ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

nothing at the moment afaik. The promising could be the one based on IL-114 or Yak-242...

max steel wrote: Are Russians planning to revive nuclear anti-sub depth bombs also ?

why not? one depth charge can "clear" bigger area. The will be used to sink not all subs th.

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

I belive Tu-142s are still in service with Naval airbases in Fedotovo and Mongokhto, probably around 10, those are the only long range ASW fixed wing aircraft Russia atm fields. Il-38 modernisation is still underway, those are expected to serve another 10-15 years after modernisation.

Atm Russia does not really have anything in same class as P-8. There were proposed few replacement for current ASW aircraft. Mostly not materialised by now, those were supposed to be based on Tu-204, Be-200, Be-40...

How capable are the TU-142s and IL-38s?

From the information I have read the domestic version of Sea Dragon should actually be pretty state of the art, and that there are versions for the Il-38 and Tu-142.

The only problems I have read about regarding the Bear is that its high speed design... ie swept wings make deploying ULW or ultra low wave antennas for communications with subs is difficult as the low flight speeds needed to deploy the several km long cables that have to be deployed near vertically means flying at close to stall speed for the Bear... which is an issue of course.

GarryB wrote:From the information I have read the domestic version of Sea Dragon should actually be pretty state of the art, and that there are versions for the Il-38 and Tu-142.

The only problems I have read about regarding the Bear is that its high speed design... ie swept wings make deploying ULW or ultra low wave antennas for communications with subs is difficult as the low flight speeds needed to deploy the several km long cables that have to be deployed near vertically means flying at close to stall speed for the Bear... which is an issue of course.

well the problem with export of ASW aircrafts in Russia is that there are no suitable platforms anytime soon. Tu-204 might be but for other reasons is dead...

I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

I see problem abit different, problem is the number of platforms that Russia has. There are very few ASW and maritime patrol aircraft in Russian inventory in general.

Atm in US there are like 100 P3 Orion variants, about 40 or so P8A with 120ish in total on order. Japan for an example also has almost 150 maritime patrol/ASW aircraft and nearly 100 P3s...

F*** sanctions

Boeing's P-8 Poseidon can cast close to $256.5 million each.P-8 does not have Magnetic Anomally Dectection sensors.US Navy chooses not to use it. Navy assumes it'll use P8 at high altitude.P-8 is designed to operate at higher altitudes. Navy will probably realize it needs the MAD and they'll have to SLEP the P-3's, or give in and put the MAD on the P-8.

They probably use a mass spectrometry based system to detect exhaust fumes. Unsure what that'll do against a nuclear powered submarine.my guess is they'll go for sonobuoys from above. I hope they can carry enough sonobuoys. The next alternative is to use a MAD on a reel, but one that won't snap at the cruising speed of a P-8? Might be tricky.

The acoustic detection system of a P-8 is 2x as effective as that of the P-3, and this is used to advance the claim that the MAD is not necessary. Unsure how I feel about this, especially since it is not an aircraft capability, but that of its sonobuoys (which cannot be retrieved and re-used, which limits the "fishing" capability of the P-8; it must be reasonably sure before it drops buoys into the water).


Vladimir Sahnin don't overestimate US ASW skills . I don't know why many people carry the preconceived notion that US ASW skills are extraordinary.




Surprised to know Russian ASW planes are limited in number let alone any future export model

But what I've read ( can be wrong also) that Russian Sonar systems(Acoustics) are quite efficient and capable to track enemy subs in littoral waters and maybe around arctic. Is it true ?

Regarding your question about nuclear warheads for depth charges Max... as Russian subs get quieter the likelyhood of detecting them at a range where you can use nuke warheads reduces... Sea Lance never entered US service because there was no point... its increase in range over ASROC and SUBROC was pointless because they could no longer detect Russian subs at the longer range.

I see problem abit different, problem is the number of platforms that Russia has. There are very few ASW and maritime patrol aircraft in Russian inventory in general.

I agree, but they have more MPAs than the UK...

I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

Actually I would say Sea Dragon in its domestic version is totally comparable to anything the west has, the problem for both sides is that Russian subs have gotten quieter... to the point where active sonar has become a necessary tactic for surface vessels to detect subs at anything like a useful range on anything like a regular basis. AIP equipped subs will make this even more pronounced as they are quieter than nuke subs.

Well this problem exists since early 90s when many ASW aircrafts were retired and spots were never filled later on.

ASW is expensive.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:From the information I have read the domestic version of Sea Dragon should actually be pretty state of the art, and that there are versions for the Il-38 and Tu-142.

The only problems I have read about regarding the Bear is that its high speed design... ie swept wings make deploying ULW or ultra low wave antennas for communications with subs is difficult as the low flight speeds needed to deploy the several km long cables that have to be deployed near vertically means flying at close to stall speed for the Bear... which is an issue of course.

well the problem with export of ASW aircrafts in Russia is that there are no suitable platforms anytime soon. Tu-204 might be but for other reasons is dead...

Why not a derivative of the Be-200 ??

Militarov wrote:

Be-200 is one of the options, however that would be short to medium range ASW aircraft but if someone asked me Be-42 variant with turboprops would be alot better idea. They also need something long range, with current situation probably something based on turbofan engines (Tu-204?).

http://www.beriev.com/eng/A-42PE_e/A-42PE_e.html

Be-42 was in consideration recently for Russian Navy to replace venerable Be-12, but there is no more news of that intent (and turboprop version was planned with D-27 engines...unfortunately made in Ukraine).

