MiG-UTS single engined trainer

Garry, do we start a new thread for this 'new' Russian trainer?



The Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) MiG has begun work on a new jet trainer, the MiG-UTS. The program is being launched with some urgency, reusing components from a previous MiG trainer design from the 1990s, amid growing problems in Russia’s military pilot training pipeline.

It was announced today on the website of the Rostec state defense conglomerate that RAC MiG has begun the development of the MiG-UTS, with the aircraft described as the centerpiece of a “new pilot training complex.” However, no more details were provided of the other components of this system.

The announcement states that the MiG-UTS is intended to replace the Czechoslovakian-designed L-39 Albatros, which originally entered service with the Soviet military back in the 1970s and is now increasingly showing its age. Ironically, Aero of the Czech Republic continues to develop the basic Albartros design and now offers a thoroughly updated version, the L-39NG, which is very much in the same class as the projected MiG-UTS.

Referring to the L-39, Sergei Korotkov, the general designer and deputy general director of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), of which RAC MiG is a part, said: “We have great doubts about supporting the operation of the aircraft on which the main training of pilots is carried out today. Therefore, a new training tool is required that will allow us to effectively train flight and technical personnel.”

Affordability also appears to be at the center of the MiG-UTS project, with the decision to develop a single-engine aircraft intended “to make it more affordable and inexpensive to operate.”

“We are creating the cheapest, easiest to operate — both for the pilot and to maintain — single-engine aircraft that fully meets the requirements for the basic training stage,” said Andrei Nedosekin, the director and chief designer at RAC MiG.

As well as low cost, the program also stresses a rapid development period. To help achieve this, RAC MiG will “make maximum use” of the previous MiG-AT trainer, two prototypes of which were built in the mid-1990s. Like the MiG-AT, the MiG-UTS has a straight wing, a tandem two-seat cockpit, and a conventional cruciform tail.

In particular, the MiG-UTS will feature a cockpit derived from that of the MiG-AT cockpit, although it’s unclear if this refers to the avionics, as well, which will be notably dated by now.

An artist’s concept for the new design bears striking similarities to the MiG-AT, although it’s worth noting that the earlier trainer utilized twin-engine propulsion.

The engine selected for the MiG-UTS is the AI-222-25. Although designed in Ukraine, this engine is also manufactured in Russia, by the Salyut company, part of the United Engine Corporation.

The original MiG-AT was also intended to replace the L-39 but was rejected in 2002 in favor of the Yak-130 Mitten, which is powered by two AI-222-25 engines, and offers a higher degree of performance.

The emergence of the MiG-UTS at this stage suggests that Russia wants to replace the aging L-39 with a cheaper and less complex trainer than the Yak-130. In this way, the MiG-UTS could fulfill the basic training syllabus, with combat pilots then moving on to the Yak-130 for advanced and combat training. Currently, the L-39 and Yak-130 appear to be used more or less interchangeably, depending on the unit and base in question.

Plans to introduce the piston-engined Yak-152 for primary training and flight screening have so far come to nothing, making the acquisition of a new trainer even more urgent.

Russia has, in the past, sought to extend the service life of its remaining L-39s, although this has now become much harder due to sanctions imposed after the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Last year, the Russian-military-related Fighterbomber channel on Telegram reported on an apparent problem related to the L-39’s ejection seats. In particular, the explosive cartridges for the seats were becoming time-expired, grounding at least some of the jets, with Russian industry unable to provide replacements.

“The Czechs, of course, do not sell [the cartridges] to us,” Fighterbomber wrote. “Our Yak-130 aircraft are too few to train all available cadets on them and we will not have time to build new ones.”

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-jet-trainer-design-1990s-200416954.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJiI3X07VqK-R-DpvCuUF05xFz-zGmX13kz745KJJvTUcgaCDmyvFasHsqz2thmo8FOrZQsgZ9-0Rg9kWL__Rzh5IMJsA7Om6e5DPB8H2Pubaosd8ALh991EWuQfk5C6H7XAmvH9SheDKVWTtU-AyfeXKJVC5FNa1RL23OI0UIKv

It is a shame they gave up on funding the KB SAT SR-10 as a trainer. But this concept sounds pretty reasonable.
I still think they should fund KB SAT to improve their SR-10 design and fly it off in a competition against MiG's design to ensure the Air Force get a decent aircraft.
Just supply KB SAT with a couple of AL-55 engines and a small amount of funding to do this.

All sounds very good, the MiG-AT was a good design but had a lot of foreign parts, but a single engined version optimised for low operating and maintenance costs should be a great idea.

