New attack aircraft development based on Yak-130, to compete with F-16

just a bit of an idea. I remember way back at the start there was rumours that a version of the Yak-130 would replace the Su-25 but of course it didnt and it didnt because it wasn't the same sort of aircraft but i still think both aircraft could still work together, both have the same sort of speed and both can operate from rough airfields. and while the yak-130 could still be used as CAS it would be a safer option to use Su-25. Yak-130 already has Helmet-Mounted-Sighting-System, and a double GPS/GLONASS receiver updating an Inertial Reference System for highly accurate navigation and precision targeting, could still various targeting pods, recce pods, EW pods, and wing tip mounts for verba or other anti air missiles.

the Su-25 could carry multiple rocket pods S-5, S-8, S-13 and also S-24 ready to support ground troops, while the Yak-130 could carry standoff munitions, 9K121 Vikhr, Kh-25 (various including anti rad), and Hermes the latter being ideal. you could also have a few Yak-130 with EW pods and recce pods, and a few armed with just anti air missiles to protect the the rest of the aircraft. so in theory the yak-130 fire stand off munitions taking out any threats to the Su-25 then seconds later the Su-25 swoop in to deliver the rocket barrage and straffing with its guns. using the option of yak-130 in this manner would free up Su-25 or other aircraft for this role, so if for example Russia normally sent 4 Su-25 to a mission and two of the Su-25 carried standoff munitions while the other two carried rocket pods or if all four were armed with a mix of each then by using the Yak-130 option you would free up two Su-25, or in the case of 4 mixed armed Su-25 you would now only have to risk 3 Su-25 instead of four getting close to enemy fire. so in my personal view the yak-130 could still have a place in front line missions and be a cheap alternative. (but not a replacement for in close CAS aircraft like Su-25)


Another use for the Yak-130 could be a drone killer/hunter. you could arm the yak-130 with a gun pod, a R-73 on each of the wingtips and a little cluster of verba on hardpoints, and a few rocket pods of S-5 with a and improvment of the S-5Kor (guided) rocket but add in a proximity fuse, and the S-5 family already have various FRAG rockets in service so you could have a mixture of FRAG with guided proximity fuse depending on what your facing drone wise, and if you developed a timed fuse you could fire it into a swarm of drones, they have already the S-5M1 which produces 75 splinters, S-5MO steel ring frag 360 fragments, S-5KP HEAT/FRAG a shaped charge with wound wire fragmentation jacket, and finally S-5S flechette which could explode just before the drone and act like a massive shotgun blast firing 1,000 flechettes which would be good for drone swarms. you could add targeting pod and even EW pod or laser pod that could be used in a soft kill on a drone.

another use would as a cheap rocket barrage platform it would be like a flying BM-21
it could carry S-24, S-5, S-8, S-13 rockets. for example:

option 1:
1x gun pod 12.7mm or 23mm
6x S-24 (R-24) creating 300—400m radius of fragmentation casualty zone creating 4000 fragments that can penetrate up to 25-30 mm
of light armor.

option 2:
1x gun pod 12.7mm
6x S-13 rocket pods each carrying 5 rockets = 30 rockets various types

option 3:
1x gun pod 12.7mm
6x S-8 rocket pods each carrying 20 rockets= 120 rockets of various types

option 4:
1x gun pod 12.7mm
6x S-5 rocket pods eaching carrying 32 rockets= 192 rockets of various types.

just a quick example if option 4 was selected and it fired S-5SB flechette rockets you would end up with it raining a hail storm of flechettes with 192,000-211,200 flechettes raining down on enemy troops ideal for exposed troops out in the open. or if you used the
S-5MO FRAG rocket you would end up with 69,120 fragments. The S-8 and the S-13 also have anti runway rockets, and fuel-air explosive variants the latter would be pretty devastating. Its a pretty scary scenario for troops on the ground with one of these screaming past you firing rockets.

They are making the checkmate for that purpose. Yak-130 isn't a good plateform for a modern jet. It's a trainer aircraft.

