Hydroaviation - is it the past or the future?

47
Hydroaviation - is it the past or the future?

Why Russia and China? Everything will be explained a little later, it was just convenient to take two countries that have completely different approaches to this small species aviation. Some had everything and almost nothing left, the second had nothing, but they want, if not everything, then a lot.

So, is the seaplane or the flying boat the past or the future?



On the one hand, yes, this is the past. This is a very glorious past of hydroaviation, when seaplanes won with a huge advantage such a trophy as the Schneider Cup against land planes (and they could not oppose anything to sea flyers), carried out transatlantic flights, sank enemy submarines, carried out long-range reconnaissance (there was no refueling in the air then , but on the water - easily!) for fleet and even landed troops. We do not touch such things as searching for ships in distress and rescuing the crews of downed aircraft, here the seaplane did not know competitors at all.










Well, the fact that seaplanes have been registered in fleets everywhere, from special seaplane carriers to battleships, is known to everyone. And some even got on submarines.


After the Second World War, seaplanes did not lose their positions, on the contrary, despite the fact that the aircraft carrier has firmly entered the everyday life of all (or almost all) leading fleets of the world, there is simply plenty of work left for a seaplane and a flying boat.

How can a seaplane be loaded today?

1. Patrol service. Moreover, this service is perfectly combined with others.
2. Search and rescue service. Indeed, a flying boat (LL) copes with this no worse than a helicopter, and the speed, range and carrying capacity of an LL is much higher than that of a helicopter.
3. Anti-submarine service. You will say that ships and helicopters cope with this no worse, but what kind of ship can be 500 km north of the location within an hour and gurgle into the water of the GAS to find an enemy boat? Or seeding a huge area with sonar buoys in a short amount of time?

Yes, there are nuances in the anti-submarine service, but, unlike a helicopter, an aircraft with refueling can simply control a huge area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe water surface, pointing its ships at the detected boats. Or the crew itself can use something from the cargo that is unpleasant for submarines from their compartments.

4. Fire service. Here, of course, a flying boat, capable of filling up with water “under the cork” when landing, is the undoubted king in terms of time. An ordinary firefighting aircraft or helicopter needs to land on the airfield and fill their water tanks through hoses for quite some time. It is enough for the boat to land and “stripe” on the water surface. The containers will fill up instantly, which gives a very big advantage.

The fact that LLs in this incarnation are required is worth looking at those examples when countries that do not have them, but where forest fires are raging, try to borrow these aircraft to extinguish those countries where they are.

How rich is Russia today? Considering that one of the first decently flying boats in the world, the M-1 designed by Dmitry Grigorovich, appeared in 1913, everything is sad with us. For a country that has always been good with hydroaviation. Yes, we didn’t have huge boats like the German Dorniers or Blom and Foss, but we always had our own hydroaviation aircraft, and really good ones.

The heyday, of course, fell on the Soviet era, when everyone looked with envy at the path of not very beautiful in terms of aesthetics, but very effective in combat terms, the "birdfish" of the Beriev Design Bureau. Georgy Mikhailovich was generally an Ichthyander genius. He perfectly felt the air and understood the water. What can I say, if his first work, the "barn" MBR-2 entered history as the most massive seaplane of the USSR and was produced for more than 20 years!


And then the planes went on, too, not very similar in appearance, he and the MBR-2 are so penguin in appearance, and then the gulls-cormorants generally went. But the whole North rattled with MBR-2 engines for half a century, and then Be of various series took over the baton.


And from this greatness and power there were miserable scraps.

Russian Naval Aviation boasts FOUR flying boats Be-12. All that remains of 141 cars made since 1965. The most recent were made in 1973, that is, we can conclude in what condition they are. The machines are based in Kacha, that is, on the Black Sea. There are no amphibious aircraft in the aviation of other fleets.

The Russian naval aviation also has a Be-200 at its disposal. ONE.


And more is not expected yet, since the RF Ministry of Defense terminated the contract with the Beriev TANTK for the construction of aircraft, but this is a separate issue altogether.

