Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Yak-130: News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:31 am

    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 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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1139
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:51 pm

    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.

    kopyo-21
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 63
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  kopyo-21 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:57 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:21 pm

    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.



    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1139
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:07 pm

    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.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:15 pm

    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.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:35 pm

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

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

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:17 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:26 am

    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.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4193
    Points : 4250
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:32 pm

    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.


    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:52 am


    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.


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:54 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:42 pm

    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.

    kopyo-21
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 63
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  kopyo-21 on Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:26 pm

    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.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1139
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:23 am

    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.

    kopyo-21
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 63
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  kopyo-21 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:54 am

    I think they should consider SR-10 as intermediate step between Yak-152 and Yak-130. Its flight cost is USD 2,800 vs 8,000 of Yak-130.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1139
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:14 pm

    kopyo-21 wrote:I think they should consider SR-10 as intermediate step between Yak-152 and Yak-130. Its flight cost is USD 2,800 vs 8,000 of Yak-130.

    To be a cost effective measure it should replace training fligh hours of the Yak-130 because the Yak-152 has lower operational costs still. I'm not sure if the SR-10 has enough maneuverability for it.

    kopyo-21
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 63
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  kopyo-21 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:59 pm

    eehnie wrote:To be a cost effective measure it should replace training fligh hours of the Yak-130 because the Yak-152 has lower operational costs still. I'm not sure if the SR-10 has enough maneuverability for it.

    SR-10 has ability to maneuver from -4 to + 10 g-load accordingly the producer. However not sure if its design matured enough to go to production & operation.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:38 am

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

    From what I have read the L-29 is already in that step between turboprop aircraft and LIFT, so there is no new step... just the substitution of a Russian plane for a foreign plane.

    Obviously they could have dozens of steps each slightly higher and more expensive in the training of pilots, but going from a propeller driven single engine trainer to a front line fighter is too big a step and needs to be broken down.

    The Yak-130 offers experience with high manouver capability, and twin engine management, and of course can train in advanced navigation and weapon training for rather less than the operational aircraft will cost which saves money and also reduces hours added to expensive air frames.

    Keep in mind that flight simulation training will also be used to help the pilots with their training, but a replacement for the basic jet trainer... the L29, means the transition from a propeller driven single engine aircraft to a twin engined jet can be performed on a cheaper lighter aircraft that might not have sophisticated flight performance or advanced avionics, but at that stage of training such sophisticated capabilities would be a hindrance rather than an advantage and add cost to an aircraft that should be as cheap as possible so it actually gets used... if it is too expensive to buy or operate then likely they will prefer to use simulators which are very good but not the same as the real thing.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1139
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:59 pm

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

    From what I have read the L-29 is already in that step between turboprop aircraft and LIFT, so there is no new step... just the substitution of a Russian plane for a foreign plane.

    Obviously they could have dozens of steps each slightly higher and more expensive in the training of pilots, but going from a propeller driven single engine trainer to a front line fighter is too big a step and needs to be broken down.

    The Yak-130 offers experience with high manouver capability, and twin engine management, and of course can train in advanced navigation and weapon training for rather less than the operational aircraft will cost which saves money and also reduces hours added to expensive air frames.

    Keep in mind that flight simulation training will also be used to help the pilots with their training, but a replacement for the basic jet trainer... the L29, means the transition from a propeller driven single engine aircraft to a twin engined jet can be performed on a cheaper lighter aircraft that might not have sophisticated flight performance or advanced avionics, but at that stage of training such sophisticated capabilities would be a hindrance rather than an advantage and add cost to an aircraft that should be as cheap as possible so it actually gets used... if it is too expensive to buy or operate then likely they will prefer to use simulators which are very good but not the same as the real thing.

    The projected change is to replace the Yak-52 by the Yak-152 and the L-39 by the Yak-130.

    Today the Yak-152 is not in service still and the Yak-130 has not been totally introduced. Obviously the Yak-52, the L-39 and the Yak-130 are in service today in adition to the training variants of the combat aircrafts, but this means not Russia is operating in 4 different training stages. There are 3. Yak-52, L-39/Yak-130, and training variants of combat aircrafts. I hope the people begins not to talk about 5 stages when the Yak-152 begins to replace the Yak-52, because then 4 specific trainer aircrafts will be in active service in adition to the training variants of the combat aircrafts, for the same total of 3 training stages (Yak-52/Yak-152, L-39/Yak-130, and training variants of combat aircrafts).

