Yak-130: News

Has anyone heard where the 3rd regiment of Yak-130's will be stationed?

I would think Tikhoretsk but have seen nothing yet.

If yakolev makes a light multirole version  of yak-130 (combine Yak-133 and yak-135) with supersonic ( >M1.8 ) single seat, AESA radar (with R-77, Kh-31a/p, Kh-35...) , price (under 25 millions USD) will be execellent. I think it will a hot aircraft in the world market!

Hi has anyone heard if there is any progress of producing/marketing a Yak-130 multi role attack aircraft seems such a great idea and niche in the market, it seems many countries are turning to light strike aircraft for COIN duties and ranging from jet powered to turboprop, but i think the super Tucano has pretty much won the turboprop market and why not its actually pretty good, but for the jet powered market it still seems nobody has fully won the markt share yet, and Russia isnt even in the market. Russia has got everything at its fingertips to enter every market except turboprop COIN aircraft, if it was to get a move on and start producing armed Yak-130 versions they could very well dominate this niche in the market. South American, central American, African, central Asia, S/E Asia, South Asia, and the Philippines is the potential areas of sale which is a huge market. From selling the more advanced fighters from Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, Mig-35, aircraft to the cheaper option of Mig-29SMT/M2, and various attack heli's of Mi-28, Ka-52, Mi-24/35, and
Mi-171Sh, there is something for every country and budget. Theirs even opportunity for light attack heli if yet again if Russia start push forward the Kazan Ansat-2RC armed version of Ansat. Another market for them is to push the sale of refurbished and upgraded Su-25, Su-24, Su-27, Mig-31. As well as offering upgrades to Mig-29, and other Soviet era aircraft. I always feel Russia doesnt try to expand its market to other countries and instead stays with current countries.

Another area to push is wheeled armoured vehicles such as Tigr-M, BPM-97, Gaz Vodnik etc. another growing market.

The main problem for Russia is that countries with lots of money to spend are not around in large numbers and those that do exist already have existing suppliers.

Russia lost most of its Soviet Market for weapons when the Soviet Union broke up and lost half of its European market when the Warsaw Pact broke up.

With the end of the Cold War Russia was left with a clientèle of countries used to politically motivated sales based on loans that were rarely if ever paid back... no way to run a business.

More importantly the products they used to sell tended to be simple and robust but also rather cheap.

It made them easy to use easy to maintain and effective in situations where more complicated things tended to fail... it also made them cheap for poorer countries.

New Russian hardware is actually rather sophisticated and even the factories to make the new hardware are sophisticated and capable but also more expensive.

Not every country can justify spending on an unproven potential aircraft like a fighter version of the Yak-130... we can speculate on here about how useful such an aircraft might be but that costs us nothing.

If most countries had any real brains exports of Su-25 would be like the exports of MiG-21s.... and they are not.

The Su-25 would be a much more practical aircraft for the vast majority of smaller airforces around the world that might buy Russian aircraft but instead they go for shiny fast MiGs and now Sukhoi Flanker based aircraft.

A brand new Su-25 with new ceramic armour and composite materials... increased onboard fuel, the longer barrel twin 30mm cannon from the Hind (GSh-30-2K with higher muzzle velocity and slightly lower rate of fire) and new engines based perhaps on RD-33s without the ABs would be rather more interesting in my opinion.

Especially if it had the sensors and optics and radar developed for the new attack helos currently in service and entering service soon.

Wider wings with more hard points able to carry multiple weapons (like an 8 weapon Hermes pylon like the current Vikhr setup), and a wider fuselage with belly points for weapons and targeting pods.

GarryB wrote:The main problem for Russia is that countries with lots of money to spend are not around in large numbers and those that do exist already have existing suppliers.

Russia lost most of its Soviet Market for weapons when the Soviet Union broke up and lost half of its European market when the Warsaw Pact broke up.

With the end of the Cold War Russia was left with a clientèle of countries used to politically motivated sales based on loans that were rarely if ever paid back... no way to run a business.

More importantly the products they used to sell tended to be simple and robust but also rather cheap.

It made them easy to use easy to maintain and effective in situations where more complicated things tended to fail... it also made them cheap for poorer countries.