Yes, you can talk a lot about the Be-200, and from time to time they even do it on television with pleasure. Stories about what a wonderful car it is, which does not have anything in the world, in fact, the Be-200 does not have one thing: a series. Already 18 cars have been manufactured in 20 years, and half of them fall to the share of Russian customers. The rest went to Azerbaijan and Algeria. And in our country, apart from the Ministry of Emergencies, this car is not particularly interesting to anyone.

On this, in fact, hydroaviation in Russia is either finished or finished. It looks strange, given the vast water frontiers of the country.

Now let's go to the neighbors.

China is also not bad with maritime borders, plus neighbors know how to make friends in terms of disputed islands, islets and archipelagos. Therefore, they believe that seaplanes are very important, and the Chinese Communist Party regularly reminds the military of this.

Initially, with hydroaviation in China, everything was very sad. It simply did not exist, after the Second World War everything got better when the older brother of the Soviet Union transferred a certain number of Be-6s and trained the flight and technical staff. The PLA understood the advantages that such aircraft provide.


But then there was a TA quarrel between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev, which led to a significant cooling of relations, if not to a break, then whoever thinks.


China really wanted to get the Be-12, the most luxurious amphibious aircraft at that time. But alas, the Soviet government flatly refused to sell / donate modern seaplanes, so all that remained for the Chinese was to launch the production of Qing-6 flying boats (not quite licensed, but a copy of the Be-6) with "new" engines, WJ-6 turboprops , which were a licensed copy of the AI-20.

But even with the new turboprop engines instead of piston engines, the Qing-6 did not at all meet the requirements that were put forward by the PLA navy. The Be-12 did not shine at all, therefore, in the early 70s, a landmark decision was made in China to develop its own amphibious aircraft.

It really was a chic tiger and dragon hunt. The plane was really blinded from what was available.

They took a straight wing from the An-12 aircraft, installed four WJ5 engines from the Xian Y-7-100 aircraft on it. It can be put more simply: a copy of the AI-24A engine from the An-24 aircraft, of course, is unlicensed. The tail unit was completely taken from the Be-6. Works, why be smart?

And only the hull / fuselage was developed by the Chinese themselves. As they say, at least something, but your own.

This is how the Harbin SH-5 (Naval Bomber 5) came about.


We can say that it was the firstborn of the Chinese hydro-aircraft industry. Yes, it took a long time to deal with it, the first copy was built in 1973, and testing and refinement were completed in 1985. But it was a completely real anti-submarine seaplane that fully met the requirements of the Chinese military and was equipped with all the necessary domestic equipment: search radar, magnetometer, navigation system and other useful devices.

The four outer underwing nodes could carry depth charges, anti-submarine torpedoes, or conventional bombs.

In total, the Chinese built 7 machines: 3 prototypes, 3 anti-submarine patrol aircraft and 1 firefighting aircraft.


All of them are still in service, which suggests that far from everything assembled in the PRC is single-use.

Well, then everything is clear - the appetite comes with eating, and, having become adept at copying, the Chinese normally set about independent work on creating a new aircraft. Aircraft of the future.

Considering that China pays great attention to hydroaviation, the work went very hard and as a result of ten years of work, the project of the heavy amphibious aircraft AG-600 "Jiaolong" ("Water Dragon") was born, which today is the largest turboprop machine of this class in the world .


Work began in 2009, planned to be completed by 2013, but the Dragon made its first flight from the airfield only in 2017, and from the water surface even later - in 2020.

However, years of work and 3 billion yuan were not wasted, and today the Water Dragon is being built in series. It seems to be ordered 17 aircraft.


It cannot be said that the “Dragon” is original, outwardly it resembles the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 aircraft, which has been in service with the Japanese Navy since 2007 and was produced in a worthy series of 14 aircraft.


It is possible that China's intelligence worked at the highest level, but the parameters of the Dragon are similar to those of the ShinMaywa US-2, the same emphasis on range and seaworthiness. The Chinese aircraft even surpassed the Japanese in terms of range (4500 km versus 3800).

The main tasks of the "Dragon" are called the performance of maritime patrol and search and rescue operations, as well as fire fighting.

Yes, as a firefighter, the Dragon is quite good, in one run on gliding it can collect 12 tons of water in 20 seconds. As a rescuer, it’s also quite: 50 wounded at a distance of up to 1600 km from the departure airfield.