Militarov wrote:

archangelski wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Be-200 is one of the options, however that would be short to medium range ASW aircraft but if someone asked me Be-42 variant with turboprops would be alot better idea. They also need something long range, with current situation probably something based on turbofan engines (Tu-204?).

http://www.beriev.com/eng/A-42PE_e/A-42PE_e.html

Be-42 was in consideration recently for Russian Navy to replace venerable Be-12, but there is no more news of that intent (and turboprop version was planned with D-27 engines...unfortunately made in Ukraine).

There is always some NK-12 more modern variant as an option.  

Probably more efficient, new engines will increase range...now not too impressive comparing to Tu-204. But choice was already made AFAIK.

By 2020, anti-submarine amphibian be-12 will be replaced by seaplanes A-40

https://lenta.ru/new/2016/03/03/albatros/

By 2020, anti-submarine amphibian be-12 will be replaced by seaplanes A-40. This was stated by the chief of the naval aviation of the black sea fleet Colonel Gennady Pens, reports RIA Novosti.

Earlier, in July 2015, a senior source in the leadership of the Navy arguedthat the military order of the anti-submarine aircraft based on amphibian be-200, which, in turn, was created in 1990-ies with the use of hurt on the plane A-40.

Anti-submarine amphibian aircraft A-40 (Be-42 "Albatross" was developed in the early 1980-ies in the USSR to replace the be-12. For the first time the car took off in 1986, in 1990, was put into service, but mass production never got (been released just two instances). In 1998 there was a civil aircraft be-200 (fire-fighting and search and rescue variants) created on the basis of A-40.

Machine takeoff weight of about 90 tons was powered by two turbojet engines D-30КВП (option engines from the Il-76 aircraft). The plane boasted a maximum speed of 760 kilometers per hour and carry up to 6.5 tons of payload. In the airborne weapons could come in three anti-submarine torpedo at-3 "Orlan", four anti-submarine missile the APR-2 "Hawk" or six MAY-3 "eagle", as well as mines, depth charges and sonobuoys.

Militarov wrote: Yeah, however turboprops would perform alot better for such platform, especially due to fact its to be medium range/weight ASW platform.

Then Il-114 seems to be best option. Same range (w/o additional tans), similar range/load...I wonder if flying boat buyancy counts here?


IMHO best would be ASW based on Bartini Beriev VVA-14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartini_Beriev_VVA-14

Looks like Vietnam is gonna have to go with P-3 since it doesn't look like the Il-38 is in production anymore.

GarryB wrote:Regarding your question about nuclear warheads for depth charges Max... as Russian subs get quieter the likelyhood of detecting them at a range where you can use nuke warheads reduces... Sea Lance never entered US service because there was no point... its increase in range over ASROC and SUBROC was pointless because they could no longer detect Russian subs at the longer range.

I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

Actually I would say Sea Dragon in its domestic version is totally comparable to anything the west has, the problem for both sides is that Russian subs have gotten quieter... to the point where active sonar has become a necessary tactic for surface vessels to detect subs at anything like a useful range on anything like a regular basis. AIP equipped subs will make this even more pronounced as they are quieter than nuke subs.

By Active Sonar what do you mean exactly ? Can Active Sonars be used in enemy littoral waters or near their waters ? What's the difference between active and passive sonars ? I got your point that due to Russian sub quietness ( reduction in noise levels) US ASW sonars can no longer detect subs at longer range but if they detect it at shorter ranges even then what's the disadvantage ? Still they can use depth charge or torpedoes both from their asw aircraft( chances are less as it'll be shot down) or their own carrier supporting submarines ( highly likely) .




That ghost unmanned ship using active sonar is again useless in such conflicts.

By Active Sonar what do you mean exactly ?

Like a bat in an empty cave where there is no noise... it squeaks and listens to the sound returning to their very large ears... by judging the time it takes for the sound to return it can gauge the distance to the walls of the cave.

WWII sonars were used to detect subs by sending a ping and listening for the return from objects in the water like submarines.

Can Active Sonars be used in enemy littoral waters or near their waters ? What's the difference between active and passive sonars ?

Active sonar can be used anywhere but most subs don't use it to avoid revealing their presence.

ASW groups of ships often actively ping in peace time to stir up enemy subs... a diesel electric that is running on electric that is not moving makes very little noise so to detect it you can use active sonar pings to detect its presence.

US ASW sonars can no longer detect subs at longer range but if they detect it at shorter ranges even then what's the disadvantage ?

If you can detect a noisy old WWII sub from 1,000km then your grid search pattern has 1,000km grids so searching the Atlantic is much easier... if you need to be within 1km of the target to detect it then obviously 1km square grids is going to have 1 million more flight lines in the horizontal and vertical... not to mention the time aspect as the time it takes to search a few widths of those sets of boxes an enemy sub could easily have moved out of the unsearched area into a searched area and be safe till you have looked everywhere and start looking where you have already looked... which would take years and not really be practical.

That ghost unmanned ship using active sonar is again useless in such conflicts.

What protects those ghost ships? They would be fairly easy to find targets if they are blazing away with active sonar all the time... even a passive homing torpedo could detect it at enormous range...

It is possible that the Tu-142M3 of Russian Navy aircraft used in Syria for reconnaissance of ground targets