ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

Something seems amiss...

I also would like to see the A-42 back in business - and apparently their are plans - but it was and still is a only replacement for the ancient Be-12.

The thing is that we don't have all the statistics of use that they do with the Mail.

I mean if it was critical and saved lives because it could land on water and moving forward there was expected to be future requirements for perhaps long range amphibious aircraft then the A-40 and the A-42 were very good designs... state of the art for what they were, and finally getting them into production and service would be a good thing.

The only thing they really needed improving was the engine arrangement but that was intentional because the lower thrust engines running in flight without the boosters used for takeoff mean lower fuel burn in flight, but newer engines will not only be so much more powerful that they wont need the extra weight and complication of the two extra engines, but they will also likely be more fuel efficient too.

All the avionics would need to be upgraded too but they will want all Russian stuff anyway.

I'm sure they have plenty of reasons. One such is that a prop aircraft can fly much slower than a jet engine aircraft. This is apparently quite useful when attempting to track subs in the deep with MAD.

Very true, but the exception is the Bear because of its swept wing it is rather fast and has a higher stall speed than a straight winged aircraft of its size would have which creates a problem. They have a long wire they hang out of the aircraft with a drag on the end that they use for communicating with submerged submarines... I seem to remember it is exceptionally long... over 1km, but needs to hang nearly vertically for it to work and its use is rather dangerous in the Bear because the speed where it hangs almost straight is very close to its stall speed.

Obviously a straight winged aircraft should not have such problems flying slow...

I think Russia making their own version of the Chinese AG600 would be more useful for ASW than reviving the Beriev A-40.

Do you think the AG600 is more sophisticated than the A-40/42?

Not so easy. Il-112V uses the same engine and is still struggling getting into service.

Who said it is struggling... most of the shit about the Il-112 and Il-114 and other types is just internet bullshit.

The development of aircraft never goes perfectly but anytime some problem comes up poofters on the interweb demand it be cancelled and a foreign aircraft type chosen... well Russia currently has a few problems with transport aircraft and civilian airliners and most of those current problems centre around the previous decisions to buy foreign types... why make that mistake again?

A longer il-114 with 4 engines isn't an il-114 anymore.

Just like the Tu-334 isn't a Tu-204 anymore either but the designation does not matter as long as the modified aircraft is better suited to the job.

Tu-204 with seats and equipements for civilians can carry 25t.

You are missing the point... the rocket powered Kinzhal benefits from being released as high and as fast as possible. Scramjet powered missiles like Zircon it wont matter so much.

Equally they are talking about a new MPA... we don't really know if they just want one, or if they want to replace both the aircraft they operate at the moment... the Tu-142 and Il-38 May are very different sized aircraft with different roles... I suspect the naval strike roles will remain with the Tu-22M3M and perhaps eventually be replaced by the PAK DA... or maybe Tu-160 for it speed. (when they have a lot more than 15 of them).

No but having a similar plane experiencing huge design issues will make them think twice about creating a bigger plane based on them using the same engines.

What huge design issues? Perhaps you are confusing it with the Il-112 which had some problems with the prototype and when they were fixed there were problems with the engine setting fire to the wing and then shutting down and not feathering the blade and crashing, but that would happen to any propeller driven aircraft whose engine does not feather the blades... that would be like deploying a super air brake... of course it will roll over and crash... that has nothing to do with a faulty design.

Tu-214 is already used for special mission planes, they have plenty of remaining bodies in the hangar and have the production line for more to be build.

The Tu-214 is the open skies aircraft and I suspect its performance means they might make more as spy planes, but there are Tu-154Ms and Tu-134s and Il-20s and Il-22s and quite a few old types that need replacing too.

We really have no idea which aircraft they will be basing a new ASW aircraft on other than it will use four propellers... perhaps they have looked at Americas experience with the P-8 and don't want to make that change... they might have HALES and MALES that are also propeller driven and they want them to be able to operate together in terms of speed and altitude, or perhaps the HALE might mean their MPAs don't need to operate high up and can be optimised for lower altitude flights.

I understand your point. What I disagree is that you make it sound like you just need to miltiply the il-114 by 1.5 and add 2 engines to get a Il-114MAX.


That's not so easy.

It would be easier than what they did to the Tu-334 to convert it from the Tu-204... they took all four engines off the wings and put two on either side of the tail and changed it to a T tail aircraft.

The point is that the aircraft they are talking about is to replace the Il-38 and the Tu-204-300 has a flight range of 9,300km with 166 passengers.... they could improve the Tupolev design... lengthen it and add more fuel and it could be the replacement for the Tu-142, and keep its jet engines... perhaps a drone that flys below the aircraft and pulls the wire straight to communicate with subs deep under water?

The focus should be on Russian engines and Russian aircraft designs, but also filling gaps.