New Russian hardware is actually rather sophisticated and even the factories to make the new hardware are sophisticated and capable but also more expensive.

Not every country can justify spending on an unproven potential aircraft like a fighter version of the Yak-130... we can speculate on here about how useful such an aircraft might be but that costs us nothing.

If most countries had any real brains exports of Su-25 would be like the exports of MiG-21s.... and they are not.

The Su-25 would be a much more practical aircraft for the vast majority of smaller airforces around the world that might buy Russian aircraft but instead they go for shiny fast MiGs and now Sukhoi Flanker based aircraft.

A brand new Su-25 with new ceramic armour and composite materials... increased onboard fuel, the longer barrel twin 30mm cannon from the Hind (GSh-30-2K with higher muzzle velocity and slightly lower rate of fire) and new engines based perhaps on RD-33s without the ABs would be rather more interesting in my opinion.

Especially if it had the sensors and optics and radar developed for the new attack helos currently in service and entering service soon.

Wider wings with more hard points able to carry multiple weapons (like an 8 weapon Hermes pylon like the current Vikhr setup), and a wider fuselage with belly points for weapons and targeting pods.

some valid points and thanks for replying.

I agree Su-25 would be ideal for smaller air forces but i think it would be better to have a mix of Su-25, Mig-29SMT/M2, Mi-24/35, Mi-17, these four would cover just about everything they would need, Mi-17 has loads variants such as medivac, SAR, armed assault, and of course transport,
the Mi-24/35 is a versatile attack gunship and can carry out every role any other attack heli can but has the added bonus of acting as back up light transport and ideal for insertion of Special forces. The Su-25 a rugged reliable, ground support back this up with the Mi-24/35 and ground troops have some real good fire support. and finally the Mig-29SMT/M2 is cheap reliable, and is brilliant at dogfights, so this would take care of enemy aircraft, bolster air defence, keep the skies clear for the Su-25 and MI-24/35 to do their thing, and can even be used to bomb enemy structures. The beauty about all four is there reliability, ruggedness, versatility and cheap price (compared to others). Small air forces often need one piece of equipment to be able to do many functions and i think the above four versatility is a key strength and of course all are fit for purpose. There is no denying all are capable and carry out their duties well.

A supersonic Yak-130 with a light but modern radar could be useful for small but not that poor countries (like Uruguay or most countries of former Yugoslavia), a very compact and light but fully combat-capable multifunctional plane which is also an advanced trainer. Only the Koreans went for this concept so far, though, with their TA/FA-50, and got some foreign orders (the Philippines and, if I am not mistaken, Indonesia).
Su-25, on the other hand, is too especialized. It is extremely armored, heavy, slow, short-ranged, purely visual (though this can be remediated with a poded radar, as it was proposed for the Su-39). It isn't suitable even for many strike missions.

The Su-25 is a CAS aircraft that is designed to operate over a front line... lighter more expensive types just wont cut it.

The US tried to replace the A-10 with an A-16 and now an A-35 but they will simply fail.

A MiG-29SMT with bombs is never going to be flying supersonically on an attack mission so the fact that an Su-25 will also be subsonic means that it is not too slow for the mission... which includes finding the target and then attacking it.

Many aircraft companies tout their LIFTS as replacements for CAS aircraft but tests are performed and they fail.

Operating from airstrips near the front line is critical if you want to spend most of your flight time in the right airspace. Operating there and not being able to take some small arms fire means you cant cut it.

The Solution is not faster or lighter armoured...

GarryB wrote:The Su-25 is a CAS aircraft that is designed to operate over a front line... lighter more expensive types just wont cut it.

The US tried to replace the A-10 with an A-16 and now an A-35 but they will simply fail.

A MiG-29SMT with bombs is never going to be flying supersonically on an attack mission so the fact that an Su-25 will also be subsonic means that it is not too slow for the mission... which includes finding the target and then attacking it.

Many aircraft companies tout their LIFTS as replacements for CAS aircraft but tests are performed and they fail.

Operating from airstrips near the front line is critical if you want to spend most of your flight time in the right airspace. Operating there and not being able to take some small arms fire means you cant cut it.

The Solution is not faster or lighter armoured...