Being mostly based on the older aircraft with presumably updated Russian avionics systems should bring it up to date while keeping costs down.

Instruments are not unique and created specially for each new aircraft so equipment developed for the Baikal and other light aircraft should be used for this new aircraft.

Replacing the L39 but not needing to match the Yak-130 while being cheap and simple to operate should be a fairly straight forward job to achieve, interesting that they haven't replaced those Yak-52s yet with Yak-152s.

The engine problem should be sorted soon enough enabling a range of aircraft to be made available.

Not sure they want to throw more money away by funding other bids as this could simply be seen as filling a gap in aircraft that just needs to be filled... MiG likely has factories and subcontractors not doing a whole lot so this could get them actively working on something while the AF decides about MiG-35 mass production or new single engined 5th gen light MiG introduction and testing.

Now they are producing the engine for the Yak-130 it makes sense to use it in the MiG too. Eventually they can introduce perhaps a new all Russian engine, maybe with more thrust and perhaps with AB or thrust vectoring or both to expand into light attack aircraft engine designs.

It is in the same size/weight class as the L-39.

They are using the L39 now to fill a gap and it is what they want, but a Russian made equivalent made of Russian parts by a Russian company is needed to replace the L39s whose company is not supporting any more, and this design (UTS) appears to be exactly what they will be wanting.

And it is work for MiG too, which is good.

Yak is already working on the Yak-152, and producing Yak-130s of course and in terms of civilian aircraft the MS-21 is theirs too... hopefully that reverts to a Yak designation too.

The MiG-31 is an expensive aircraft but still good value for money... expensive for a Russian plane but probably quite cheap for a US plane, but the MiG-29 and MiG-35 are designed to be affordable but not cheap and nasty.

All round I think this is very good news.

The SR-10 looks like a nice plane... now they have engines in that power range in production it might be rather interesting for a private plane, but it is not needed really as the MiG-UTS would fill the role nicely.

(...and yes I am biased.)

That is a great news. It is exactly what they needed.

I am a bit curious about the engine as the AI-222 is  heavier and more powerful than the AI-25 which is mounted on the L39.

The AI-25 of the L39 has about 1.7 tons of thrust at takeoff rating and a dry weight of 350 kg.

The AI-222 has about 2.5 tons of thrust at takeoff and weigh about 440 kg

I thought that more appropriate could be the Saturn AL-55 which was also proposed a production engine for the SR-10 (the SR-10 prototype has instead a AI-25 engine).
Thrust at takeoff rating between 17 and 1.8 tons.
Dry weight 315 kg.

By the way, we already discussed in another thread that Russia is also making the SM-100, the successor/derivative of the AI-222.

The MiG-UTS is going to replace the L39 so there is no value in using the same engine the L39 used.

I seem to remember the MiG-AT used the same engine as the L39 but it used two to get the performance needed.

Using the Al-222 for the MiG-UTS makes a lot of sense because the Yak-130 uses the same engine but it uses two engines.

The advantages of commonality of engines is pretty obvious and the engine being used is more powerful than the engine used on the L39 which makes sense because it is a single engined aircraft.

I seem to remember they were talking about an improved thrust model that had 4 tons of thrust with an after burner but I don't know if they will follow through with that.

This means they will eventually have a Yak-152 with an engine based on the VK-650V. The VK-800 would be good for some light helicopters and drones, while the VK-1600 would be interesting for the Baikal and perhaps a twin engined platform like Ladoga.

The MiG-UTS and Yak-130 would both use the Al-222 engine where the MiG has one engine and the Yak has two.

It could probably also be used in light jet powered UAVs as well.

The SM-100 would be a good future replacement and improvement over the Al-222.

The SR-10 is not in service and with its forward swept wings may use expensive composite materials that make it a bit too risky for a light cheap trainer.

Such aircraft are likely to be used as airfield hacks too, for pilots to get in some extra flight time or take VIPs up for a cheap flight etc etc.

It might also be rather popular for an affordable DOSAAF type to make flying a popular passtime.

I remember a few decades ago... in the 1990s my brothers father inlaw was shocked at how cheap it is to fly a plane in New Zealand. He had some flying experience but getting a pilots licence was just too expensive in the UK and he had given up the idea of getting his pilots licence. I think at the time it cost about $40 NZ dollars an hour for a single engined cessna, which was about 15 pounds or so...

As I said... he was shocked.