When the Il-38 entered service as an MPA it wasn't a state of the art airliner that was super efficient and cost effective, but it has been a good reliable workhorse.

Having new designs based on other designs makes sense... the Il-276 and Il-476 makes sense... sharing fuselage cross sections and shapes if not lengths and widths and having the same engines is useful and ideally they should do it again with the Il-106 in the 90-110 ton payload class with two PD-35 engines and a Slon scaled up aircraft with four PD-35s in the 180 ton payload capacity... you wouldn't really need the An-124s any more.

The Il-106 being smaller and lighter but able to carry 90% of the different loads the An-124 carries means it would be the numbers plane, while the Slon would be made in smaller numbers, but its design should be relatively cheap as it would just be a scaled up Il-106 with twice the thrust.

so get real dude! Laughing

Jacques Chirac said once, addressing Poland, that it wasted a good chance to stay quiet.
Seems that it can be readdressed towards our 1:144 scale Napoleon

Except the engine the Il-114 uses is a mess and was at least partially responsible for the loss of the Il-112 prototype with all its crew.
So now they are supposed to scale the Il-114 to a quad engine aircraft with those same engines?

Sorry but I do not buy it either.

I also do not see what is the point in scaling it up in the first place. There are C-295 variants for sea patrol with the same engine power as it has, and other sea patrol aircraft like the ones Japan or the US use, the P-1 and P-8 Poseidon, have way more engine power. At that point you are better off turning an MC-21 or Tu-214 into such an aircraft.

But that is not even the point.

The discussion is about a new plane made by expanding the existing project.
Scaling up, doubling the engine number.
It will be a totally new plane in reality, but with an obvious base.
Just as was practiced multiple times in the history of aviation.
Is it easy? No.
Is it easier than making a whole plane from scratch? Yes.
So disputing that is pointless - those things have been done multiple times.

A major point is role.
Is this a long range ASW aircraft, or inshore?
Things like the C-295 might be fine for nations who are interested in ASW inshore, but further out range and payload characteristics become important.
How many users of the C-295 Persuador use it for ASW far beyond inshore work?

I can see the need for a certain number of Il-114's for inshore work, and a certain amount of Tu-214's for longer range work.
They could leverage many of the same ASW systems for both airframes.

Russkie geography determines that.
They just need different platforms having small, closed seas at their borders and a waste of Pacific or Arctic.
Using a Tu-142 size plane to patrol the Baltic is just a waste of a good plane.
That is why the lovely flying museum Be-12 was still in use by the Black Sea Fleet only a few years ago.
Not sure now

By the way do you believe that both a slower il-38 replacement and the faster Tu-142 are needed in that role?

And could the Tu-142 be replaced by a ASW version of the Be-42 (A-40) or of the Tu-204?
(India replaced its tu-142 with the smaller Boeing P8 (737 derivative) in 2017)

In that case could the tu-142 be converted into strategic bombers ?

Anyway, I am curious now on why western countries are now basing their ASW aircraft only on fast passenger (or business) jets.
I am not saying they are right, I am just curious on why they deemed a slower cruise not anymore needed for a naval patrol aircraft.

It would not be the first wrong decision that is later reverted, anyway, like the "lack of need" of dogfight capabilities during the Vietnam war or the excessive importance given to stealth and fifth generation aircrafts, which are an important niche but not a "one size fits all" solution (also reverted now, with new production of f-15 aircrafts).

GarryB wrote:

Broski wrote:I think Russia making their own version of the Chinese AG600 would be more useful for ASW than reviving the Beriev A-40.

Do you think the AG600 is more sophisticated than the A-40/42?

Broski, The AG600 is still a prototype and I doubt its development is more advanced than that of the Be-42/A-40/A-42 (3 names for the same aircraft ).

Furthermore the Soviets/Russians had and still have a much larger experience in designing and operating Amphibious aircrafts than the Chineses.

GarryB, I like the Be-200 and I am glad that that it will have now its new domestic engine in the PD-8, but it is still small if it has to replace the Tu-142.
Furthermore it is not good to leave the Chineses the top spots in the largest amphibious aircraft in production.
The AG600 is larger than the Be-200 but smaller than the A-42.

The A-42 is a great aircraft. It just needs new engines (either PS-90 or PD-14) and a new set of modern internal systems (which have already been developed for other aircrafts).


So maybe in the future we will see the Il-38 being replaced by the new 4 turboprops il-114 derivative and the Tu-142 replaced by the A-42.

They then took this basic design and and developed it into the An-12 

An-12 was developed from the An-10.

So now they have a problem with one of the Klimov TV7-117 engines specifically developed for the IL-122V - so lets just chuck the whole damn engine (and the project) in the dustbin because of a nasty accident that was due to pilot error if I remember correctly!?