The war in Ukraine shows clearly which can be the future of the combat concept of the Su-25 and the A-10.

eehnie wrote:The war in Ukraine shows clearly which can be the future of the combat concept of the Su-25 and the A-10.

A lot of Ukrainian heavily armored Su-25 were shot down by manpads and anti air guns in combat so for sure light attack aircrafts like Yak-130 will be not able to survive there.

A lot of Ukrainian heavily armored Su-25 were shot down by manpads and anti air guns in combat so for sure light attack aircrafts like Yak-130 will be not able to survive there.

Those aircraft had primitive self defence suites... no DIRCMS, no towed decoys... and had little or no SEAD support or guided munitions.

An upgraded Su-25SM3 will not only have better self defence capability but will also be much more potent at accurately hitting even small targets from stand off distances or even at night when it will be much safer from enemy fire.

kopyo-21 wrote:

eehnie wrote:The war in Ukraine shows clearly which can be the future of the combat concept of the Su-25 and the A-10.

A lot of Ukrainian heavily armored Su-25 were shot down by manpads and anti air guns in combat so for sure light attack aircrafts like Yak-130 will be not able to survive there.

A light supersonic Yak-130 for export with capabilities of Ground Attack need to be able to the the job at enough distance to avoid the manpads. This is the alone option for manned aircrafts to survive in the future despite what GarryB says. Aircrafts like the Su-25 and the A-10 only can work and survive today in scenarios with very low or zero density of manpads, like the current war of Syria.

Personally I appreciate more the training features of a small supersonic development of the Yak-130.

Yak-130 could already made attacks outside from the range of MANPADs with using TV guided KAB-500Kr bomb and by using satellite navigation complex GLONASS in similar way as SVP-24 for precision attacks. Upgraded Yak-130 will be as well equipped with SOLT targeting complex and with data link to work in network and will have wingtip ESM pods.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/84933/

RuAF receive 4 more Yak-130 trainers. I wonder, when will RuNAVY receive their trainers.

Yak-130 could already made attacks outside from the range of MANPADs with using TV guided KAB-500Kr bomb and by using satellite navigation complex GLONASS in similar way as SVP-24 for precision attacks. Upgraded Yak-130 will be as well equipped with SOLT targeting complex and with data link to work in network and will have wingtip ESM pods.

The fact is that anything you can put on an Yak-130 to make it a CAS aircraft you can already put on the Su-25 and the latter aircraft actually has armour in case it manages to get within small arms fire of the enemy.

In other words anything that you can put on to the Yak you can put on the Su but also the Su-25SM3 already has the self defence equipment like President-S to stop MANPADS... adding the system they use to detect optics on the ground would also be a huge step towards stopping laser beam riding missiles.

At the end of the day replacing the CAS aircraft with light LIFT trainers and drones is flawed.

It wont be cheaper if they are too vulnerable to do their job. If it is a suicide mission then will will always cost an aircraft... using guided munitions and stand off sensors then you are better using medium aircraft like MiG-35 with targeting pods... or even better large heavy aircraft like Bears and Backfires that can loiter for hours with a heavy load of a range of weapons ready to deploy when the target pops its head up...

The thing is that big heavy aircraft are expensive and there are not that many of them and the ordinance they deploy is not cheap either.

A Su-25 can operate from a nearby air strip out in the wop wops and deliver direct fire against enemy positions using cheap rockets and bombs and guns.

GarryB wrote:

Yak-130 could already made attacks outside from the range of MANPADs with using TV guided KAB-500Kr bomb and by using satellite navigation complex GLONASS in similar way as SVP-24 for precision attacks. Upgraded Yak-130 will be as well equipped with SOLT targeting complex and with data link to work in network and will have wingtip ESM pods.

The fact is that anything you can put on an Yak-130 to make it a CAS aircraft you can already put on the Su-25 and the latter aircraft actually has armour in case it manages to get within small arms fire of the enemy.

In other words anything that you can put on to the Yak you can put on the Su but also the Su-25SM3 already has the self defence equipment like President-S to stop MANPADS... adding the system they use to detect optics on the ground would also be a huge step towards stopping laser beam riding missiles.

