VKS trainer aircrafts status and needs

Just found this article from Tass:

29 Jun 2018, 21: 55 updated 30 Jun 2018, 06: 31
Production of the MiG-at can be resumed in Russia
The Ministry of defense is considering using this aircraft for basic training

MOSCOW, June 29. /TASS/. The MiG-at training aircraft, created in the early 1990s, may begin to be delivered again to the Russian defense Ministry. This was announced on Friday by the General designer - Vice President of the United aircraft Corporation (UAC) Sergey Korotkov.

"The defense Ministry is considering the possibility of using this aircraft as a base for basic training. There are no old aircraft, there are resource indicators of the aircraft," he said.

In turn, the head of the Federation Council's defense and security Committee, Viktor Bondarev, clarified in an interview with TASS that the proposed date for resuming production of this aircraft is 2023. "We are talking about the fact that this aircraft can begin to enter the air force in 2023," the Senator explained, noting that the existing backlog for the MiG - at program could speed up its resumption.

The MiG-at is a basic training aircraft of unified training. It can be used for the combat use of unguided weapons on land and sea targets. The MiG-at lost to the Yak-130 in the tender for the selection of the main combat training aircraft of the Russian air force, after which work on it was curtailed in 2010.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5335490

Making the internal components of the L-39 all Russian is a good step, but it actually being a Russian design would be better... even if those Russianised components could be used to make the new MiG AT trainers...

GarryB wrote:Just found this article from Tass:

29 Jun 2018, 21: 55 updated 30 Jun 2018, 06: 31
Production of the MiG-at can be resumed in Russia
The Ministry of defense is considering using this aircraft for basic training

MOSCOW, June 29. /TASS/. The MiG-at training aircraft, created in the early 1990s, may begin to be delivered again to the Russian defense Ministry. This was announced on Friday by the General designer - Vice President of the United aircraft Corporation (UAC) Sergey Korotkov.

"The defense Ministry is considering the possibility of using this aircraft as a base for basic training. There are no old aircraft, there are resource indicators of the aircraft," he said.

In turn, the head of the Federation Council's defense and security Committee, Viktor Bondarev, clarified in an interview with TASS that the proposed date for resuming production of this aircraft is 2023. "We are talking about the fact that this aircraft can begin to enter the air force in 2023," the Senator explained, noting that the existing backlog for the MiG - at program could speed up its resumption.

The MiG-at is a basic training aircraft of unified training. It can be used for the combat use of unguided weapons on land and sea targets. The MiG-at lost to the Yak-130 in the tender for the selection of the main combat training aircraft of the Russian air force, after which work on it was curtailed in 2010.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5335490

Making the internal components of the L-39 all Russian is a good step, but it actually being a Russian design would be better... even if those Russianised components could be used to make the new MiG AT trainers...

It's another category of plane, two engines and way greater performance of what is actually needed IMHO.
In a three plane scheme the intermediate one have to offer a smooth transition from the primary and into the advanced/lead in phase, so the more basic and cheap the better.
You didn't need great performances, nor the possibility of getting a light attack version, as those have to be reserved to the top tier trainers.

Well, from the info available in internet i could see that the MiG- AT as mich bigger than the L39 (7800 kg Max takeoff weight vs 4700 of the czech trainer (and 4500 Kg of the italian M345)).

So the MiG-AT is not much smaller than a yak130 (about 10300 kg at max takeoff weight), and also has two engines instead of 1 like Sr-10, the M345 and L39.

That means it will not offer a lot of advantages about simplicity and cost of operations, in comparison with the yak-130...

The Mig AT is more like an alternative to the yak-130, not a complementary aircraft.

For the intermediate trainer they need a cheaper and simpler jet aircraft.

The L39 has no big problems in that role... it is just that even if they substitute all the internal components with new Russian ones, the existing airframes are not eternal and have been probably extensively used.

Since it was produced in Czech republic I do not know if Russia has all the design data and the tooling to start production of it (in a modernised version) or if would be cheaper and more sensible to think about a new aircraft in that size with the required characteristics...

Note: being able to repair and even modernise an aircraft does not mean being able to produce it...