I had a friend who bought a lottery scratch card and won $10,000 and decided to get his pilots licence. He did it in about 6 months, much to the disgust of another friend who was doing it over a period of about 3 years.

https://www.analisidifesa.it/2024/01/mig-uts-il-nuovo-addestratore-intermedio-russo/

MiG-UTS: the new Russian intermediate trainer
11 January 2024 by Maurizio Sparacino in Industry Analysis


The Russian MiG design bureau (part of UAC – Rostec) is working on a new trainer called MiG-UTS dedicated to the intermediate training of military pilots on jets. “We are creating the most economical and easiest single-engine aircraft to operate, both to fly and maintain, which fully meets the requirements for the training phase” – said Andrey Nedosekin, Deputy Director General of the Experimental Design Bureau for operational and tactical aviation.

The new MiG-UTS, as explained by Nedosekin, will be single-engine to significantly reduce the cost of purchase and use, but above all because it will be called upon to definitively replace the old Czech-designed Aero L-39 Albatros jet aircraft used for this purpose. purpose since the 70s.

According to The Military Balance, in 2023 the Russian Aerospace Forces still had 118 L-39 trainers for pilot training. The Ministry of Defense website notes that the L-39 is intended for training aircrew and that with some modifications it can be used as light attack aircraft and fighters.

«We have great doubts about [future] support for the operation of the [L-39] aircraft on which the main pilot training is carried out today. Therefore, a new training tool is needed that allows us to effectively train flight and technical personnel" – stated Sergei Korotkov, General Designer and Deputy General Director of PJSC UAC in this regard.

The choice of engine that will be adopted by the UTS is obvious: according to the chief designer of the new MiG-UTS, Alexei Shukaylo, after studying the various engine options available, the MiG designers chose the AI-222-25 engine. Today this engine is used on the Yak-130 aircraft and is mass-produced at the Salyut production complex of the UAC.

To speed up work and reduce costs, the designers will also make the most of a now forgotten project which, however, entered into competition in the 1990s with the Yak-130: we are talking about the MiG-AT advanced training aircraft previously created by the Russian bureau which flew for the first time on 21 March 1996. In particular, the base for the cockpit of the new UTS will be created using the same layout as that used on the MiG-AT which had performed admirably during the tests experimentation.

According to some observers, the UTS would be in an unfavorable situation compared to the Yak-130, but the latter is a twin-engine advanced trainer while the new MiG falls into the category of intermediate trainers and is single-engine, therefore with lower purchase and operating costs. Just to give an example, we could compare the "UTS - Yak-130" combination with the Leonardo M-345 and the Leonardo M-346, the latter also based on developments subsequent to an initial joint venture between Yakovlev and Aermacchi which united for the development of the Yakovlev-Aermacchi 130 prototype.

The question remains why the project created by the private company KB-SAT (Russian acronym for Konstructorskoe Bjuro-Sovremyenne Aviatsyonne Tekhnologii, in Italian Design Office – Modern Aeronautical Technologies), presented at the MAKS-2017 of the SR-10 trainer.

Completely made with national components, the SR-10 which Defense Analysis has been talking about since 2016, is equipped with a particular reverse swept wing configuration and was intended to fit into the intermediate range between basic propeller trainers (like the Yak-152 or the UTS-800) and the Yak-130 advanced trainers, therefore precisely in the category for which the MiG-UTS would be made.

Not without malice, some believe that the SR-10 - if it had been selected by the Russian Defense - could have taken away an important flow of orders and money from Mig and the state-owned aeronautical industrial group UAC.

As far as the SR-10, possibly it is to give more work to MiG, possibly because anyway the amount of preparedness of the SR-10 was not more than the one on the MiG -AT from which the MiG-UTS is derived. Furthermore the forward-swept wings add an additional complication and are not needed in a basic /intermediate trainer.

The straight wings of the MiG-UTS are possibly not the ideal aerodynamics solution, but are cheaper and are good enough for a basic/intermediate trainer.

This aircraft will not compete with the Yak-130, but will allow the yak-130 to be used only for advanced training (and already with more experienced pilots).

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch10-4.htm#:~:text=As%20compared%20with%20a%20straight,the%20maximum%20lift%2Ddrag%20ratio

As compared with a straight wing, the swept wing offers significant increases in cruising Mach number and, at the same time, permits the use of wings of sufficient thickness to allow aspect ratios high enough for good values of the maximum lift-drag ratio
(...)
The aspect ratio, sweep angle, airfoil thickness ratio, and wing weight necessary for adequate wing strength and stiffness are all related and require a complex series of trade-off studies to arrive at an optimum design for a given set of requirements. The internal volume required for fuel storage and landing-gear retraction also forms an important part of these trade-off studies.
 
Early jet fighters capable of flight at high-subsonic Mach numbers profited greatly from the use of wing sweepback
(...)
The effectiveness of wing sweep as a means for increasing the critical Mach number of subsonic aircraft has already been discussed
(...)