However, something tells all the experts in the world that the use of the "Dragon" will be wrong. Even the designers of the machine themselves noted more than once that it is possible to use the Dragon for "other purposes, including military ones."

Naturally, you want to use it in the military. In the end, a car with a decent range, speed and seaworthiness (waves up to 2,2 m are not a hindrance) can carry out a variety of operations. Given that the aircraft is able to take on board up to 10 tons of various loads, we conclude that there are places where the Dragon is very useful.

Actually, for some reason the first 17 aircraft are being built in the standard Chinese secrecy mode, and there is not a letter about their configuration and equipment. The plane is just being mass-produced. Dot.

Although the Chinese military themselves do not strongly deny the need for such an aircraft in the waters of the South China Sea, where recently there has been, I would say, a cheerful and lively atmosphere. Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Philippines are openly dissatisfied with China's policy of grabbing reefs in the South China Sea and turning them into islands. And the US openly supports these countries.

Official Beijing considers almost all the islands, rocks and reefs in the South China Sea to be its territory, but this position must not only be defended, it may also have to be defended. However, at one time, in disputes with Vietnam, China has already shown its teeth.

So the fact that the "Water Dragon" by the Xinhua agency was called in one of the articles the "protector of islands and reefs" does not seem to hint at the future service of the aircraft - rather, it gives out in full.

There is no need to talk about the weapons of the Dragon yet, but you can build on what the SH-5 was armed with. In the anti-submarine version, in addition to all search equipment, the SH-5 was armed with two 23-mm aircraft cannons (not relevant today), up to 6000 kg of aircraft bombs, which can be placed in the bomb bay in the fuselage and on four hardpoints under the wings. Either four Yingji-1 (S-101) anti-ship missiles, or two anti-ship missiles and four anti-submarine torpedoes, or four 454-kg depth charges can be placed under the wings.

How it will be possible to arm the Dragon is a question, but it is clear that this aircraft will be able to take everything more than the SH-5. Still, almost 2000 hp. on each engine, the "Dragon" has more.

If you look at our neighbors, both China and Japan pay attention to the development of hydroaviation for military purposes. Unlike Russia, where hydroaviation was actually abandoned as unnecessary. The Beriev TANTK actually vegetates, and fifty-year-old Be-12 aircraft live out their lives as part of naval aviation.

Meanwhile, the practice of both the Syrian campaign and the NMD showed how important it is to quickly control the entire coastline, which we have is not like the Chinese one.

In addition, here are the latest examples for you: the entry of three ships at the mouth of the Danube. Theoretically, Su-27s from airfields in the Crimea could stop these ships. So, what is next? Wait until one of the KChF ships separates the steam and deigns to come to the place where the ship stops? Which, as soon as the planes leave, will continue to move?

Or, perhaps, a seaplane would be useful, which could deliver a couple of inspection teams on boats to the specified area?


It seems to me that the possibility of an aircraft launching somewhere and then landing on the water with a load, or taking on a load on the water, should not be discounted. Just as the seaplanes did not say the last word in terms of combating submarines.

In Japan and China, they understand this and build new cars. In Russia, everything is as always with a bunch of questions.
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    4 August 2023 05: 20
    In Russia, everything is as always with a bunch of questions.
    And no one is going to solve them .... recourse
    1. +24
      4 August 2023 07: 14
      Little is not so. Here, in the presidential apparatus, they became concerned about why no one in Russia produces piston engines for light-engine aviation, including for all kinds of UAVs. For some reason, they decided that this was the unwillingness of the manufacturers themselves to do this. They began handing out stimulus pendels. But the problem is that the piston aviation design bureaus have been destroyed, there is no equipment, and the teaching staff of the new formation does not understand much about this issue. It can be said that 30 years of reforms have been successful, the country has lost a lot of industries along with its personnel. The liberal government successfully coped with the task set by the impudent Saxon regional committee. With which I congratulate everyone.
      1. +9
        4 August 2023 11: 29
        In general, a seaplane has serious limitations: in waves, in ice conditions. He will not sit anywhere in the sea-ocean, he will not be able to use it all year round. Amphibians are more versatile, capable of taking off and landing on concrete, but due to the increased strength of the hull, they are heavier than conventional aircraft, therefore their economic efficiency is lower.