So I am reading that the Yak-152 is now off the table because the RED-03 engine is manufactured in Germany (although designed by a Russo/German). Its a shame they cannot have this brilliant engine manufactured in Russia under lic. Its really quite the design V12 turbo diesel with independant banks that can operate at up to FL500. Sounds like they want to go with a jet trainer at an earlier stage.

The size and weight of the MiG-AT is not very important... the key features in this particular role would be simple and cheap to run... safe to operate and Russian.

The plane that is being replaced, the L39 can carry all sorts of weapons, but it is old and now obsolete and worst of all... foreign.

The original MiG-AT was an Advanced trainer as denoted in its title...AT = Advanced Trainer.

It missed out on that job but simplification to make it simpler and cheaper, while being safe and stable and reliable means it could have a chance at being an interim aircraft between prop and LIFT. (lead in fighter trainer).

The Yaks are clearly too expensive to buy and to operate as a replacement for the L-39, so they clearly need an extra step between prop driven Yak and twin jet expensive sophisticated Yak.

The number of engines is not that critical... learning multi engine management is a useful thing and twin engine safety is a good thing too.

That means it will not offer a lot of advantages about simplicity and cost of operations, in comparison with the yak-130...

The MiG-AT was designed and built to do the job of the Yak-130... they were competing for the same job, so of course they are going to be similar.

This new job doesn't require the same level of performance or capabilities so the old MiG-AT can be simplified and made more basic to reduce costs and make it simpler and easier to operate and maintain.

The Mig AT is more like an alternative to the yak-130, not a complementary aircraft.

They were designed and built for teh same competition, but that does not mean the MiG-ATs design can't be revised and made more suitable to the new task at hand.

I would think in terms of export a dumbed down simplified cheaper model would be rather more attractive to some countries... especially with the option for the original MiG-AT if they want some more capable versions for specific jobs as well...

The L39 has no big problems in that role... it is just that even if they substitute all the internal components with new Russian ones, the existing airframes are not eternal and have been probably extensively used.

It has two enormous problems... that it is not a Russian aircraft and it uses a foreign engine... made by Motor Sich in the Ukraine.

Since it was produced in Czech republic I do not know if Russia has all the design data and the tooling to start production of it (in a modernised version) or if would be cheaper and more sensible to think about a new aircraft in that size with the required characteristics...

Tooling up to make a 52 year old foreign plane with a foreign engine makes little sense.

Especially something they obviously couldn't export to customers without the problems of ownership coming up.

Note: being able to repair and even modernise an aircraft does not mean being able to produce it...

The cost of tooling up and manufacturing a brand new plane is the same for an old design as it is for a new one... except the MiG-AT might already have digitised plans ready for modification and use.

So I am reading that the Yak-152 is now off the table because the RED-03 engine is manufactured in Germany (although designed by a Russo/German). Its a shame they cannot have this brilliant engine manufactured in Russia under lic. Its really quite the design V12 turbo diesel with independant banks that can operate at up to FL500. Sounds like they want to go with a jet trainer at an earlier stage.

No, they are basically saying they have a lot of L39s in use still and the Yak-130 is probably too expensive and sophisticated to be the next step up from a propeller driven aircraft, so they want something to replace the L39. They are suggesting the MiG-AT as a design to base this new simpler and cheaper aircraft on... because it is a mature design that was designed for the role of training air force pilots.

Isn't the MIG-AT pretty much as sophisticated as the YAK-130 and therefore pretty much as expensive? Plus it has French engines.

mnztr wrote:Isn't the MIG-AT pretty much as sophisticated as the YAK-130 and therefore pretty much as expensive? Plus it has French engines.

The first prototype have french engines, next have Russian Saturn AL-55 engines, which could be also used for L-39 as SR-10 could use both AL-55 and engine from L-39. MiG-AT is more classical design and could be a little cheaper than Yak-130, but it is still advanced trainer. Russia need basic trainer, what Yak-152 should be. Considering, that RuAF already buy Diamond DA42 trainers, they could as well buy some DA40 for basic trainers, until Yak-152 is available. Considering, that Klimov is now testing VK-650 engine, they could made it as turboprop engine and use in turboprop version of Yak-152 for the use between basic trainer and advanced jet trainers Yak-130/MiG-AT instead of L-39.

medo wrote:

mnztr wrote:Isn't the MIG-AT pretty much as sophisticated as the YAK-130 and therefore pretty much as expensive? Plus it has French engines.

