ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

It wasn't even a contest really, Tu-204 is not only fully mature platform but also surpasses Il-114 on every single parameter

They are different enough for me to think they might end up buying both for different roles.

I still would like to understand if there will be also a niche for a modernised A-40/ Be-42.

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:....
for SAR/transport frole in all far east/north archipelagos A-40 is a good option tho.

If they need SAR then Be-200 is available, for everything anti-sub Tu-214 is the way to go, everything smaller is a waste of money

A-40 is non-existent

About 16 months ago they announced that they would resume A40 production... maybe they changed again their minds, but nothing has been officially said. Still I believe that a modernised version of both the A40 and its minor brother, the Be200 would be quite useful and successful.

https://ria.ru/20180906/1527914505.html

Russia decided to resume production of the largest amphibious aircraft
03:03 06.09.2018


GELENDZHIK (Krasnodar Territory), September 6 - RIA Novosti. Russia plans to resume production of the A-40 Albatross amphibious aircraft.

Supersonic multi-role fighter-interceptor of vertical take-off and landing Yak-141. Archive photo
August 21, 2018 17:48
In Russia, developing a plane with a vertical take-off
This was announced by RIA Novosti at the United Aircraft Corporation, which is working on this project, in anticipation of the Gidroaviasalon-2018 exhibition.
Hydroaviation show is held on September 6-9 in Gelendzhik. The event is held every two years on the territory of the airport and the test base of PJSC "TANTK named after G. M. Beriev." The organizer of the Gidroaviasalona is the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the organizer is UAC.

Characteristics A-40 Albatross
A-40 Albatross (Be-42, product B, NATO codification: Mermaid) is the world's largest amphibious aircraft. It was developed as a replacement for the Be-12 (Soviet anti-submarine amphibious aircraft). The maximum take-off weight of the A-40 is 90 tons, which no aircraft of this class can boast.

"Albatross" is a "flying boat", made according to the high-wing scheme with a moderate sweep wing and T-tail.

In 1986, his first flight from land took place, a year later he first took off from the water. However, the project was stopped after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Two years ago, the head of the Naval Aviation of the Black Sea Fleet, Gennady Zagonov, announced that the latest A-40s will replace Be-12 amphibious aircraft as part of a complete renewal of the fleet.

The Tu-204 is somewhere between the Il-38 and Tu-142, while the Il-114 sits between the Be-12 and the Il-38. Il-114 would be good for the Baltics, even the Black Sea. Tu-204 for "open ocean" missions.

Another factor is speed, the Tu-204 is faster so it can get to places further away faster, but the Il-114 can operate at lower speeds which should make chasing down enemy subs easier and more efficient.

It should also be rather cheaper to buy and to operate.

The question is whether having 2 different platforms (and soon UAV one) makes economical sense?

There is a wide variety of requirements... some of which are contradictary... remember the Russian Navy used three MPAs... Be-12, Il-38 and Tu-142, as well as Il-20 and Il-22s for some roles too, so using a few new ones wont make it more complex and problematic.

I still would like to understand if there will be also a niche for a modernised A-40/ Be-42.

The fact that they are extending the operational lives of the Be-12s seems to suggest they have value and need replacing... certainly even just for fire fighting and operations at sea an amphibious aircraft has value.

It also has certain costs so the solution would be the combination of likely uses with the likely probability of its use factored in vs known costs to buy vs potential costs of needing it but not having it... complex but not impossible.

I think this project is over

They do have the Be-200 and the introduction of families of a range of engine powers and types means a potential heavy replacement is possible... but not certain.

The Il-114 will be produced in civilian versions. There is an Il-114 flying around for Radar-MMS fitted with tech for ASW. Shouldn´t be that complicated or expensive to produce 20 - 30 for the Navy.

I find it more expensive to use a "big" plane like the Tu-204 for short-range ASW.

I suspect the Tu will replace the Tu and the May and perhaps a stretched Il-114 might perform short range MPA/SAR replacing the Mail.

The question being will they want long range (A-40) or medium range (Be-200) amphibious aircraft for SAR... an amphibious aircraft would be an ideal way to launch and retrieve unmanned under water vehicles... it could also be fitted with a dipping sonar too.

That's not the same role then. And coast guard could be interested by a SAR aircraft.

There is enough variety in roles and location to operate more than just one type together with UAVs and UUVs etc etc.

I agree, I think the Tupolev promises to not only be a much better anti sub aircraft with much better performance... the investment in building 20-40 of them could boost production potential for not only other variants for the military (ie replacements for the Il-20 and Il-22 elint planes and other options) but also to resume production of civilian airliners with new more efficient engines like the PD series...

Both Boeing and Airbus effectively received enormous subsidies by making lots of military conversions of their aircraft... Russia should do the same...


I do however think that an amphibious aircraft has potential in regard to sub hunting... including delivering and retrieving anti sub drones and the use of dipping sonar on the water. They can get to locations rather quickly being much faster than a helicopter, and by landing on the water can remain in an area indefinitely... there is even the potential to greatly extend range by landing next to a tanker and being refuelled on the water...

Also recovering divers and unmanned underwater vehicles....

Well the important thing is that if the Russian military buy lots of these planes then productions of spares will be necessary and so support for them operationally will be cheaper, so even though it was not successful first time around with civilian airlines this might give it a new chance to be successful... a newer model with more composite components that is lighter and with new fuel efficient engines...

