Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Yak-130: News

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:18 am

    eehnie wrote:Just curious about the commented supersonic Yak-135. I'm a little surprised that a versión of the Yak-130 can become supersonic.


    Put engines with enough thrust on a locomotive and it will be supersonic.



    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1323
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:28 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Just curious about the commented supersonic Yak-135. I'm a little surprised that a versión of the Yak-130 can become supersonic.


    Put engines with enough thrust on a locomotive and it will be supersonic.




    But the rest of the design must resist them. It would be very interesting if the Yak-130 can do it.

    I think it would be possible to see Russia taking the supersonic version instead of the subsonic for new training aircrafts.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:10 am

    There is only one reason the Yak-130 is not supersonic... its non afterburning engines don't put out enough thrust.

    Putting in larger more powerful engines could easily have made it supersonic, but in the training role there are very few reasons to go supersonic.

    The thing is that larger more powerful engines would burn more fuel and shorten range and reduce the time in the air.

    take the two small engines out and put a big engine in like the latest RD-33 of the MiG-35 and you would have a supersonic aircraft... useful for a small fighter... not so much use for a lead in fighter trainer.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1323
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:25 am


    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:There is only one reason the Yak-130 is not supersonic... its non afterburning engines don't put out enough thrust.

    Putting in larger more powerful engines could easily have made it supersonic, but in the training role there are very few reasons to go supersonic.

    1,4Ma version of Yak-130 oops I mean L-15 Razz

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:43 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:There is only one reason the Yak-130 is not supersonic... its non afterburning engines don't put out enough thrust.

    Putting in larger more powerful engines could easily have made it supersonic, but in the training role there are very few reasons to go supersonic.

    1,4Ma version of Yak-130 oops I mean L-15  Razz


    And it use the same engine as Yak-130 with afterburner.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:55 am

    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.


    But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

    Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

    the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

    Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

    The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:54 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1323
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:06 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


    But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

    Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

    the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

    Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

    The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

    Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

    In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

    The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:55 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


    But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

    Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

    the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

    Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

    The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

    Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

    In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

    The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

    For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

    Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:13 am

    Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why?

    Speed does not make any aircraft safe, but in terms of effectiveness a plane that can get to a target faster and hit it earlier and then get back to base to rearm and refuel speed can be important.

    Speed wont make a small light fighter safe from being shot down by ground or air defences, but in an interceptor a faster... ie supersonic fighter can intercept targets further from their targets reducing the chance that those attack aircraft have already deployed their weapons (ie like anti ship missiles or land attack cruise missiles) and are on their way out of the area.

    Also in air to air combat being able to fly at supersonic speeds even just for short periods can allow a Yak-135 to climb to high altitude and fly at supersonic speed before launching an air to air missile greatly increasing its speed and range, compared with the same missile fired from lower altitude and lower speed.

    In the light attack role it means that though the aircraft might not be supersonic fully armed, it would allow a higher speed exit from the danger area.

    Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

    It is like tank armour... no level of speed (or armour) will make you completely safe and the question comes down to cost and role. A light recon unit can't afford to have heavy armour as it would slow it down, and you couldn't afford to have every vehicle in your land fleet with MBT level armour... the fuel costs alone would be crippling...

    For a fighter or a bomber having supersonic speed capability is useful SOMETIMES... there are likely some fighters and even bombers that never fly at top speed operationally because it takes time and fuel to reach top speed and few planes can maintain top speed for very long without using up all their fuel anyway.

    For a trainer there are no reasons to fly supersonic... it burns fuel and limits you manouver performance and makes you an easy target for an IR guided missile.

    In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

    The experience of supersonic flight consists of flying up to medium altitude and then going full AB for a few minutes... odds are most people would not notice the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight except by looking at the instruments. It is actually rather a non-event... and nothing you would actually need any training in.


    The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

    Fair enough.

    What I am trying to suggest is that there is no real training value in being able to break the speed of sound and in a trainer aircraft the value of supersonic flight is close to zero if not actually zero.

    Where supersonic speed becomes useful is in a small light aircraft with radar and self defence capability that could be used as both a trainer and a light fighter/bomber.

    In such a case supersonic speed even if it is very rarely used is useful when it is needed.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1323
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:05 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


    But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

    Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

    the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

    Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

    The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

    Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

    In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

    The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

    For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

    Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.


    Do you know that the most produced military trainer has been a supersonic trainer? I was surprised when I found it. The T-38 has been surely the most succesful of the military trainers until now, and is supersonic. Then, the idea of a supersonic trainer has at least some point.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:23 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


    But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

    Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

    the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

    Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

    The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

    Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

    In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

    The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

    For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

    Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.