At the end of the day replacing the CAS aircraft with light LIFT trainers and drones is flawed.

It wont be cheaper if they are too vulnerable to do their job. If it is a suicide mission then will will always cost an aircraft... using guided munitions and stand off sensors then you are better using medium aircraft like MiG-35 with targeting pods... or even better large heavy aircraft like Bears and Backfires that can loiter for hours with a heavy load of a range of weapons ready to deploy when the target pops its head up...

The thing is that big heavy aircraft are expensive and there are not that many of them and the ordinance they deploy is not cheap either.

A Su-25 can operate from a nearby air strip out in the wop wops and deliver direct fire against enemy positions using cheap rockets and bombs and guns.

True, but Su-25 is no more in production while Yak-130 is. For export, many customers will get an excellent trainer as well as very capable CAS plane in Yak-130, specially if they buy it equipped with SOLT and data link complexes. Yak-130 is also very agile jet and is a good basis to produce light fighter if they install AI-222 engines with afterburners like L-15 or replace them with 1 RD-93 engine. Such Yak-130 fighter will be no worse than JF-17 or Tejas.

Yandex translate from bmpd. Lots more pictures (full sizeable) at link.

The first Yak-130 for the Russian space forces in 2016

October 23rd, 2:35

As reported, on 22 October 2016 from Irkutsk to Armavir flew the first four combat training aircraft Yak-130, built by the Irkutsk aviation plant JSC "Corporation "Irkut" and transferred to the Russian space forces in 2016 - aircraft with red tail number "40" (serial number 1308), and "41" (serial number 1309), "42" (the serial number 1310) and "43" (serial number 1311). The aircraft operates flights with intermediate landings in Novosibirsk (Tolmachevo) and Chelyabinsk (shagol) and must enter in the composition of the 200 th aviation training base in Armavir (Krasnodar Krai), providing training restored the Krasnodar higher military aviation school of pilots (KWAME) named after A. K. Serov.

These four aircraft, apparently, are the first to be built under the new contract for the supply of Russian air force until the end of 2018, 30 Yak-130 signed by the Ministry of defense of Russia and JSC "Corporation "Irkut" in April 2016.

With the transfer of the Russian space forces of these four aircraft Yak-130 total number of serial machines of this type, delivered to the Ministry of defense of Russia has reached 83 units, 12 of them the first two series were constructed by JSC "Nizhny Novgorod aircraft plant "Sokol", and 71 - at the Irkutsk aviation plant. Currently, the composition of the 209-th training air base in Borisoglebsk KWAME are 42 Yak-130 (including eight virtually unexploited machines Nizhny Novgorod construction), and in the 200th aviation training base in Armavir KWAME considering departing there on 22 October 2016 number of aircraft Yak-130 will reach 34 (previously obtained from November 2014 to January 2016 30 planes have red tail numbers from "51" to "80"). Training flights of cadets on the Yak-130 in Armavir began in may 2016.

True, but Su-25 is no more in production while Yak-130 is.

Arguably if you were going to put it back into production the best version would be the two seat model made in Russia as there is more internal volume for extra items and systems and fuel.

For export, many customers will get an excellent trainer as well as very capable CAS plane in Yak-130, specially if they buy it equipped with SOLT and data link complexes. Yak-130 is also very agile jet and is a good basis to produce light fighter if they install AI-222 engines with afterburners like L-15 or replace them with 1 RD-93 engine. Such Yak-130 fighter will be no worse than JF-17 or Tejas.

And that is the classic mistake.

For the CAS role and the lead in fighter trainer role extra speed is worse than bad... it would be a huge step backwards.

Putting a more powerful engine in the aircraft will reduce range and internal volume for equipment not normally carried in a jet trainer... like a full ESM suite, or armour.

The only version that would benefit from such an upgrade would be the fighter model... and to be honest you would be rather better off just spending a little more money and buying MiG=29Ms or Su-30s.

Let the Yak be a good LIFT and leave the CAS to either aircraft designed for the role or drones.

To clarify the whole basis of using Yak-130s instead of heavier aircraft is their light low cost designs.

Start putting bigger more powerful engines on board them and you might as well use those heavier aircraft... whose only failing was higher operating cost per hour.