The first prototype have french engines, next have Russian Saturn AL-55 engines, which could be also used for L-39 as SR-10 could use both AL-55 and engine from L-39. MiG-AT is more classical design and could be a little cheaper than Yak-130, but it is still advanced trainer. Russia need basic trainer, what Yak-152 should be. Considering, that RuAF already buy Diamond DA42 trainers, they could as well buy some DA40 for basic trainers, until Yak-152 is available. Considering, that Klimov is now testing VK-650 engine, they could made it as turboprop engine and use in turboprop version of Yak-152 for the use between basic trainer and advanced jet trainers Yak-130/MiG-AT instead of L-39.

Once you get into turboprops you may as well go with a single engine jet. The RED-03 engine only costs 170K for a 500HP FADEC engine. Turboprop will cost way more, at least 6-700K in Russia, over 1M in western economies. Like I said, the 03 is really quite a remarkable breakthrough. I also don't see why they cannot use the SU-29 aerobatic plane as the new primary trainer. That is a HOTROD, plus its cheap and can do +_ 12 G!!!

Two things:

One is the intermediate trainer: Russia probably needs an intermediate trainer between the basic trainer yak152 and the advanced trainer yak130.

Currently they are using the existing L39 in that role.

Italy is going to use the single engine jet M345 as intermediate trainer. For Russia the ideal would be as well to have a relatively cheap single engine jet trainer as intermediate trainer. I hope they choose the SR10 aircraft.

Second issue: the engine for the yak-130.

Unfortunately the current engine is made in Germany by a german company. The annoying bit is that that German company is owned by a russian expat that studied in Russia (that I believe was also the chief designer for the engine) and a lot of money from Russian government was thrown into the development of the engine (again, without getting any patent or Intellectual property rights for it... unfortunately it reminds me a lot the way Russia dealt with Antonov and other firms in the Ukraine...).

The owner of the company said that in case of sanctions or other issue he would have been ready to bring the design and move the production to Russia... but I do not know if this is possible.
This would be the best, proven that they would manage to move the whole supply chain in Russia.

Anyway they have already an alternative. Last year I read several articles mentioning that they are going to do a 500 hp aircraft engine derived from the engine of the Aurus car, and that it would be probably used for the yak152.

There should be really no problem to set up parallel production in Russia, a seperate company can be formed in Russia and the engine IP can be licenced to them for say, $1 per engine. or whatever. The German company can actually source cheaper Russian parts to reduce the cost. If sanctions kick in then they insource from Germany again. The fact that this engine is diesel and uses jet fuel is highly desireable.

Isn't the MIG-AT pretty much as sophisticated as the YAK-130 and therefore pretty much as expensive? Plus it has French engines.

The new Russian LIFT had to be sophisticated with software based flight control system that could simulate the handling of aircraft from MiG-29s and MiG-35s to Su-35 and Su-57s, but also An-12s and An-124s or Su-34s or Tu-22M3s or anything else they needed it to.

This new requirement is for a less sophisticated simpler design...

Russia need basic trainer, what Yak-152 should be.

The Yak-152 replaces the Yak-52 basic trainer.

What they need is a simplified cheaper MiG-AT version... making it such should not be that hard.

I also don't see why they cannot use the SU-29 aerobatic plane as the new primary trainer. That is a HOTROD, plus its cheap and can do +_ 12 G!!!

How would pulling 12 g help a pilot learn to fly heavy transport planes?

Learning to manage two engines is good experience and can be the first change from the Yak-152 basic trainer they learn on...

For Russia the ideal would be as well to have a relatively cheap single engine jet trainer as intermediate trainer. I hope they choose the SR10 aircraft.

As far as I know the SR10 has already been tested and rejected. The F-5 managed to be cheap but also twin engined...

It is not impossible.

This would be the best, proven that they would manage to move the whole supply chain in Russia.