        And as a result, there remains a rather narrow niche of special aircraft, of which much is not required. Hence the low volume of orders. And this is the situation in all countries where seaplanes are produced.
        1. 0
          20 December 2023 21: 01
          Quote: umah
          And as a result, there remains a rather narrow niche of special aircraft, of which much is not required. Hence the low volume of orders. And this is the situation in all countries where seaplanes are produced.

          1) It’s also worth adding that conventional aviation can replace hydroaviation, in the same fires you can use helicopters, their “transport leverage” will be even less than that of hydroaviation, because there are thousands of times more puddles and shit leaks than long rivers for seaplanes, yes and the helicopter has maximum hit accuracy.
          2) it is generally possible to solve the problem by other methods, for example, in case of fires, make abatches and counter fires
      2. +1
        4 August 2023 22: 54
        The Minister of Industry of Russia - Manturov with a degree in sociology! But he is the richest official in the government because he is good at getting kickbacks from enterprise directors for tasty government contracts! He was scolded by Putin for the fact that the documents for the production of aircraft equipment were not signed on time, which spoiled the picture of the success that the president spoke about. (The directors of the enterprises did not roll back, therefore there were delays in signing contracts) As a specialist, a complete zero - being responsible for import substitution, the work failed, limiting itself to regluing nameplates and labels from imported goods to Russian ones! Many people remember how at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum there was a new Moskvich car with Russian nameplates, and only they forgot to remove the Chinese one from the steering wheel! He initiated the sale of Russian oil to India for rupees! The Indians took oil with pleasure and gave back rupees. But when the "effective manager" Manturov went to India with a long list of what Russia needed, the Indians showed him a big fiddle, saying that they would not sell anything, fearing sanctions!
  2. 0
    4 August 2023 05: 51
    In my opinion, a helicopter would be a good replacement for a seaplane ...
    1. IVZ
      +11
      4 August 2023 06: 00
      In my opinion, a helicopter would be a good replacement for a seaplane ...
      On this point, I agree with the author of the article. Helicopter and seaplane can complement each other, but not replace.
    2. -2
      4 August 2023 20: 24
      In my opinion, a helicopter would be a good replacement for a seaplane ...

      SVO is coming. Imagine that we have a seaplane regiment. Where to apply them? What should they do? winked

      Go ahead. We have helicopters now. We can already use them instead of seaplanes. How?
      1. -1
        10 August 2023 12: 03
        Replacing each other is not an option. but to provide the Be-200 with engines is undecided.
  3. +12
    4 August 2023 06: 00
    In Russia, if there is no PERSONAL interest of one of the participants in government live broadcasts, then none of those on whom the development of the country and industry depends will even scratch their heads. Wild feudal capitalism, however.
    1. +4
      4 August 2023 13: 36
      Developing an industry is always an order of magnitude more difficult than just buying and selling. For this reason, the industrial base of the USSR was practically buried. All new owners wanted quick money. Production is always a long-term job. So the wave swept across the country. It is easier to scrap a plant than to develop it, it is easier to rent premises than to think about production yourself. And if the land is also successfully sold, then in general in chocolate.
    2. 0
      20 December 2023 21: 08
      Quote: Severok
      In Russia, if there is no PERSONAL interest

      This is not only in the Russian Federation, but in any country, and in the “blessed USSR” it was the same, at least in the same IT under Stalin they paid for any innovation, and it didn’t matter who came up with it and how, but under Khrushchev the system collapsed, you have to pay they became only “authorized”, in subsequent years they began to pay only bonuses for speed, and then this did not happen, because without paying for innovation no one financed the development of the PC, the Internet and new programming languages....
  4. IVZ
    +5
    4 August 2023 06: 17
    In my opinion, the problem of hydroaviation is primarily in the absence of a clear policy for its development. Those. no one really studies the needs of potential customers, how many products, for what purpose and with what characteristics it is possible or necessary to develop and build. Such nonsense, when the managers - representatives of the Customer sometimes say: "... we will not develop technical specifications, develop the product, and we will see if it suits us." what you need, but it was easier and cheaper for us to develop and master production.", has been practiced for a long time. And, of course, funding issues. Not everyone can afford to order the equipment they need, especially aviation equipment.
    1. +1
      4 August 2023 10: 36
      Quote: IVZ
      In my opinion, the problem of hydroaviation is primarily in the absence of a clear policy for its development.