Yak-130 as trainer is good enough as it is. No need for changes. But Yak-130 is on other hand excellent basis for light combat planes, which would be single seaters, what also mean more fuel for more powerful engine(s). There is a market for such lighter jets as not everyone want larger fighters as MiG-29/35, Rafale, F/A-18 or F-16. In light class there are South Korean FA-50, Indian Tejas, Pakistani JF-17 and super expensive Gripen from Sweden. There are a lot of light fighters MiG-21 and F-5 to be replaced around the World. This doesn't mean, that a combat jet based on Yak-130 will replace MiG-35 or Su-25 in RuAF, but could be produced specially for export. Maybe even some ex-USSR republics could buy them as Armenia or some of Stans.

medo wrote:Yak-130 as trainer is good enough as it is. No need for changes. But Yak-130 is on other hand excellent basis for light combat planes, which would be  single seaters, what also mean more fuel for more powerful engine(s). There is a market for such lighter jets as not everyone want larger fighters as MiG-29/35, Rafale, F/A-18 or F-16. In light class there are South Korean FA-50, Indian Tejas, Pakistani JF-17 and super expensive Gripen from Sweden. There are a lot of light fighters MiG-21 and F-5 to be replaced around the World. This doesn't mean, that a combat jet based on Yak-130 will replace MiG-35 or Su-25 in RuAF, but could be produced specially for export. Maybe even some ex-USSR republics could buy them as Armenia or some of Stans.

Current Yak-130's one fligh hour for training is ~USD 8,000 and not quite cheap. Equipping it with new more powerfull engines, reforce the airframe, new sightings, etc, will cost much more that.

kopyo-21 wrote:

medo wrote:Yak-130 as trainer is good enough as it is. No need for changes. But Yak-130 is on other hand excellent basis for light combat planes, which would be  single seaters, what also mean more fuel for more powerful engine(s). There is a market for such lighter jets as not everyone want larger fighters as MiG-29/35, Rafale, F/A-18 or F-16. In light class there are South Korean FA-50, Indian Tejas, Pakistani JF-17 and super expensive Gripen from Sweden. There are a lot of light fighters MiG-21 and F-5 to be replaced around the World. This doesn't mean, that a combat jet based on Yak-130 will replace MiG-35 or Su-25 in RuAF, but could be produced specially for export. Maybe even some ex-USSR republics could buy them as Armenia or some of Stans.

Current Yak-130's one fligh hour for training is ~USD 8,000 and not quite cheap. Equipping it with new more powerfull engines, reforce the airframe, new sightings, etc, will cost much more that.

The costs must be analized in relative terms. In the short term the Russian pilots will have training in 3 steps:

- Yak-152
- Yak-130
- Trainer variants of the combat aircrafts

Obviously the cost by fligh hour of the Yak-152 is lower than the cost of the Yak-130, and the cost of for the Yak-130, is lower than the cost of the training variants of the combat aircrafts.

Despite to have higher cost by fligh hour than the current Yak-130, a new trainer variant of the Yak-130 as example supersonic can lead to lower overall costs if it replaces some fligh hours of the training variants of the combat aircrafts.

PS: For me, it seems difficult the introduction of a new step beatween the Yak-152 and the Yak-130.

Video of new Yak-130 from the second batch in Belarus. Interesting is the claim of Belarus general, that basic Yak-130 trainer have the same capabilities with precision bombing with unguided bombs from high altitude as SVP-24 complex have and Yak-130 also use TV guided KAB-500Kr bombs and together with ECM and chaff and flares pods it is still quite capable jet for operations like in Syria.

Three Yak-130 went to Armavir

As reported by spotters, on November 26th, 2016 from Irkutsk to Armavir flew three combat training aircraft Yak-130, built by the Irkutsk Aviation Plant PJSC "Corporation" Irkut "and sent to VKS Russia - planes with the red hull numbers" 44 "(serial number 1312 ), "45" (serial number 1313) and "46" (serial number 1314). Planes depart with a stopover in Novosibirsk (Tolmachevo) and Chelyabinsk (Shagol) and must be received in the 200th training air base in Armavir (Krasnodar region).



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2286023.html