Clearly, the message portrayed in figure 10.12 is that the wings of aircraft designed to penetrate into the low-supersonic speed range should be thin and swept. These purely aerodynamic considerations for choosing a wing of low drag do not necessarily result in an optimum wing for a given airplane. Again, as in the case of subsonic aircraft, detailed trade-off studies between the various wing geometric/ aerodynamic characteristics and wing strength, weight, and stiffness must be made. Because of the requirements for very thin airfoil sections, these trade-offs almost inevitably lead to wings of low aspect ratio on fighter aircraft designed to penetrate the transonic and low-supersonic speed regimes

Since the MiG-UTS is just a basic or intermediate trainer it does not need to be particolarly good at very high Mach number or to have the highest possible subsoning cruising speed.
If the straight wings can be made light weight and robust enough without having to use more expensive construction techniques or materials needed instead for more complex shapes, then it is only an advantage.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:As far as the SR-10, possibly it is to give more work to MiG, possibly because anyway the amount of preparedness of the SR-10 was not more than the one on the MiG -AT from which the MiG-UTS is derived. Furthermore the forward-swept wings add an additional complication and are not needed in a basic /intermediate trainer.

Let's face it. The SR-10 is being developed by a private Russian company which is not part of UAC or Rostec. That is why it hasn't been financed. The government basically sat on the project for over a decade after the company did a prototype. If they had reservations about specific characteristics of the design they could have requested changes to the designers.

Also, one of the main issues it had was that it used an old Al-25 engine made in Ukraine. Basically the same engine used in the Czech L-39 trainer. But now there is the UEC Saturn Al-55 engine with better performance and much more modern. So they could just use that instead.

I still think the SR-10 is a much more advanced airframe than the one in the MIG-UTS. They should either make a competition between KB-SAT and MIG. Or just pay KB-SAT for their work on the design and pass it on to MIG so they can modify it for the Air Force trainer role.

As far as the SR-10, possibly it is to give more work to MiG, possibly because anyway the amount of preparedness of the SR-10 was not more than the one on the MiG -AT from which the MiG-UTS is derived. Furthermore the forward-swept wings add an additional complication and are not needed in a basic /intermediate trainer.

The speeds these trainers will be operating at a swept wing would not be necessary, the handling at these speeds would be better with a straight wing.

The people making the SR-10 likely don't have the subcontractors and factories that MiG has and would probably struggle to produce aircraft in the quantity required... when you are designing stuff making a few prototypes and a flying model is one thing but drawing up the documentation for serial production and then managing the project and working with the users to adapt and change the design to suit production and the customers wishes is not something a small company can always handle... some times even the big companies don't do a good job there.

The straight wings of the MiG-UTS are possibly not the ideal aerodynamics solution, but are cheaper and are good enough for a basic/intermediate trainer.

The engine power is not going to get supersonic so straight wings would be expected.

Let's face it. The SR-10 is being developed by a private Russian company which is not part of UAC or Rostec. That is why it hasn't been financed. The government basically sat on the project for over a decade after the company did a prototype. If they had reservations about specific characteristics of the design they could have requested changes to the designers.

Getting it into serial production would have taken a lot more financing than it would for Rostec or MiG.

Also, one of the main issues it had was that it used an old Al-25 engine made in Ukraine. Basically the same engine used in the Czech L-39 trainer. But now there is the UEC Saturn Al-55 engine with better performance and much more modern. So they could just use that instead.

They are using the same engine in the MiG-UTS as is used in the Yak-130 because although it was Ukrainian they now have it in production in Russia for the Yak, so might as well have engine commonality and use it in the MiG as well.

If the Saturn engine is a lot better then perhaps they can replace both engines in the MiG and the Yak.

I still think the SR-10 is a much more advanced airframe than the one in the MIG-UTS.

Not sure how you can assert that because the company that made it has no experience making aircraft does it?

It has a forward swept wing but generally that means you can't have weapon pylons on it because it disturbs the airflow and can reduce performance.

Forward swept wings have not been adopted by anyone... they work best with subsonic airflows so you would think airliners would have FSW designs but they clearly don't... makes me suspicious of them and perhaps the Russian AF is as well.

They should either make a competition between KB-SAT and MIG. Or just pay KB-SAT for their work on the design and pass it on to MIG so they can modify it for the Air Force trainer role.

It is a cheap light jet trainer intended to fill the gap between a turboprop trainer and the Yak-130 so its requirements would be low cost and simple... forward swept wings don't scream low cost or simple... and the handling of the aircraft would likely be unlike that of any other aircraft they operate in the air force.... not good for a trainer.