    Do you know that the most produced military trainer has been a supersonic trainer? I was surprised when I found it. The T-38 has been surely the most succesful of the military trainers until now, and is supersonic. Then, the idea of a supersonic trainer has at least some point.

    Well aware of that, and its operational costs are basically same as of F5 Tiger which was mainstray fighter of many NATO countries for decades. Majority of trainers are subsonic only and it will be that way probably till the moment when manned aircraft disappear from our skies.

    Also i wouldnt call T38 most succesful advanced trainer till now, not even by a long shot, it was averagely present in service due to US influence. Far better service records have BAE Hawk, L-39 Albatros, L-29 Delfín.. hell even Aermacchi MB-326, which are all legends among trainer aircrafts. Imo T-37 Tweet was far better machine for that role than Talon.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1323
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:00 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

    A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


    But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

    Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

    the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

    Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

    The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

    Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

    In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

    The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

    For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

    Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.


    Do you know that the most produced military trainer has been a supersonic trainer? I was surprised when I found it. The T-38 has been surely the most succesful of the military trainers until now, and is supersonic. Then, the idea of a supersonic trainer has at least some point.

    Well aware of that, and its operational costs are basically same as of F5 Tiger which was mainstray fighter of many NATO countries for decades. Majority of trainers are subsonic only and it will be that way probably till the moment when manned aircraft disappear from our skies.

    Also i wouldnt call T38 most succesful advanced trainer till now, not even by a long shot, it was averagely present in service due to US influence. Far better service records have BAE Hawk, L-39 Albatros, L-29 Delfín.. hell even Aermacchi MB-326, which are all legends among trainer aircrafts. Imo T-37 Tweet was far better machine for that role than Talon.


    It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

    To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

    I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:13 am



    It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

    To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

    I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.

    Doesnt matter which one was the first, doesnt change fact T38 as a pure trainer had same operating costs as real fighter which doesnt really make any sense whatsoever, not even by a long shot.

    Also you confused something there, F5 was produced in over 2000 pieces while T38 was produced in somewhat over 1000 examples. And its nowhere near being the most produced advanced trainer, L-29 Delfín was produced in over 3.500 examples probably near 4000, L-39 Albatros almost 3000. If we merge production of BAE Hawk and T-45 Goshawk (as they are same design) we have again more than T38, with side note that Hawk is to be produced for at least another decade probably more. Lockheed T-33 was made in thousands, probably over 6.000, Yugoslavia alone operated 125.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1323
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:48 am

    Militarov wrote:


    It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

    To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

    I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.

    Doesnt matter which one was the first, doesnt change fact T38 as a pure trainer had same operating costs as real fighter which doesnt really make any sense whatsoever, not even by a long shot.

    Also you confused something there, F5 was produced in over 2000 pieces while T38 was produced in somewhat over 1000 examples. And its nowhere near being the most produced advanced trainer, L-29 Delfín was produced in over 3.500 examples probably near 4000, L-39 Albatros almost 3000. If we merge production of BAE Hawk and T-45 Goshawk (as they are same design) we have again more than T38, with side note that Hawk is to be produced for at least another decade probably more. Lockheed T-33 was made in thousands, probably over 6.000, Yugoslavia alone operated 125.


    It maters in this sense. It is not right to call F-5 to the T-38. The original design was a trainer aircraft. The T-38 is not a fighter modified, while the F-5 is a trainer aircraft modified to be a fighter. The T-38 is not supersonic because it was developed from a fighter. The T-38 was designed supersonic to be a trainer, and has been successful.

    From what I know the number of 2000 is for both, the T-38 and the F-5, with about 1175 T-38s and 925 F-5s (aproximately). Also, I think you are including in the numbers for the other trainers, aircrafts of versions for civil use.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 889
    Points : 1051
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:16 pm

    Sales of the Yak-130 jet trainer are expected to make their way to a number of Latin American countries according to Anatoly Punchuk, the deputy director of the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation. It is hoped that the combat training aircraft is selected as a number of air forces plan to renew their current fleets of flight equipment. Punchuk's comments were made as he participated in the FIDAE-2016 arms exhibition in Chile, where foreign experts were allowed to test the aircraft for themselves.


    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160330/1037188523/russia-chile-fidae-yak-130.html


    i hope that its the armed version they are planning on buying, South American air forces have some pretty outdated aircraft, i have always said the Yak-130 would be ideal for poorer countries especially South America and African countries. I wonder if we will see any sales to Africa and South east Asia.