There was no pilot error. There was a catastrophic engine failure, the pilot tried to use the fire extinguishers, and they failed to put the engine fire out, they tried to feather the engine, and that also failed. It was just a catastrophic sequence of failures, and most of it was the engine. It basically blew itself up into tiny little pieces which cut the lines to the fire extinguishers and the feather controls. So it is quite rich for you to say it was a pilot error.

Now I hear they made a digital version of the engine and will be redesigning it for the TVRS-44 aircraft. So maybe they will fix the issues. But who knows.

Tu-142 were produced till the mid90s, so from the strategic aviation perspective, we talk baby age.
Yet the fuselage differs much from the Tu-95, and I guess that converting them would be costly even if considered.
Much easier would be to refurbish some older Tu-95M that were taken out due to START.

Lancelot wrote:It was just a catastrophic sequence of failures, and most of it was the engine. It basically blew itself up into tiny little pieces which cut the lines to the fire extinguishers and the feather controls. So it is quite rich for you to say it was a pilot error.

Now I hear they made a digital version of the engine and will be redesigning it for the TVRS-44 aircraft. So maybe they will fix the issues. But who knows.

Yeah, i remember the crash had something to do also with the propeller feathering.
Possibly if the test pilots had known about this possible failure mode in advance they could have prevented the tragic consequences, but I absolutely do not believe it was their fault. From my understanding they followed the correct procedures.

It was a very unfortunate accident and it was probably a combination of various failure modes that were not properly explored. However this does not mean that the engine is all crap.
A huge mistake was done and it costed the life of several people. The only silver lining is that this has been seen during aircraft development so the victims were only 3 instead of being several dozens.

Anyway that failure mode will be corrected and all the various versions of the engine (for the il-114, for the TVRS-44 and for the Mi-38) will be safe.

I do not know if this will also cause delay in the development of the PDV-4000 (a 4000-5000 hp turboprop and turboshaft engine of new generation) which first prototype was planned to be build in 2025 according to what was announced in August 2020 and which will be perfect for the next generation of Russian military cargo planes (among the rest).

https://www.aex.ru/m/news/2020/8/24/215969/

This new engine should be a larger and more powerful evolution or derivative of the VK-2500 and TV7-117 engine family (4000-5000 hp vs 2500-3500 hp) and should also be the real successor of the Ivchenko AI-20 which was developed and manufactured in Zaporozhye.
(Same power range of the C-130/C-27J engine)

By the way the Chinese WJ6 engine used in the Y-9 military trasport aircraft (copy/derivative of the An-12) and on the amphibian AVIC AG600 is just a copy/derivative of the old soviet AI-20 (used on An-8, An-10, An-12, il-18, il-38, etc).

Except the Il-20 engines have like twice the power. This will basically be something competing with the C-27J or the likes rather than the Il-20.
Considering the lackluster track record in sales of the C-27J it seems like a waste of resources to me.

Mir wrote:They then took this basic design and and developed it into the An-12 with four engines (Ivchenko AI-20L turboprops). This aircraft became one of the most successful aircraft in modern military aviation. So you see Isos it can be done.

I never said they can't. I said Russia will struggle making an enlarged il-114 with 4 engine because it won't be an il-114 anymore but an all new plane and the il-112 which is in the same class as the already existing il-114 is almost a failure. So imagine a bigger plane with 4 engines... tu-214 exist and is a better plateform that is already built.

Arguing with soviet equipement is useless dudes. Soviet and so iet engineers are long gone. Russiand manage to maintain and improve existing soviet planes like tu-95 or tu-160 but when it comes to creating new aircraft they lost too much expertise so they struggle creating new planes.

Ssj-100 is a failure even with French assistance. Il-114 is a production failure, its only production line in Kazakhstan closed. Tu-204 was marketing and operating failure no one bought it so the improvement work on it was very low. Il-112 is a failure but since they really need it as a main light cargo they will put money on it. Ms-21 was supposed to have plenty of western tech which gave it some chances to be a success but now they need to replace everything.

In modern days having an accident can destroy the project. Ssj-100 after the burning aircraft was done. Boeing 737Max after the crashes was done. Il-112 burning in the air is a very bad sign about any bigger turboprop with the same 4 engines.

Jacques Chirac said once, addressing Poland, that it wasted a good chance to stay quiet.
Seems that it can be readdressed towards our 1:144 scale Napoleon Laughing

Enlight me then... which russian, and not soviet, plane was successfully created in the last 30 years ?

None if we forget fighters. But even in fighters they aren't making anything really new if we forget the su-57. They just upgrade existing soviet plateforms with western technology.

What on the sukhoi series has any western technology?

The Irbis is PESA, and the west completely skipped that chapter

The weaponry is Russian, the engines are Russian

As for new planes we talk about su34, su35, su30, and su57

If the F15EX can be considered new then we must use the same approach for sukhoi

And we can also make the same comparison between Rafale and Eurofighter