I think the SR-10 looks cool, but if it has a future it will likely be in the private sector...

The SR-10 is much lighter than the MiG-AT was supposed to be. 2.4 tons vs 4.6 tons.

The original MiG-AT design had like two French 14 ton thrust engines. Now the Russian government proposes replacing those engines with a single 25 ton thrust Al-222 engine.

The Al-55 has much less power than the Al-222. The Al-55 has like 17 ton thrust while the Al-222 has like 25 ton thrust.

So the SR-10 should be the cheaper aircraft. Should use much less building materials. But I agree that using the same engine as in the Yak-130 might drive down cost in serial production and logistics.

For comparison the original Czech L-39 trainer they are currently using is a 3.5 ton aircraft with a 17 ton thrust engine. As you can see the airframe is much heavier than the 2.4 ton one in the SR-10. I think the SR-10 is the most advanced airframe in the list. It is all made of composites and has LERX.

lancelot wrote:The SR-10 is much lighter than the MiG-AT was supposed to be. 2.4 tons vs 4.6 tons.

The original MiG-AT design had like two French 14 ton thrust engines. Now the Russian government proposes replacing those engines with a single 25 ton thrust Al-222 engine.

The Al-55 has much less power than the Al-222. The Al-55 has like 17 ton thrust while the Al-222 has like 25 ton thrust.

So the SR-10 should be the cheaper aircraft. Should use much less building materials. But I agree that using the same engine as in the Yak-130 might drive down cost in serial production and logistics.

For comparison the original Czech L-39 trainer they are currently using is a 3.5 ton aircraft with a 17 ton thrust engine. As you can see the airframe is much heavier than the 2.4 ton one in the SR-10. I think the SR-10 is the most advanced airframe in the list. It is all made of composites and has LERX.

The thrust is about 1.7 tons (not 17) for the AL-55 (similar thrust as the old AI-25 ->1,720 kgf (=1.72 tons) (16.9 kN) and about 2.5 tons (2520 kgf = 24.7 kN) for the AI-222.

Yes the SR-10 is the more advanced airframe among the 2.
Is it something to be considered good when Russia only needs something simple and cheap?
Why do they need composites?
They already have the Yak-130 as advanced and more complex aircraft.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:The thrust is about 1.7 tons (not 17) for the AL-55 (similar thrust as the old AI-25 ->1,720 kgf (=1.72 tons) (16.9 kN) and about 2.5 tons (2520 kgf = 24.7 kN) for the AI-222.
...
Yes the SR-10 is the more advanced airframe among the 2.
Is it something to be considered good when Russia only needs something simple and cheap?
Why do they need composites?
They already have the Yak-130 as advanced and more complex aircraft.

Uh. Right I didn't convert the units properly. Anyway the ratio in power between both engines holds.
The Al-222 has like 47% more power than either the Al-55 or Al-25.

All other things being equal the Al-55 engine will be cheaper to manufacture because it uses less materials. It has 40% less weight. But of course the Al-222 has had a much higher production run as it is and lowering of costs by serial production might make the higher material costs irrelevant.

The composites make the airframe way lighter, which means you then need a lower power engine as well. All of this will drive down the cost of the aircraft. Composites don't make the aircraft harder to build as you can see by a company like KB SAT with its limited production capabilities being able to produce it quite easily.

lancelot wrote:Uh. Right I didn't convert the units properly. Anyway the ratio in power between both engines holds.
The Al-222 has like 47% more power than either the Al-55 or Al-25.

All other things being equal the Al-55 engine will be cheaper to manufacture because it uses less materials. It has 40% less weight. But of course the Al-222 has had a much higher production run as it is and lowering of costs by serial production might make the higher material costs irrelevant.

The composites make the airframe way lighter, which means you then need a lower power engine as well. All of this will drive down the cost of the aircraft. Composites don't make the aircraft harder to build as you can see by a company like KB SAT with its limited production capabilities being able to produce it quite easily.

They make the aircraft a bit lighter than aluminium alloys. I would not say way lighter. It is not a problem of being particularly harder to build, it is just more expensive and much more complicated to repair.
The AL-55 would make sense anyway. 

I do not understand why the MiG-AT was so much heavier than the L39.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:I do not understand why the MiG-AT was so much heavier than the L39.

It was originally designed to compete with the Yak-130.

The SR-10 is much lighter than the MiG-AT was supposed to be. 2.4 tons vs 4.6 tons.

Correct but not really important because we are talking about the lighter and single engined MiG-UTS, not the older heavier twin engined MiG-AT.