      The problem of hydroaviation in our country primarily related to climate and geography. On the territory, the waters of which are covered with ice for an average of 4-5 months a year, the use of seaplanes is not justified. And who needs equipment that has been idle for six months, because "off season", when its functions can be successfully performed by ordinary "wheeled" vehicles at any time of the year.
      1. IVZ
        +2
        4 August 2023 12: 53
        On the territory, the waters of which are covered with ice for an average of 4-5 months a year, the use of seaplanes is not justified.
        Let me disagree with you. It is in the far north that the need for amphibious seaplanes is greatest.
        How we miss this small, unpretentious Sh-2 aircraft, affectionately called "shavrushka" by pilots. It was an amazing car: it climbed into such remote corners of the North, Siberia and the Far East, where other modes of transport were ordered to go. She landed not only on the water of mighty rivers and lakes, but also in the beds of tiny rivers, took off from tiny sites lost in the centuries-old taiga.

        Years passed and the battered plane was decommissioned completely and irrevocably. The North was left without its unpretentious winged assistant. But the people who gave the best years of their lives to the harsh land decided to give back its wings to the North - to create a new aircraft, as versatile as the "shavrushka".
        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/angara.html
        1. +3
          4 August 2023 15: 08
          Quote: IVZ
          Let me disagree with you. It is in the far north that the need for amphibious seaplanes is greatest.

          Yes, but in what? Cars like the Be-200 and the giant Chinese are not needed there. An-2 was in the greatest demand, and it is easy to "change shoes" from floats to skis, from skis to wheels. Literally "in the garage on my knee" laughing.
          So the debatable question is what kind of seaplane is really needed. In small aviation, amphibians are undeniably necessary, and everything that is medium and heavy is a big question hi
          PS: Corrected you undeserved in my opinion "-" hi
        2. +2
          4 August 2023 19: 37
          Quote: IVZ
          On the territory, the waters of which are covered with ice for an average of 4-5 months a year, the use of seaplanes is not justified.
          Let me disagree with you. It is in the far north that the need for amphibious seaplanes is greatest.
          How we miss this small, unpretentious Sh-2 aircraft, affectionately called "shavrushka" by pilots. It was an amazing car: it climbed into such remote corners of the North, Siberia and the Far East, where other modes of transport were ordered to go. She landed not only on the water of mighty rivers and lakes, but also in the beds of tiny rivers, took off from tiny sites lost in the centuries-old taiga.

          Years passed and the battered plane was decommissioned completely and irrevocably. The North was left without its unpretentious winged assistant. But the people who gave the best years of their lives to the harsh land decided to give back its wings to the North - to create a new aircraft, as versatile as the "shavrushka".
          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/angara.html

          1. +1
            4 August 2023 19: 42
            This seaplane stands as a monument in the village of Taksimo, the pioneers of BAM. When landing on the lake, the pilot did not correctly calculate the height and the plane dug into the water. All on board were killed. This was in 1940. Already in our time, or rather in the 80s, if memory serves, it was raised from the bottom of the lake.
  5. 0
    4 August 2023 07: 18
    A seaplane is needed: and not only for the Navy. Lots of work in civilian life...
  6. +7
    4 August 2023 08: 35
    Stop criticizing our Ministry of Industry and Trade. He is fine. At least that's what Manturov says to Putin.