GarryB wrote:Well the important thing is that if the Russian military buy lots of these planes then productions of spares will be necessary and so support for them operationally will be cheaper, so even though it was not successful first time around with civilian airlines this might give it a new chance to be successful... a newer model with more composite components that is lighter and with new fuel efficient engines...

Well, I may see a use for the tu204 in the civilian cargo sector (instead of using foreign boeing 737), but at the end it is in the same class and size of a MC-21-400...

I do not know if it would make sense to have them compete against each other as civilian airliners...

I would much prefer to have the tu204/ 214 (maybe later with new engines) being used as "base" platform for military applications (ASW, tanker, AWACS, etc) and let the MC-21 concentrate on the civil airliner sector...

Especially if the Tu-330 (based on the Tu204 and with several parts in common) will be selected as the new medium military transport aircraft...

The thing is that if the military do invest in variations of the Tu-204, they wont want old model unchanged Tu-204s... they will want performance upgrades and improved designs going forward, so increased composite materials in structures, improved aerodynamic shapes, improved engine options... essentially we could be talking about a Tu-224 or Tu-244 or whatever they want to call it...

When the competition is between a Tu-224 and a Sukhoi Superjet it is a win win for Russia don't you think?

Competition is good... redundancy is bad but these planes are replacing very old obsolete models anyway...

Maybe a modified Tu-330 could be an even better solution for the job than the Tu-204, but of course a slim low drag airliner makes more sense for an MPA than a transport plane that needs more internal volume for its ability to carry loads so the Tu-204 is probably the better solution...

GarryB wrote:The thing is that if the military do invest in variations of the Tu-204, they wont want old model unchanged Tu-204s... they will want performance upgrades and improved designs going forward, so increased composite materials in structures, improved aerodynamic shapes, improved engine options... essentially we could be talking about a Tu-224 or Tu-244 or whatever they want to call it...

When the competition is between a Tu-224 and a Sukhoi Superjet it is a win win for Russia don't you think?

Competition is good... redundancy is bad but these planes are replacing very old obsolete models anyway...

Maybe a modified Tu-330 could be an even better solution for the job than the Tu-204, but of course a slim low drag airliner makes more sense for an MPA than a transport plane that needs more internal volume for its ability to carry loads so the Tu-204 is probably the better solution...

Well the tu204 is at least 2 times as big as the ssj100 and bigger than the MC-21-300, so it would be in the same class as the MC-21-400 (that, if I am  not mistaken should be a bit bigger than the airbus a321).

I understand, the issue is that the tu 204 is a design from the 80s, but even the american p8 Poseidon is based on the 737NG (only a few years newer than the tu204, but it is only a modernisation of the 737 project from the 60s..)

I agree in the opportunity of upgrading engines and avionics, and maybe some of the internal systems, to uniform them with the new Russian system being developed for the MC-21,  but I do not see much point in also doing additional work on the aircraft structure itself to add more composite parts... at that point it would be cheaper to use MC21 for the role instead of having 2 aircrafts in the same class and size...

The advantage for the navy and air force is that the tu204 is an already existing and proven platform... a heavy modernisation will defeat the purpose (especially when the effort would be better directed to other projects)

Also  metal structures, even if a bit heavier are cheaper and easier to produce  and to maintain and to repair (compared to composites structures) , and this could be an advantage for military use....

Well the tu204 is at least 2 times as big as the ssj100 and bigger than the MC-21-300, so it would be in the same class as the MC-21-400 (that, if I am not mistaken should be a bit bigger than the airbus a321).

Well then there is no real conflict... if it is bigger than both it should be fine to buy because there is no clash... a Civilian airline that wants those smaller planes can buy those and if they need bigger aircraft they will have a choice, but I suspect most of the time the scaled up model would offer more commonality and they could use a bigger pool of shared parts between the types.

I understand, the issue is that the tu 204 is a design from the 80s, but even the american p8 Poseidon is based on the 737NG (only a few years newer than the tu204, but it is only a modernisation of the 737 project from the 60s..)

With new production techniques and technologies then the first step will be digitising the design... then with the digital version they can modify the design to update it and with a computer model they can test different materials and shapes fairly easily and cheaply...

I agree in the opportunity of upgrading engines and avionics, and maybe some of the internal systems, to uniform them with the new Russian system being developed for the MC-21, but I do not see much point in also doing additional work on the aircraft structure itself to add more composite parts... at that point it would be cheaper to use MC21 for the role instead of having 2 aircrafts in the same class and size...

From a Russian military perspective they probably just want a new suitable design... which could be ready first within a suitable time frame?

Upgrades over the life of the platform are normal... the Tu-95 got wing and structure upgrades in the 1970s to improve performance...

The advantage for the navy and air force is that the tu204 is an already existing and proven platform... a heavy modernisation will defeat the purpose (especially when the effort would be better directed to other projects)

It would only be useful if they could get it into production quickly and cheaply... I mean an An-22 is an existing and proven platform but they are not interested in using it for anything despite keeping it in service for quite some time... because it was useful.

Also metal structures, even if a bit heavier are cheaper and easier to produce and to maintain and to repair (compared to composites structures) , and this could be an advantage for military use....

Over time the composite materials are getting cheaper and faster and more reliable... there was the case of that small ship where most of the upper structure was composites but initially took about 3 months to make. Over time lessons were learned and techniques improved and they were making them in three days... which almost certainly made them cheaper too...

Often composite structure are replaced, but then that can be a good thing sometimes too... if one part of a structure is damaged then other parts might be too... replacing the whole part makes sense sometimes...