The MiG-AT competed with the Yak-130 and lost. The MiG-UTS is getting the job of replacing the L39, which the SR-10 was pitched for.

So the SR-10 should be the cheaper aircraft. Should use much less building materials. But I agree that using the same engine as in the Yak-130 might drive down cost in serial production and logistics.

If they chose the SR-10 they would probably get the makers to change to the same engine that the Yak-130 because there is little value in paying for the engine the Yak-130 uses to go into serial production and then introduce another trainer that has a different engine that would also have to be put into serial production.

They are already waiting for the Yak-152 to replace the Yak-52 and that is because of engine delays.

The composites make the airframe way lighter, which means you then need a lower power engine as well. All of this will drive down the cost of the aircraft. Composites don't make the aircraft harder to build as you can see by a company like KB SAT with its limited production capabilities being able to produce it quite easily.

Using a new different engine not already in serial production is going to cost rather more than any other option you could think of except starting development right now of a brand new engine to use.

Using the engine already in use for the Yak-130 makes sense.... the new UTS is going to be lighter than the MiG-AT so a less powerful engine wont be a problem and MiG knows how to use composite materials too, but they also know how to make a cheap simple easy to maintain aircraft and in this role that is the priority.

I do not understand why the MiG-AT was so much heavier than the L39.

I don't understand why the MiG-AT keeps getting brought up in this conversation about the new MiG-UTS which is a new single engined aircraft BASED on the MiG-AT.... do you think when they take one engine out of it that they might consider reducing weight could be important as well?

This is not their first rodeo.

BTW the standard and MTOW numbers for the Yak-130 are 7.25 tons, and 10.29 tons, while the same numbers for the MiG-AT are 4.6 tons and 7.8 tons respectively... the operational weight of the MiG-AT is the same as the empty dry weight of the Yak-130.

If you look up above this post you will see Krepost posted a table and I posted a translation that shows the MiG-UTS has a dry weight of 3.5 tons which is basically the same as the dry weight of the L39.

The L39 has a single 16.87kN thrust engine, compared with the UTS using the same engine as fitted to the Yak-130 which has 24.52kN each.

So it is not a copy of the MiG-AT and it is the same weight as the L39 with a much more powerful engine.

BTW UTS just translates to future advanced jet trainer or something similar... will be interesting to see what number they choose.... but being a trainer it should be an even number.

SR-10 is made by a unknown company. Even if at first look it looks interesting, every other aspects like maintenance, long term reliability, safety, production of parts... would be very bad compare to heavy designers like Mig, Yak or Sukhoi.

This project can always be sold to forzign countries interested by a cheap trainer produced on their soil. Iran, UAE, India, Vietnam, Algeria... can be interested.

Yak 152 and yak 130 are the backbone of their trainer aircraft. I doubt they will ask for something between.

Initially they were claiming the MIG-UTS was just a MIG-AT with a single engine. It was supposed to have the same basic airframe and this would "save costs". So much for that I guess.

As for the Al-55 engine. It is being produced for the Indian trainer. HAL HJT-36 Sitara. It is not a paper project.
https://frontierindia.com/russia-delivers-al-55i-turbojet-engines-for-the-hal-hjt-36-sitara-trainer/

I know that Sukhoi is claiming 20% lower maintenance costs with the composites airframe on the Su-57 than if they used conventional techniques. So no using composites would actually make it lower maintenance in the long run.

Yak 152 and yak 130 are the backbone of their trainer aircraft. I doubt they will ask for something between.

If you read the article at the top of the page it clearly states that the Yak-52 and Yak-130 are being used but the L39 has not been replaced because the Yak-130 is too expensive to fill the role niche it occupies and that the L39 fills and so MiG are going to make a cheap lighter single engined trainer to fill that gap.

Seems to me the Russian AF tested the SR-10 but it was not what they wanted and have now tasked UAC with the job, which appears to be taken on by MiG, which is no surprise because Sukhoi and Tupolev and Yak and Ilyusion are all very very busy. MiG is just adapting its MiG AT to the lighter cheaper simpler role of L39 replacement.

Initially they were claiming the MIG-UTS was just a MIG-AT with a single engine.

No they didn't. Initially they suggested the MiG-AT be adopted as well, but that would be in its original twin engined form, but clearly that has been rejected as too expensive too so they are making a new aircraft based on the MiG-AT layout and design but obviously with only one engine and also lighter and simpler because it is not competing with the Yak-130 any more.

It was supposed to have the same basic airframe and this would "save costs".

No. I was going to have the same layout and form factor but with only one engine.