    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 889
    Points : 1051
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:55 am

    a nice pic of Yak-130 with what could be laser rangefinder and TV camera or other targeting systems.

    and a nice couple of older articles on the Yak-130

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-yak-130-fighter-the-tiny-terror-nato-should-13782

    http://warisboring.com/articles/this-tiny-russian-plane-has-a-ridiculous-amount-of-weapons/



    Last edited by d_taddei2 on Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:56 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : pic)
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:04 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:


    It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

    To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

    I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.

    Doesnt matter which one was the first, doesnt change fact T38 as a pure trainer had same operating costs as real fighter which doesnt really make any sense whatsoever, not even by a long shot.

    Also you confused something there, F5 was produced in over 2000 pieces while T38 was produced in somewhat over 1000 examples. And its nowhere near being the most produced advanced trainer, L-29 Delfín was produced in over 3.500 examples probably near 4000, L-39 Albatros almost 3000. If we merge production of BAE Hawk and T-45 Goshawk (as they are same design) we have again more than T38, with side note that Hawk is to be produced for at least another decade probably more. Lockheed T-33 was made in thousands, probably over 6.000, Yugoslavia alone operated 125.


    It maters in this sense. It is not right to call F-5 to the T-38. The original design was a trainer aircraft. The T-38 is not a fighter modified, while the F-5 is a trainer aircraft modified to be a fighter. The T-38 is not supersonic because it was developed from a fighter. The T-38 was designed supersonic to be a trainer, and has been successful.

    From what I know the number of 2000 is for both, the T-38 and the F-5, with about 1175 T-38s and 925 F-5s (aproximately). Also, I think you are including in the numbers for the other trainers, aircrafts of versions for civil use.

    Very few reactive engine trainers ever were built for civilian use. They were mostly obtained by civilians via surplus sales after they served some time in armed forces, let alone that some major numbers were sold on market for civilians.

    Na, numbers are separate actually. Just South Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, Turkey and Taiwan operated more than 1000.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:10 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:a nice pic of Yak-130 with what could be laser rangefinder and TV camera or other targeting systems.

    and a nice couple of older articles on the Yak-130

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-yak-130-fighter-the-tiny-terror-nato-should-13782

    http://warisboring.com/articles/this-tiny-russian-plane-has-a-ridiculous-amount-of-weapons/


    Yes its laser rangefinder.






    There is another variant with it too, which probably grew to be this one above.



    Its also mentioned in this video
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:22 pm

    I believe salt-25 is supposed to work on Yak-130, not just Su-25SM3. So thermal imaging/tv sensors too.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:25 pm

    sepheronx wrote:I believe salt-25 is supposed to work on Yak-130, not just Su-25SM3. So thermal imaging/tv sensors too.

    Most likely yes.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:54 pm



    Night fly.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:37 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    It maters in this sense. It is not right to call F-5 to the T-38. The original design was a trainer aircraft. The T-38 is not a fighter modified, while the F-5 is a trainer aircraft modified to be a fighter. The T-38 is not supersonic because it was developed from a fighter. The T-38 was designed supersonic to be a trainer, and has been successful.

    From what I know the number of 2000 is for both, the T-38 and the F-5, with about 1175 T-38s and 925 F-5s (aproximately). Also, I think you are including in the numbers for the other trainers, aircrafts of versions for civil use.[/quote]

    Very few reactive engine trainers ever were built for civilian use. They were mostly obtained by civilians via surplus sales after they served some time in armed forces, let alone that some major numbers were sold on market for civilians.

    Na, numbers are separate actually. Just South Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, Turkey and Taiwan operated more than 1000.[/quote]

    I guess KAI T-50 and Chinese L-15 are supersonic not due need for trainer to be supersonic but heavily promotes as light attack plane... BTW this shows also that Yak-130 attack/fighter version can be supersonic (aka Yak-135)

    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Viktor on Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:23 pm

    New contract thumbsup

    VKS Russia will receive 30 training aircraft Yak-130 until the end of 2018
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:12 pm

    Viktor wrote:New contract  thumbsup

    VKS Russia will receive 30 training aircraft Yak-130 until the end of 2018

    WTF Ulukayev made a provocation or this is clear sabotage of Russian interests?!!!

    Russian Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said that France's Airbus company had shown interest in buying a stake in Russian helicopters.
    http://sputniknews.com/business/20160415/1038097215/russia-helicopters-privatization.html

    Sponsored content

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:45 am