They need to be clear... if they don't move it to Russia then it is not going to be used...

the engine is about 350kgs dry weight compared with the Russian VK-800, which is about 140kgs and has much higher power potential...

The fact that this engine is diesel and uses jet fuel is highly desireable.

But its foreign ownership issues make it highly undesirable...

IMHO something like the MIG-AT makes no sense. It's a dual engine trainer aircraft you would be better off just producing more Yak-130s.
Something like the SR-10 would be a lot more suitable since it is a single engine aircraft.
Alternatively they could produce a single engine turboprop based on a small helicopter turbine like the VK-800.

GarryB wrote:
But its foreign ownership issues make it highly undesirable...

A simple licence and IP transfer will fix that, also the German parent can purchase parts from Russia for less and increase their margins. If they are considering MIG AT, then they should just build a de-contented YAK.

IMHO something like the MIG-AT makes no sense. It's a dual engine trainer aircraft you would be better off just producing more Yak-130s.

I suspect they are considering the MiG-AT because it was simpler and cheaper than the Yak-130, but they chose the Yak-130 because its sophisticated flight control system meant it could simulate the flight characteristics of a range of aircraft making it more effective as the final step just before getting to a real airfield and flying in a real combat aircraft.

A cheaper dumbed down Yak-130 could be another choice, but the fact that they are looking at the MiG suggests it was already cheaper to start off with, and of course Russian avionics and systems technology has moved on since that competition ended.

A simplified MiG would compliment the Yak-130 on the export market...

Something like the SR-10 would be a lot more suitable since it is a single engine aircraft.

Already tested and rejected AFAIK. More of a private sports plane type aircraft.

Alternatively they could produce a single engine turboprop based on a small helicopter turbine like the VK-800.

The VK-800 will likely be used in the Yak-152, and would not really work in a replacement for the L39.

The AL-55/I from Saturn makes rather more sense, though of course two would be needed in the MiG-AT.

A simple licence and IP transfer will fix that, also the German parent can purchase parts from Russia for less and increase their margins. If they are considering MIG AT, then they should just build a de-contented YAK.

Why support a German engine when they can use a rather more powerful Russian engine from a Russian company that is sanction proof.

Any link to Germany is vulnerable to sanctions and therefore is simply not worth the risk.

Not: almost if our experience with M-346 is taken into account.
Transitioning from a propeller plane to a jet is quite a jump, transitioning directly from such to an high performance one a long one.
From one of such to the trainer version of an operative fighter, even worse.

In the end AMI found that introducing M-345 between the two was the best option, not just from p.o.w. of easy transitioning between different phases but also economically IF COUPLED WITH an high performance primary trainer.
Primary would so eat up a part previously performed by the former basic one (M-339) , M-345 would perform uo to the 90% of the rest of previous basic one more economically, extra cost of performing the remaining 10% with the M-346 is more than compensated by it "eating up" a large part of that previously performed on the OCU fighter.

marcellogo wrote:Not: almost if our experience with M-346 is taken into account.
Transitioning from a propeller plane to a jet is quite a jump, transitioning directly from such to an high performance one a long one.
From one of such to the trainer version of an operative fighter, even worse.

In the end AMI found that introducing M-345 between the two was the best option, not just from p.o.w. of easy transitioning between different phases but also economically IF COUPLED WITH an high performance primary trainer.
Primary would so eat up a part previously performed by the former basic one (M-339) , M-345 would perform uo to the 90% of the rest of previous basic one more economically, extra cost of performing the remaining 10% with the M-346 is more than compensated by it "eating up" a large part of that previously performed on the OCU fighter.

esatto, è quello che ho scritto anch'io in diversi messaggi (exactly, this is also what i wrote in several messages).

Furthermore the cost for flying hour of an intermediate trainer like the M345 or the SR10 or equivalent aircraft is much less than the one for an advanced trainer like the yak-130 or the M346

I guess it depends on what sort of modifications to the MiG-AT they are planning to make... I do think twin engine is important and actual physical light weight is not so critical... the AT is 3 tons lighter than the Yak, though as pointed out the L39 is a few tons lighter still...