As for the Al-55 engine. It is being produced for the Indian trainer. HAL HJT-36 Sitara. It is not a paper project.

Well that is nice, but as the Russian AF is already using the engine in the Yak-130 it just makes sense to use the same engine in the L39 replacement (no matter what it might be).

I know that Sukhoi is claiming 20% lower maintenance costs with the composites airframe on the Su-57 than if they used conventional techniques. So no using composites would actually make it lower maintenance in the long run.

Claims are claims... we will see. The main reason the composite An-2 was rejected is because you need replacement panels and parts... you can't just patch up damaged sections. Composites made them expensive but also complicated maintenance and repair to something completely different to what they are used to out in the sticks.

Over time it might get cheaper and easier, but for now it is risky and the Russian military is conservative... this is a cheap simple aircraft remember... for very new pilots.

This sort of aircraft will also be rather popular as an airfield hack for pilots to keep up fight hours and also for joy rides with visitors on the cheap... I suspect this would be the sort of aircraft that DOSAAF would buy in enormous numbers along with Yak-152s perhaps for cheap simple flight experience. I would also think commercially such an aircraft might become popular as a private aircraft.

And with us I mean not the United states but us Italy, the producers of M-346.
Yes, we produce the twin plane of Yak-130, with different engines and avionics but they are basically two version of the same plane.

Certainly, it is much more costly for flying hour that our previous MB-339 BUT it is in reality much more convenient.
That because it would eat up a large part of the Syllabus that was previously made in the OCU squadrons in the dual seat version of the operative plane.
Coupled with this one we introduced a beefed up version of our primary trainer the SF-260 with a more powerful turboprop engine instead of the older piston one.
Also in this case the plane was more costly but it had in the overall the same effect i.e. eating up, this time from the bottom a part of the syllabus previously undertook on the MB-339.

Still there was still a part of the Syllabus that cannot be conveniently covered by the two new planes and ABOVE ALL it was found that passing directly from one primary trainer although with turboprop to an high performance advanced two engined one was too much of an hurdle.

So, it was decided to adopt a three plane model instead and an advanced version of the S.211/M-311 was developed for the task i.e. we choose a plane with inferior flying characteristics than the MB-339 it would end up replacing (we proceeded however with a slow pace so to exhaust the remaining flight hours of the older one) given that it would cover only the lower end of the programme it was previously undertaken with the former one.
So, I think that the MiG-AT would cover the same niche between Yak-152 and Yak-130, so in this case the more basic and simple it would turn out to be, the better.

Concerning the AL-55 and the Indian intermediate trainer HAL HJT-36 Sitara.

India has currently 77 HAL HJT-16 Kiran intermediate jet trainer (aircraft which is supposed to be replaced by the Sitara) and 102 british bae jet hawk jet trainers.

So we can imagine at least an order for 77 Sitara and corresponding engines.

That means that the AL-55 Is going to be serie produced anyway, unless India decides against the Sitara trainer.

Maybe it is possible that Russia declared using the AI-222 for the MiG-UTS as disinformation and or to avoid problems to India.

The prototype aircraft was initially powered by a SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-H-20 non-afterburning turbofan developing 14.12 kN of thrust. All production models will use the more powerful NPO Saturn AL-55I engine with about 16.9 kN of thrust, as stipulated by the 2005 air staff requirements from the Air Force

Note:16.9 KN correspond to about 1.72 tons.

The dimensions of the Sitara are comparable to the L39 and Mig-UTS (but the Sitara seems to be a bit heavier).

Length: 11 m (36 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 10 m (32 ft 9.75 in)
Height: 4.4 m (14 ft 5.25 in)
Wing area: 17.5 m2 (188.4 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 5.5
Gross weight: 4,250 kg (9,370 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 5,400 kg (11,905 lb)

Here some other info (post from a couple of years ago)
https://www.mobilityoutlook.com/features/long-road-ahead-for-hals-hjt36-sitara-intermediate-jet-trainer/

Change of Heart 

The HJT-36 programme has also suffered due to a change in the powerplants selected for the single-engine trainer. The non-freezing of the engine at the initial change, change in engine weight and experimenting with engines of inadequate thrust have all contributed to delays to the programme.

The first HJT-36 prototype flew in March 2003, powered by a Snecma (now Safran) Larzac 04H20 engine and PT-2 took to the air a year later in March 2004. The Larzac 04 is a two-shaft turbofan engine developed between 1969 and 1973. 