    By the way, what about our domestic aircraft engines in general ??? Not only pistons. "Baikal" when will it fly on a domestic engine?
  7. 0
    4 August 2023 09: 30
    Wherever you go, destruction is everywhere. Obviously, the regression continues to gain momentum. For the state, it seems that only ordinary people are offended, some kind of hopelessness from everything. About the actions / inaction of the authorities to discuss tired and useless.
  8. +3
    4 August 2023 10: 13
    There was an interesting project Be-112/114 for 2 turboprops, multi-purpose vehicles in neighboring sizes, it didn’t work ... But the Be-200 became a hostage to the engines, when the PD-8 goes into series, the production of the Be-200 will resume. With the development of helicopters, hydroaviation has passed, but it should be, and 2 models are needed, a light one, such as the Be-112, and a medium Be-200. Firefighters, Patrol, etc.
    1. +2
      4 August 2023 10: 20
      The dimension of the Be200 is similar to the SSG. And this means that after the localization of the UBe200, there will be the main avionics, turbojet engines and other systems for modernization and reloading.
  9. exo
    +3
    4 August 2023 10: 21
    As far as I remember, the only BE-200 of the Russian Navy crashed in Turkey while extinguishing fires. But abandoning amphibians is not a good idea. Especially having such a machine as the A-40, which did not go into series, but it could well close the anti-submarine aircraft niche when equipped with new equipment. Build for it, albeit outdated, but quite working D- 30, I don't think it will be a problem. As far as I know, the line for their production has been preserved. Or convert those that are in the D-30TKPV modification
    1. +3
      4 August 2023 11: 33
      The basic submarine aircraft must be made by analogy with the Americans from the Tu204 or MS21. To the maximum...
    2. +2
      4 August 2023 11: 53
      Everyone is waiting for the option using the PD-8.
    3. +3
      4 August 2023 12: 24
      Quote: exo
      As far as I remember, the only BE-200 of the Russian Navy crashed in Turkey while extinguishing fires.

      On 14.08.2021, a Be-200ChS (RF-88450, "yellow 20", "Alexander Mamkin") crashed in Turkey - the first of those commissioned under the contract in 2018.
      And in the MA Navy there are two Be-200PS:
      RF-88456, "yellow 21" - the second aircraft under the same contract.
      RF-88457, "yellow 23" - third aircraft under the same contract

      With RF-88456, by the way, there is one misunderstanding. In the russianplanes.net registry, it is listed as Be-200ChS. But under a contract with the Taganrog Defense Ministry, out of three Be-200s, only one was to be delivered in the Be-200ES version - the one that crashed in Turkey. The remaining two were in the Be-200PS version.
  10. +6
    4 August 2023 10: 33
    2. Search and rescue service. Indeed, a flying boat (LL) copes with this no worse than a helicopter, and the speed, range and carrying capacity of an LL is much higher than that of a helicopter.

    The main problem is landing on water in SMU in an unequipped area. For the weather in the ACP area is often bad. And the seaplane in this case will only increase the number of those who need rescue.
    We already had the best option: AN-12 PS - drop rafts + landing rescue boat.
    3. Anti-submarine service. You will say that ships and helicopters cope with this no worse, but what kind of ship can be 500 km north of the location within an hour and gurgle into the water of the GAS to find an enemy boat? Or seeding a huge area with sonar buoys in a short amount of time?

    A PLO aircraft based on a conventional serial pax will cope with this much better. Who will not need to engage in circus take-off and landing operations to release the GAS in the middle of Terra Incognita, while reducing the time of duty and losing contact with the RGAB (because VHF) during landing - he will simply take on more RGAB.
    All these mrii about the operation of the GAS from an amphibious aircraft on the high seas / ocean have been going on since the days of the USSR with its savings on buoys. Well, the Union could not get into the massive cheap RGAB.

    The main disadvantage of a seaplane is the lower weight return. Simply due to the weighting of the structure, which should provide two types of landing: on the chassis, and on the water. Essentially, the design of a seaplane must be able to withstand regular belly landings.
    The second problem is aerodynamics. For the bottom of the boat from her point of view is far from optimal.
    So it turns out that all this will have to exchange the radius or combat load.

    But there is also a third problem - basing. For a hydroaerodrome is an ordinary airfield with a concrete strip for landing heavy vehicles + a water part + taxiing connecting it all. In general, it’s an expensive pleasure, which you can’t even stick everywhere - because you need a closed bay of sufficient size for water take-off / landing, on the shore of which you can build a long strip next to the water.
    1. +2
      4 August 2023 10: 55
      They got ahead of me with the "debriefing" laughing hi
      OK. They wrote exactly what I wanted with a few exceptions.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The main problem is landing on water in SMU in an unequipped area. For the weather in the ACP area is often bad.

      The helicopter in this case can hover, take-transfer people and equipment to the rescue object.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The main minus seaplane - less weight return. Simply due to the weighting of the structure, which should provide two types of landing: on the chassis, and on the water.

