drones". Let's wait him to heal himself

Isos wrote:What they need is a new big tactical and cheap bomber like a modernized tu-22 blinder to use kh-32 in big numbers.

It could also share data with maritime patrol aircrafts to lunch deapth charges in big numbers or sunoboys that could be used then by other plateforms like ka 27 or il 38.

I'm not a fan of the su-34 which is useless as su-30 can do its job more or less for maritime role with some upgrades and it is not big enough to replace a bomber like tu-22 or tu-22M. For antiship role it is decent but a modern heavy bomber can do much more because of more internal space and a larger crew. Modern electronics are thousands times smaller than at the time of soviets union. A modern computer allows to use almost any type of weapon and detectors are also smaller.

If design simply it could also use basic stealth technology that would make it reach 1 or 2 m2 while not blowning up the budget and keeping a simple design and an expensive one like a B-2 flying wing.

Having a modern cheap and capable plateform but equiped with stat of art missiles is the best way to counter US navy.

You was trying to laugh, but your outstanding brain is ofering a solution that was in the mix of ASW alternatives of my comment.

Very impressive, lol

Peŕrier wrote:Well, all of the aforementioned assets are already integral part of any serious ASW force.

Unmanned platform will likely see an ever increasing role, particularly to help step up both spatial density and persistence of the surveillance sensors.

Still, ASW will remain a highly time sensitive task: you pick up a trace, there is no guarantee you will be able to track it down long enough to enable other, armed platform to join up the hunt.

So i do not see any chance that the actual fighting role could be delegated to some asset taking off on call, it will have to be already airborne and flying quite close, so to be able to pick up itself the trace in a very short time.

Then there will still be a larger platform provided both with the full sensor suite, enough fuel fraction to have comparable persistence with the pure surveillance assets, and a range of weapons.

It will be costlier, and larger, and because of it less expendable.

Then comes the problem related to control and communications: flying low upon water leaves just the satellites' link as only viable datalink with remote, land based or shipborne command posts, and it could prove hard to provide the required bandwidth to hundreds or thousands of communications terminal (aircrafts, ships, special forces, land forces, each desiring to receive and send data and imagery high speed, near real time and 24/365 in whatever weather or location in the globe).

It could even prove itself dangerous to have bidirectional communications, because it could give away Command posts location coordinating the unmanned assets.

Ideally, I see more likely any single, large and manned ASW aircraft to perform its mission together with a number of smaller, unmanned surveillance assets.

Flying just few minutes away each other, the manned aircraft will be able to scan far greater expanses of water and to scan the same spot twice or more within few minutes without having to turn.

Datalinks will be on far shorter, line of sight distances, enabling the use low power emitters and highly directional aerials, reducing the chances of interception by the enemy.

At last, having the crew responsible to clear the use of weapons right on the spot will likely reduce the danger of misjudgements and blue on blue incidents.

In fact the speed of the current weapons would make the time of reaction fairly low. A lot faster than what many people think. It is not difficult to see it with some rough example.

In a case that we can consider extreme, as example, 5000 Km from the coast and 2000 Km from the ship where the UAV is based, the faster type of system to reach the submarine would be a land based missile. By range we would be talking about a ICBM to be used as carrier of ASW ammunition instead of other warheads. Even a veteran system like the SS-25 is Mach 21 (25000 Km/h). The ASW projectiles would reach the place of the UAV and the submarine roughly in 12-15 minutes.

This means, that even in a case of very long distances, the delay in the attack would be almost non existent.

For smaller distances other types of missiles would be also competitive. Hypersonic missiles begin to be also in ships. Missiles would be always the faster option, but when more delay is allowed slower options of the previous mix can have also a chance.

Also faster and slower armament can be combined. As example Strategic Bombers can go to place of the attack to confirm the result and to complete the work if necessary.

For cases of isolate submarines where deterrence is required to make them to retire, Strategic Bombers acting as interceptors would be likely the best option, despite some delay.

The related to the communications will likely requires strong thinking of multiple options and alternatives. As example there ore options of shared command over the UAV... Also to work on sensors for higher altitude...

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:UAV's in no way should replace everything they can be jammed outta the sky, hacked etc and then you lose your aerial assists.

UAV's have a place but being pure machine makes them a gigantic weakness.

Don't argument with him. The kid is in the phase "let's replace everything with drones". Let's wait him to heal himself

Isos wrote:What they need is a new big tactical and cheap bomber like a modernized tu-22 blinder to use kh-32 in big numbers.

It could also share data with maritime patrol aircrafts to lunch deapth charges in big numbers or sunoboys that could be used then by other plateforms like ka 27 or il 38.

I'm not a fan of the su-34 which is useless as su-30 can do its job more or less for maritime role with some upgrades and it is not big enough to replace a bomber like tu-22 or tu-22M. For antiship role it is decent but a modern heavy bomber can do much more because of more internal space and a larger crew. Modern electronics are thousands times smaller than at the time of soviets union. A modern computer allows to use almost any type of weapon and detectors are also smaller.

If design simply it could also use basic stealth technology that would make it reach 1 or 2 m2 while not blowning up the budget and keeping a simple design and an expensive one like a B-2 flying wing.

Having a modern cheap and capable plateform but equiped with stat of art missiles is the best way to counter US navy.

You was trying to laugh, but your outstanding brain is ofering a solution that was in the mix of ASW alternatives of my comment.

Very impressive, lol

No.

I'm talking about a bomber. You are talking about unmaned drones and other stupidity.

And to be honest, I don't really read all your comments. It's dangerous for my outstanding brain

Another anti-submarine Tu-142MK repaired

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3184454.html

KADEX 2018: UAC Showcased Maritime Patrol Variant of Il-114

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/may-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6250-kadex-2018-uac-showcased-maritime-patrol-variant-of-il-114.html

Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) has unveiled the Ilyushin Il-114MP maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) based on the Il-114-300 airlifter during KADEX 2018 defense exhibition in Kazakhstan.

The Il-114MP has a take-off weight of 26,000 kg and features six-strong crew, including two pilots and four operators. The aircraft patrols an area with a radius of 300 km at an altitude of up to 8,000 m during 12 hours. The MPA is powered by two Klimov TV7-117ST turboprop engines with a power output of 3,000 hp each. The Il-114MP has a practical flight range of 4,500 km. The aircraft requires 950 m to take off and 530 m to land.

The Il-114MP can be fitted with the Kasatka-S search-and-targeting system, which comprises an information management subsystem, a multipurpose radar with an active electronically scanned array, a radio sonar subsystem, a magnetometer, and an optical-electronic turret with a thermal imager, a TV channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system allows carrying of two Kh-35E anti-ship missiles and a GSh-23-2 23 mm automatic cannon. An Il-114MP MPA fitted with the Kasatka-S can detect a target at a distance of 120 km.

A source from the Russian defence industry said the Kasatka system had been intensively tested in various regions of Russia, including the Arctic.

At the MAKS 2015 international aerospace show, the Saint Petersburg-based Radar MMS company unveiled the Il-114LL (LL for ‘flying laboratory’) aircraft fitted with the Kasatka-S system. Radar MMS has developed several variants of the Kasatka for various air platforms, including light and medium utility helicopters (Kasatka-V and Kasatka-VB, respectively), medium and heavy MPAs (Kasatka-S and Kasatka-SB), unmanned aerial vehicles (Kasatka-BP), and aerostats (Kasatka-A).

Austin wrote:KADEX 2018: UAC Showcased Maritime Patrol Variant of Il-114

Well how it can replace Il-38 I dotn know 2x smaller payload and range...

Two different versions on your pictures. For the export it's not bad at all. For russia too.