In April 2005, HAL contracted Russia’s NPO Saturn (now United Engine Corporation) for the higher thrust AL-551 engine for the HJT-36. The AL-55I turbojet engine, which currently powers the HJT-36, was specially designed for the trainer aircraft and generated a maximum thrust of 3,880 lb. As a result, the engine’s service life gradually increased from 100 to 300 hours, then to 600, 900 and now at 1,200 hours. 

Unfortunately it is not fixed yet and it is not yet clear of the indian air force will order them.

Maybe Russia could propose them the MiG -UTS in Case they are unsatisfied with the Sitara.

I just know that there were some issues (including with spin behaviour) which have been solved only in 2022.

I still believe that for the size and weight mentioned, the AL-55 would make more sense than the AI-222 (lighter cheaper and would consume less fuel), especially if it is already in (or it is going to start soon) serial production.

Edit: here another article (from May 2019) with interesting info on the Saturn AL-55.

Basically a lot of work has been done on it, it just needs to be produced in good enough numbers to be competitive (and it could be also interesting for drones).

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-05-01/hjt-36-flight-test-resumption-renews-hope-al-55-engine

(...) while its program partners in Russia had more time to improve the engine that powers the HJT-36. Back in 2005, NPO Saturn won a $300 million Indian contract to develop the AL-55I, a version of the baseline AL-55 customized to match the airframe. Three engine examples were shipped in December 2008, including one for the first prototype, which was refurbished and flew in May 2009.

Replacing the previously fitted Snecma Turbomeca Larzac 04-30 (04-H-20) engine reduces fuel burn by 10- to 13 percent through higher turbine temperatures (by 15 to 45 degrees C) while keeping the same mass flow (at 28kg/62 pounds per second). The maximum thrust increase from 14.24 to 17.27 kN (3,200 to 3,880 pounds) is important in view of airframe overweight issues, and is necessary to meet the customer requirements for rate-of-climb, ceiling, and weapons load. Developing the AL-55I required considerable changes to the baseline design, chiefly to reduce weight by more than 50 kg (110 pounds). This was necessary to match the respective figure for the 295-kg (650-pound) Larzac, and thus eliminate the need to re-balance the airframe and onboard equipment for center-of-gravity position.

Russia insists that the 2005 contact was fulfilled in 2013, when AL-55I pre-production specimens demonstrated a 300-hour lifetime. Further plans called for the extension to 600, and then to over 1,200 hours, the latter being an Indian Air Force requirement.

According to developers, the engine’s cold section is designed to withstand 6,400 hours and the hot section 4,000 hours. So far, however, Russia has delivered only about 20 engines, due to the HJT-36 production program being halted by the spin issue.

For NPO Saturn and its patron United Engine Corporation, the IJT program resumption means a boost to the AL-55 effort. If the engine goes into quantity production, unit costs would decrease to a level affordable for more foreign and local customers. Russian aircraft makers are yet to place their orders, with the AL-55 fit to power the 3,100-kg (6,830-pound) SAT SR-10 jet trainer with forward-swept wings and the 2,300-kg (8,380-pound) Argument UCAV derived from it. With more than 85 flights performed on a single SR-10 prototype, the project won a positive MoD assessment, but experiences financial issues related to establishing serial production. Apart from SAT, there are some other Russian companies interested in the AL-55 version generating 17.35 to 19.6 kN (3,900-4,400 pounds') thrust at military power and up to 29.4 kN (6,600 pounds') thrust when fitted with an afterburner.

God no. Kill it with fire. No MiG-AT please.
The single engine trainer is a fine project. But there is no need for another twin engine trainer.

TMA1 wrote:I'm no pilot but I would figure you could train with a good turboprop plane first and then go to the yak-130 directly.

Yes but that is exactly the issue. Not having an intermediate trainer means you have to fly more hours on the yak-130, even for the part of the trainings that could be done on a simpler and cheaper aircraft.

If you have an intermediate trainer you could also prevent some of the accident on a yak-130 as once the cadets move to the advanced trainer you they will have already experienced a high performance jet (even if it is much simpler).

Basically as Marcellogo was explaining the training can be split in 3 parts. One done with a propeller plane (possibly even a turboprop, but it is not necessary), like the yak-52, its successor yak-152, the Italian SF-260 (or its successor, etc). The second is done with an intermediate trainer. It is a relatively cheap jet trainer.

If you do not have that you need to do both intermediate training and advanced training on the advanced trainer.
First of all a yak-130 is much more expensive to build and to operate than an intermediate trainer.

Furthermore there is a large gap between the complexity and skills needed to fly a yak-130 (or a M346) in comparison to a basic trainer, so the pilots being trained may encounter difficulties (i.e. needing more time and flights to be competent) and or there could even be more accidents.