      Then it is no longer a "clean" seaplane, but an amphibian. And why bother with a very complex amphibious system for the sake of the non-obvious advantages of landing on water.
      Well, about the "seasonality" of our country, I myself managed to write above laughing hi
      1. +5
        4 August 2023 12: 10
        Quote: Adrey
        Then it is no longer a "clean" seaplane, but an amphibian.

        Yes, you are right - an amphibian.
        A clean seaplane in our conditions will not work at all. For a patrolman should be able to fly 24/7/12. And on the water part of the hydroaerodrome, either waves, or ice, or divers are interested in how they can put a roll-out landing gear under a 35-ton carcass in water with a temperature of +4 degrees. smile
    2. 0
      4 August 2023 13: 36
      And Floating Foreign Objects. How are you going to fight them in the water area of ​​the hydroaerodrome? What is the takeoff / landing speed of the aircraft and what will an ordinary piece of wood do with it that turns out to be in the most interesting place? Let's remember the same fuel tank from Volga-Volga.
  11. +3
    4 August 2023 10: 37

    Russian Naval Aviation boasts FOUR flying boats Be-12. All that remains of 141 cars made since 1965. The most recent were made in 1973, that is, we can conclude in what condition they are. The machines are based in Kacha, that is, on the Black Sea. There are no amphibious aircraft in the aviation of other fleets.

    The Russian naval aviation also has a Be-200 at its disposal. ONE.


    But our oligarchs have 20 largest yachts, that's a reason for "pride".
  12. +3
    4 August 2023 11: 50
    Niche story. The number of seaplanes in 15-20 pieces against the background of the total number of air forces of different countries is scanty. It would not hurt us to fight fires (and how the submarine did not enter the military), we are waiting for the launch of the PD-8 in the series, and the remotorization of the Be-200 is just around the corner.
    I did not understand about the mouth of the Danube. Do you want to land troops on the water from a seaplane in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe coast guard and naval forces of the enemy?
  13. +2
    4 August 2023 12: 31
    The Russian naval aviation also has a Be-200 at its disposal. ONE.

    Two: RF-88456 and RF-88457.
    And more is not expected yet, since the RF Ministry of Defense terminated the contract with the Beriev TANTK for the construction of aircraft, but this is a separate issue altogether.

    Ne so it was, savsem ne so ... ©
    The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation terminated the first contract for 6 Be-200s - due to the fact that even after the shift to the right for three years, Taganrog did not even hand over the lead vehicle. And the case even went to court. A year later, the contract was renegotiated - already for 3 sides.
    ... in May 2013, the Russian Ministry of Defense signed with TANTK them. G.M. Beriev State contract for the supply of six Be-200 amphibious aircraft - two Be-200ChS aircraft and four modified Be-200PS search and rescue aircraft (without fire extinguishing function) to the Naval Aviation of the Russian Navy - with a total value of 8,4 billion rubles. The delivery was to be made under the terms of the contract in 2014-2016, however, the construction of aircraft under this contract (serial numbers 309, 310 and 351 to 354) at TANTK turned into a long-term construction and, in fact, according to known data, did not progress beyond the initial stage. In 2017, the Ministry of Defense terminated this contract. In August 2017, the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the claim of the Russian Ministry of Defense for the recovery of more than 6,726 billion rubles from PJSC Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex named after G.M. Beriev as an unworked advance payment under this contract.

    In 2018, the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a new contract with UAC for the supply of only three Be-200 aircraft to the Naval Aviation of the Navy - one in the Be-200ChS variant and two in the Be-200PS variant, the first of which was to be delivered in 2019.