Also the diesel engine is cheaper than a turboprop... but cheap foreign vs more expensive domestic but also more powerful and rather lighter means I think choosing to support Russian engine makers and their products makes more sense than buying foreign products that overnight could become something that is under sanction... that is the sort of thing that would delay Yak-152 production and interrupt their training programme which is exactly what the EU wants to achieve with its sanctions on Russia.

It has been a decade or more since the MiG-AT was designed.... in that time work on composite materials and design has improved and it is likely the original design was digital to start with so it is much easier to upgrade and modify than the design of an aircraft they don't own (L39).

I think it is pretty clear they need a simpler and cheaper and lighter aircraft in that gap... they could derate the engines and neuter the performance to make it more docile and less of a step up from the Yak-152, which should also improve engine and airframe life figures as well.

From what I can remember the MiG-AT was a joint venture with France including as mentioned above French engines from their Alpha jet, but the engines were redesigned and uprated by Saturn (Odd because Saturn normally works with Sukhoi)... The first prototype had French engines and avionics but the second I believe was Russian. The MiG-AT lost to the Yak-130 because the latter had more practical combat capabilities with a useful 3 ton payload while the MiG was a trainer more like an L39... able to carry weapons for training but not heavier loads for combat.

I am not sure they need a twin jet as intermediate trainer.

By the way, if I am not mistaken they were using da42 (austrian, but assembled in Russia) during the training
for pilots that will later go flying military cargo planes or bombers.

I was already thinking about this.... maybe they could also introduce da42 or a.domestic equivalent small twin diesel propeller plane in the training of future fighter pilots, maybe in parallel (or just before or after) with the intermediate jet trainer (that can so be a simple single engine jet), so that the pilots will not have too many new things to learn at once and they can also save money by using simpler and less expensive aircrafts for getting acquainted with the basis of multi engine planes.

Well if Yak-152 and DA42Ts are going into production to fill gaps surely they could make a few extra and just replace the L39s at the same time...

It seems like Russia needs a single engine jet trainer aircraft powered with Saturn Al-55 engine.
Also, I thought Yak-152 was having issues because of its German manufactured engine?
The amount of operational Yak-130 aircraft needs to be increased? Is this low operational rate due to it originally using Ukrainian jet engines?

Having a single engine does not by necessity make an aircraft simpler and cheaper to operate and maintain... F-35s are single engine fighters too.

AFAIK the Yak-130 got the nod because its sophisticated flight control system allowed its flight performance to be dialed to suit a specific aircrafts flight behaviour and envelop.

It also won because it could carry a weapon payload of 3 tons and there fore also be used as a light attack aircraft or small fighter if needed... those these options have not been realised yet.

I would think a scaled down MiG AT should not be hard to achieve, and they are hardly overwhelmed with work at the moment so it might get some factories working that are otherwise not very busy.

I definitely think the Yak-152 needs a Russian engine, and while it is a gas turbine driven turboprop I would think designing it to run on diesel would make it more affordable for aircraft training clubs across Russia.

GarryB wrote:Having a single engine does not by necessity make an aircraft simpler and cheaper to operate and maintain... F-35s are single engine fighters too.

AFAIK the Yak-130 got the nod because its sophisticated flight control system allowed its flight performance to be dialed to suit a specific aircrafts flight behaviour and envelop.

It also won because it could carry a weapon payload of 3 tons and there fore also be used as a light attack aircraft or small fighter if needed... those these options have not been realised yet.

I would think a scaled down MiG AT should not be hard to achieve, and they are hardly overwhelmed with work at the moment so it might get some factories working that are otherwise not very busy.

I definitely think the Yak-152 needs a Russian engine, and while it is a gas turbine driven turboprop I would think designing it to run on diesel would make it more affordable for aircraft training clubs across Russia.

the current German engine (designed by a Russian engineer and which development was paid by Russian money) for the yak 152 is a 500 hp diesel engine.
I believe one of the alternative is an engine derived from the one on the Aurus car.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:...
the current German engine (designed by a Russian engineer and which development was paid by Russian money) for the yak 152 is a 500 hp diesel engine.
I believe one of the alternative is an engine derived from the one on the Aurus car.

If they wanted to have the factory in the EU they shouldn't have put it in a NATO country. They should have picked a non-NATO country like Austria.