The Be-200 is smaller instead, and the Il-112 and Il-114 smaller still. As consequence their range is far below.
No, you can't really judge range by size... even a relatively small aircraft can have good range by simply carrying less mission equipment and having more fuel that normally carried by that type.
For instance, for maritime patrols, if you are using more than one aircraft then they don't all need to be armed so that could be 2-6 tons of extra fuel some aircraft could carry to either extend flight range or mission time on patrol.
With newer technology I am sure they could be made lighter and much more capable without needing to sacrifice range or performance.
The simple fact is that you don't just want one plane to do everything, because it will be too big for some missions... or if you make it small it will be too small for other missions.
That is why I would suggest having small, medium, and long range models... and also having amphibious models that could also be used for fire fighting if needed would also be useful and improve flexibility.
The Be A-40/42 and the Be-200 were selected in 2015 between all the aircrafs of the time. Landing on sea is a good feature to add to the right size, payload and range. But all them are still aircrafts installed in an old concept of maritime patrol.
Being able to land on water is useful, as well as being able to directly scoop up water for fire fighting missions is also useful too, but the vast majority of MPAs were Il-38s and Tu-142s.
Being amphibious increases operating costs and increases the purchase price, but you do get a set of capabilities with those extra costs.
What they need to do is evaluate their own experience with Mays and decide how often the ability to land on the water was actually useful, or whether it is just a nice trick like older model tanks that could operate on wheels without tracks (at higher speeds... for self deployment via good roads). It was an interesting feature that looks good on paper but in actual war situations it was rarely used so they dropped it.
Certainly one feature of amphibious jets could be the rapid deployment or recovery of naval spetsnaz divers... or rescue at sea for people in the water or on sinking ships...
I think A-42s and Be-200s would be useful, but I don't think they would need them everywhere and I don't think they would need a large number.
Light and medium aircraft like the Il-112/114 and Tu-214 based types on the other hand would be very useful and I do like the idea of an AWACS Il-114 for smaller air forces and to fill gaps around the place for the Russian forces.
I would think it might be a useful alternative to the Ka-35 being used by the Russian Army right now... the Il-114 would operate at higher altitudes but almost certainly have a much larger radar that offers a better view of the battlefield... sort of like a mini JSTARS.
The option of these aircrafts reaching the Russian Armed Forces seems weak because a new generation of maritime patrol, reconnaisance and surveillance is being developped in the form of modern shipborne and land based UAVs.
UAVs have moved forwards in leaps and bounds, but I still really don't think they are even close to replacing AWACS or MPA aircraft, or even primary recon.
For surveillance and recon into dangerous air space, they are ideal, but I really don't think you can take the man out of most primary air roles yet.
The right replacement of the Il-38 and the Tu-95/142 under a modern concept of maritime patrol and strategic bomber would be with Tu-PAK-DA plus shipborne and land based long range UAVs.
In theory I would agree, but the PAK DA is a long way away, and will be rather more expensive than it needs to be for a MPA because an MPA does not need stealth.
I do agree that whatever manned platform they operate will benefit from UAV support, but I think UAVs can't replace manned platforms right now or in the forseeable future... so Il-112/114 for short range, Tu-214 for Il-38 replacement and A-42 to add amphibious capability and eventually PAK DA with less emphasis on stealth as a long range MPA... and with UAVs of different sizes to support each aircraft...
The last contract signed for the purchase of the Be-200 as firefighting aircrafts fits a role of auxiliary aircraft instead of combat aircraft role like the old form of maritime patrol. Still, the contract is very weak, and Im not sure if it will be completed.
But that contract was with their emergency force (EMERCOM or something), not the navy... I seem to remember they ordered 4-6 and wanted a total of 10 aircraft including 4 in rescue configuration and 6 in water delivery config.