    The first Be-200ES aircraft under this contract (tail number "20 yellow", serial number 311), built at TANTK, made its first flight in Taganrog on February 14, 2020, and on July 14 was transferred to the 190th training mixed aviation regiment of the 859th Center for combat training and retraining of the flight personnel of the Naval Aviation of the Russian Navy in Yeisk.
    © bmpd
  14. +1
    4 August 2023 12: 40
    In my opinion, the best seaplane design would be a catamaran-type twin-body aircraft. e.g. Italian Savoie-Market S-55
    1. +1
      5 August 2023 14: 44
      Lun-P Passenger ekranoplan (based on Spasatl-2) - RedStar
  15. +4
    4 August 2023 13: 15
    Given that one of the first decently flying boats in the world, the M-1 designed by Dmitry Grigorovich appeared in 1913

    This project appeared in 1913. And the boat in 1914. True, in 1912, hydroplane competitions were already held in Monaco, but they probably flew "indecently." Yes, and one more thing - the design of the M-1 is based on the French flying boat "Donnet-Leveque".
  16. +3
    4 August 2023 15: 10
    Bravura sad.
    But seaplanes are an extremely niche thing. As a patrol, it has no advantages over conventional aircraft. Only a fireman.
    Seaplanes made sense until there was a developed airfield network. And they are needed where there is a lot of water, but there are no airfields. The same Be-200 did not interest the same Indonesia. And she's on the islands. The reason is that there are airfields. No need.
    And the Moscow Region tried to support Taganrog. But the engines are from Zaporozhye. We'll see how ours will do.
    In general, Shoigu is almost the father of this aircraft. Without him, the vast majority of these machines would not exist.
    1. +1
      4 August 2023 15: 47
      About Indonesia, seaplanes are still used there. For 13 thousand islands (half inhabited) cannot be arranged in such a way that each has an airfield. Because the Dutch in the 20th century flew between the islands on seaplanes and still fly. They literally in 2019 signed a contract with Canadians for the supply of 6 new seaplanes, for example, for the Ministry of Defense.
  17. -2
    4 August 2023 17: 35
    But given the smallness of the aircraft produced, wouldn't it be better to convert an ordinary aircraft into a seaplane with the addition of floats or false hulls ??? C130 amphibious project example
    1. 0
      8 August 2023 12: 29

      I repeat, if exaggerated characteristics are not needed, then it is better to convert a normal aircraft into an amphibious one. For two colleagues who do not approve of this idea, I would prefer an explanation of the opposition to the project. hi
  18. 0
    4 August 2023 17: 50
    Of course, seaplanes are needed for Russia. I remember hundreds of AN-2s on floats were used on the Yenisei. The Be-200 is probably absolutely suitable for the Ministry of Emergency Situations, but for the Russian Navy this is another question. Maybe it also consists of imported parts and equipment. The engines on it are French. what
    Another question is whether it can be made a military aircraft. This is the installation of anti-submarine equipment, torpedoes, bombs, missiles, search and detection systems. Will its carrying capacity, speed, flight range be enough for this. If it is made entirely from domestic parts and all the necessary military weapons can be installed on it, then yes, it can be put into service.
    Each fleet needs at least three aircraft, two fly, one is under repair or maintenance. soldier
  19. -1
    4 August 2023 19: 23
    Projectionism and far-fetched reasons for returning to military hydroaviation.
    1. 0
      7 August 2023 09: 44
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Projectionism and far-fetched reasons for returning to military hydroaviation.

      The most interesting thing is that usually the cause of such return to previously rejected solutions is the banal "we can just produce it" - and the theoretical basis is already being laid down under the production capabilities.
      But with amphibious seaplanes, the problem is that we cannot make them. The history of the Be-200 is an example of this: contact with the Ministry of Emergency Situations was delayed for a couple of years, the first contract with the Ministry of Defense was torn off without handing over a single car, the second was delayed for a year. And now, due to the lack of engines from Boguslayev, it is impossible to build the Be-200 at all.
  20. +1
    4 August 2023 20: 58
    Don't look for complex answers when you already have simple ones, I command you!

    1) we now have few flying boats and only on the Black Sea - because the rest of the seas are freezing. And the Caspian is not required.
    2) the Chinese are more interested in this topic strictly because they do not freeze.

    Where is it easier?

    Hydroaviation is an extremely interesting thing in the segment of conditional air taxi (it can be military, but they have turntables) in warm latitudes.
    Tobish many small frequent short trips all year round, for the organization of which there is enough bay with breakwaters and some kind of pier.

    Where we now use a large fleet of seaplanes is completely incomprehensible. Well, except for the Syrian Express.
  21. 0
    20 August 2023 16: 59
    This is a good format for burning funds received from taxpayers. When everyone present understands that there will be returns from this - with a gulkin nose
  22. The comment was deleted.