Isos wrote:They are making the checkmate for that purpose. Yak-130 isn't a good plateform for a modern jet. It's a trainer aircraft.

it all depends on what role it would be used for. If your suggesting it to act as a modern dogfighter or interceptor against F-15, F-22 then yeah it wouldn't be a good platform and you would have to be dumb to think of it in that way. As clearly stated this was not the comparison. The yak-130 for what it is a light aircraft and trainer, versus a similar aircraft or against an armed force with a very basic air force then it would have an advantage. Belarus and Myanmar both have shown armed versions and the latter has actually used them in combat. In Syria for example we have seen the use of L-39 which is normally used as a trainer but also has limited attack capabilities, and slower, agile, cheap to operate aircraft are ideal for such conflict. In fact slower aircraft are more suited for ground attack missions at lower altitudes, hence Su-25 speed is what it is for that same reason. The whole point of a multi role yak-130 would be to free up other aircraft and in a role it would be able to achieve its missions as I stated. For example no need to send a Su-35 or mig-31 to take out a drone if you have a yak-130 that can easily do the same job but at a far cheaper cost and this would leave the Su-35 or mig-31 to attend or stay in standby for more dangerous or more capable targets such as fighter jets. And as Garry mentioned yak-130 using rocket pods in a lofting tactic would keep it out of harm's way but still be effective. And as mentioned working in conjunction with Su-25 the yak-130 could carry stand off munitions or anti rad missiles to take care of those targets this freeing up su-25 munitions load to carry more of the ground attack munitions or simply free up su-25 that may be armed in such way. What every war has shown us over last decade or so is nothing is useless and everything has its use. For example anti aircraft guns such as Zu-23-2 being used as ground attack fire support, T-55 being used in Syria against low armour forces, and the AT-3 sagger being used as a very cheap ATGW system against buildings a light armour in Syria these are just a few examples of which have proven their worth and achieved the same result that more modern more expensive systems would achieve the same outcome, but being cheaper and more numerous. Even the SPG-9 use in Syria showed how useful such system was and there was an article about how Russia was looking into a newer lighter version of an anti armour gun similar to SPG-9 and was looking into research and development on such. And Soviet era air defence systems have still shown how dangerous they can still be.

When I was in the forces I had to study a lot of Soviet systems and underlying tone was that they were obsolete. However I looked at things in the opposite direction and looked at what we had, and quite often found we had nothing similar or nothing at all like what the Russians had. Tunguska was just coming out as was Tor and these were pretty ground breaking at the time, S-300 despite what they said was feared. And zsu-23-4 was deemed deadly against ground troops. In fact despite the mig-21 being classed as completely outdated, UK pilots that I spoke to said it was an aircraft that couldn't be ignored and was still a threatened a serious threat if you got into a dogfight with one, and in numbers you could be overwhelmed. I have mentioned this before when the battalion I was on was equipped with Saxon APC which was designed for the streets of northern Ireland not fields, off road etc, the thing was a death trap, underpowered off road, poor mobility had a habit of tipping over, and only being armed with a GPMG 7.62mm. if I am honest I felt embarrassed that the British army used such vehicles as mechanised forces. In comparison the Russians were using BTR-80 which was a million times better better mobility, fully amphibious, 8 wheels instead of 4, better frontal armour, bigger so could carry more troops and armed with a 7.62mm and a 14.5mm. even the BTR-70 and BTR-60 was better than the Saxon. I remember reading the INT document on the BTR-90 and there was a serious worry about Russia getting this for it's mechanised forces while the British had zero plans for a replacement for Saxon. Had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq and the introduction of MRAP British forces would have still be using Saxon and snatch land rovers. The British also used 432 tracked APC which was slowly replaced by warrior IFV. While the 432 died out the Soviet equivalent the MT-LB continued to deployed, and had multiple uses are armaments and even modernization, this wasn't done because Russia was poor and couldn't afford anything elsewhere it was done because the vehicle was good and was still capable for the variety of roles it has, the same can't be said about the 432.