Be-200ES For Russian Navy - First Flight
 

"In May 2013, Russia’s defence ministry ordered six Be-200s in a deal worth 8.4bn rubles (US$268m). The first two will be basic Be-200ES (Be-200ChS) and will include a firefighting function. The remaining four will be Be-200PS variants which will lack the aerial firefighting capability. In service, the aircraft will have multiple roles, including search and rescue (SAR), maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and cargo/passenger transport."

"For SAR operations, the basic aircraft is equipped with the Airborne Observation System (AOS) from Israel Aerospace Industries’ Tamam Division, including a thermal TV turret installed under the wing; it is also capable of carrying up to 57 survivors/passengers in seats or up to 30 stretcher patients.'

Replaces the 7 remaining Be-12 out of 136 built.

https://www.key.aero/article/first-b...s-first-flight

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....22c53e0579.jpg

Interesting aircraft. Are they still using Progress D-436 engines?

What are NATO calling it ... 'Muppet'' ...?

Russian MoD cancelled that order in 2016 and all aircraft were re-routed to "Russian FEMA" (emergency mngt ministry). The final one was delivered a year ago: http://www.ato.ru/content/mchs-rossii-poluchilo-posledniy-be-200

Then in 2018, the Russian MoD changed their mind back and ordered Be-200 again. I think the one in the photo above is the first one in that order, in its maiden flight a few days ago https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3932776.html

The Porpoise?

Actually I quite like it - a typically functional, no-nonsense Russian design.

The Porpoise?
 

I quite like it too, I see it as an ideal replacement for the old Be-12 Mail.
My comment was in part a dig at NATO which seems to have given up on the very useful naming convention for Russian equipment.
Now that the old Air Standardisation Coordinating Committee, which allocated the names, has ceased to exist, it would seem to me that there is scope for something else to replace it.

The BE-200 would have had a two syllable word beginning with M ... in the old days.
'Muppet' was tongue-in-the-cheek.
.

Looks quite smart - but do they land on that u/c? or is just for taxing... v little clearance there - forget to pump up the tyres and you get a nasty scraping noise......

The planing surface looks quite minimalist, but I accept Be are very experienced in this respect.

With half-closed eyes, there’s a touch of ATR about it (exempt engine arrangement of course)

perhaps, just perhaps, someone with a brain an order of magnitude bigger than yours has already considered that and found the design perfectly acceptable as it is?

Given that it's Russian and probably built like a brick outhouse, an undercarriage is probably an optional extra but the aircraft could land quite safely without it :E

IG.

It would seem logical that the Be-200 would continue with the Mermaid code name from the Beriev A-40/A-42. I would imagine that it would be assigned a Mermaid code name with a letter suffix. Mermaid B?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-40

NATO has nothing to do with the code names. NATO is simply on the distribution list. ASCC (Air Standardization Coordinating Committee) was formed in 1948 with US, UK and Canada. Australia and New Zealand joined later. ASIC (Air and Space Interoperability Council) took over from ASCC during 2005. ASIC then transitioned into AFIC (Air Force Interoperability Council) and now Five Eyes AFIC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_E...bility_Council

A40 and Be200 arent the same aircraft, are they?

Like saying a 747 is a 707-500.

This reminds me of the AN-72 COALER which also had over wing mounted engines.

They have been around for quite a few years.

Mermaid-B
 

Hi TEEEJ,

The ‘Mermaid -B’ name would seem to fit, but who is going to authorise it?

Thanks for the interesting links.

I am well aware that the ‘code names’ are not originated by NATO, and are/were simply used by them as NATO Reporting Names.
The ‘dig’ was to see if there was any interest in NATO giving AFIC a nudge to get them reintroduced.
I searched the Five Eyes site and saw a great deal about interoperability.

But …
Nothing in there about allocating reporting names (or codenames/nicknames) to Russian/Chinese military equipment.
ASCC used to do it, ASIC let it die and AFIC have not taken over the task.

An obvious candidate for this would be the ISR Working Group however, as far as I am aware it is not being done by anyone …

Am I alone in thinking that it should still be done?

Thank you sir for your considered and polite response to a genuine question - I wish you well.

That is an elegant machine!

Best reply to a troll I've seen in ages. Trumpet trousers its always worth considering that being polite costs you nothing whereas not being so will definitely cost you your credibility.

I'd like to offer a suggestion for a nickname: Catalinaski.
Or a Catalinajetski ... :8
As I look at it, I get all nostalgic for the Catalnia that used to sit in front of an Admirals' HQ (CNATRA) years ago ... but it's been replaced.

HAS59, No problem. Thanks for the reply.

Rumour control is that AFIC has restarted the codenames.

Su-57 reported as FELON
T-50 (Su-57 prototypes) reported as FRAZOR

Reported in the following link.

https://t-intell.com/2019/11/07/nato...russias-su-57/

It will be interesting to see if a codename is allocated to Chinese J-20.

A source to keep an eye on is US Government Congress Hearing docs where the codenames are sometimes used.

For example the Chinese AEW KJ2000 has been allocated MAINRING. It also mentions FIREBIRD which will be the J-10. As of 2014 no codenames listed for Y20 heavy lift transport or Y9 medium-lift transport.

https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/f...030%202014.pdf