    The Yak-130 is not today a front line fight trainer, the front line fight trainers are the training variants of the combat aircrafts of all the types (Su-24,...). And this will not change because some training with the combat aircrafts is needed, despite most of the maneuverability training to be done now with the Yak-130, and despite to have the option to move also the basic supersonic fligh training to a potential supersonic variant of the Yak-130.

    If the introduction of the new training aircraft wants to be cost effective, needs to take fligh hours from the Yak-130 (to take fligh hours from the Yak-152 would increase the cost instead of decrease it). And to be functionally effective, the young pilots must learn with the new aircraft part of the habilities that they must learn with the Yak-130, after to exhaust the training program with the Yak-152 (wich would not be affected by the introduction of the new aircraft).

    In every case to adopt the new training aircraft between the Yak-52/Yak-152 and the L-39/Yak-130 means less units of the Yak-130 in the Russian Armed Forces in the future. It means to cut earlier (or to cut and delay) the orders of this aircraft = to reduce the benefits of scale economies for the Yak-130, making the Yak-130 more expensive. It means to decrease the standardization of the fleet = to increase the maintenance costs. Also it means the development of a new simulator in the fligh simulation program = to increase the overall cost of the simulation program. It means the young pilots learning to fly in 4 aircrafts instead of 3 = to increase a little the total number of fligh hours needed. The economic ballance is not as easy as to compare only the costs of fligh hours of the new trainer and the Yak-130.

    Also to introduce a new aircraft taking part of the projected space of the Yak-130 will put over this aircraft a label of expensive, that would likely damage its prospect of sales outside of Russia.

    Not all are advantages.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3143
    Points : 3233
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  medo on Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:07 pm



    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.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:40 pm

    Previously the aircraft used in the training centres were the Yak-52 as a primary trainer and the L29 as the lead in fighter trainer.

    The student went from a propeller driven single engine aircraft to a light twin jet with basic weapons options for simple weapons training.

    The introduction of the Yak-130 means advanced weapons training and advanced manouvering and navigation can be taught too.

    The current steps for a trainee pilot is simple basic instruction in the Yak-52, then a step to the twin jet L-29 and then the Yak-130.

    Once they have completed their basic training they go to operational units and learn on two seater versions of the aircraft they eventually fly and learn the characteristics of those aircraft and their specific systems and weapons and of course tactics.

    The addition of the Yak-152 does not add a step... it simply replaces the Yak-52 though as it enters service for some time both will be used.

    It is different for the L29 and Yak-130 because originally the L29 was it... before going to the operational units. Now the Yak-130 lets the trainees get to a higher level of training before they go to their operational units but that is good because the aircraft they will fly will be rather more capable than the L29... the step would be too great going from an L29 to an Su-35 or MiG-35 let alone a PAK FA.

    The Yak-130 gets them better prepared for in service aircraft capabilities.

    The problem is that the Yak-130 is not that cheap anymore so the SR-10 offers a potential extra step... replacing the L29 with the Yak-130 makes the step from the Yak-130 to the operational aircraft easier but it makes the step from the Yak-52 or 152 to the Yak too big... and there is a rather big step in cost from the prop Yak to the jet Yak.

    The SR-10 offers a cheaper simpler solution to ease the transition from prop single to jet twin and like the L29 it would be cheaper to fly and less of a cost if lost. It should have good escape equipment so the chances of losing instructors or trainees should be reduced to a minimum.

    Regarding other uses... some countries make good money selling their turboprop trainers as air support and light interceptor aircraft so why not the Yak-130 too... and for Russia it could be used in short range engagements... even putting R-73s on its wings and having it patrol borders tracking down incoming cruise missiles would be useful... As they have Su-25s and other types I think the propeller and SR-10 weight light attack aircraft would probably be less useful for Russia but on the international market they might sell a few.

    A Yak-152 with 80mm rocket pods using Ugroza laser guided rockets would be a potent system against lightly armed enemies...

    I believe Russian border patrol was getting these in the 90s:







    _________________
    “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
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10052
    Points : 10540
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:09 am

    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


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1139
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:The introduction of the Yak-130 means advanced weapons training and advanced manouvering and navigation can be taught too.

    The current steps for a trainee pilot is simple basic instruction in the Yak-52, then a step to the twin jet L-29 and then the Yak-130.

    Once they have completed their basic training they go to operational units and learn on two seater versions of the aircraft they eventually fly and learn the characteristics of those aircraft and their specific systems and weapons and of course tactics.

    The addition of the Yak-152 does not add a step... it simply replaces the Yak-52 though as it enters service for some time both will be used.

    It is different for the L29 and Yak-130 because originally the L29 was it... before going to the operational units. Now the Yak-130 lets the trainees get to a higher level of training before they go to their operational units but that is good because the aircraft they will fly will be rather more capable than the L29... the step would be too great going from an L29 to an Su-35 or MiG-35 let alone a PAK FA.

    The Yak-130 gets them better prepared for in service aircraft capabilities.

    The problem is that the Yak-130 is not that cheap anymore so the SR-10 offers a potential extra step... replacing the L29 with the Yak-130 makes the step from the Yak-130 to the operational aircraft easier but it makes the step from the Yak-52 or 152 to the Yak too big... and there is a rather big step in cost from the prop Yak to the jet Yak.

    The SR-10 offers a cheaper simpler solution to ease the transition from prop single to jet twin and like the L29 it would be cheaper to fly and less of a cost if lost. It should have good escape equipment so the chances of losing instructors or trainees should be reduced to a minimum.

    This is not right. Obviously the Yak-130 is more modern and advanced than the L-39 (not L-29), but the role is the same. The Yak-130 is to the Su-PAK-FA just what the L-39 was for the MiG.23. Even they have close weight relations.

    No, the Yak-130 means not to introduce a new training step. The introduction of the Yak-130 is to replace the L-39, which will be totally retired in the short term. Russia would not do it if they would have the replacement of the L-39 in the stage of development where the SR-10 is today.

    As explained in my previous comment the introduction of the SR-10 only would mean to reduce the number of orders of the Yak-130.

    GarryB wrote:A Yak-152 with 80mm rocket pods using Ugroza laser guided rockets would be a potent system against lightly armed enemies...

    I really do not know where you see the technological floor for the Russian Armed Forces. Sometimes like this I'm surprised. Well, this would be like a return of the Russian Aerospace Forces to the WWII age.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16040
    Points : 16671
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:34 am

    The Yak-130 is to the Su-PAK-FA just what the L-39 was for the MiG.23. Even they have close weight relations.

    Which is what I said... the L39 is inadequate to train pilots that will be flying Su-35s or MiG-35s let alone PAK FAs.


    No, the Yak-130 means not to introduce a new training step. The introduction of the Yak-130 is to replace the L-39, which will be totally retired in the short term.

    It shifts the step up and leaves a gap between propeller trainer and jet trainer that can be filled by the cheaper simpler SR-10.

    Russia would not do it if they would have the replacement of the L-39 in the stage of development where the SR-10 is today.

    The L39s are filling a space that the Yak-130 is clearly not suitable to fill unless they develop a new simpler cheaper to operate Yak-130... which they wont.

    As explained in my previous comment the introduction of the SR-10 only would mean to reduce the number of orders of the Yak-130.

    No. What it would mean is fewer Yak-130 losses as the jump from propeller to Yak-130 can have a middle step to ease the trainee pilot from a propeller driven aircraft to a sophisticated twin engine trainer like the Yak-130.

    The Yak-130 is capable of training sophisticated attack tactics without needing air time on expensive twin seat operational aircraft.

    They would likely build rather more Yak-130s as the aircraft in training squadrons using SR-10s instead would be vastly outnumbered by the Yak-130s used in operational units for weapons training on the cheap... the digital FBW flight control systems of the Yaks allow the crew to dial up any sort of flight performance they like so for attacking ground targets with real or captive weapons could be done on the cheap without tying up front line aircraft.

    I really do not know where you see the technological floor for the Russian Armed Forces.

    For export. It would make no sense for the Russian military to convert light propeller trainers to do something the Su-25 could already do rather better.

    Of course for border patrol they might consider a conversion of a prop aircraft for the role to replace the SM-92 pictured above with rocket pods and machine guns and dumb bombs.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Yak-130: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:56 am