Wachenroder- Youve been going on for a long time about how the su-25 and A-10 are armored and designed to be more surviveable against damage than normal combat jets. In the case of the su-25, yes it is does have a small amount of added armor to protect critical engine systems against missile damage, and the pilot armor. But its not like the engineers decided to make the entire aircraft structure stronger than normal by making the metal structures thicker. Their simply isnt any leeway at all to allow that as heavier than normal structural weight requires further structural reinforcement to bear that extra weight, which results in an never ending increasing spiral of weight growth. A plane like the A-10 is built exactly like any other jet. And jets like the Yak-130 or L-159 which you think are so delicate, are built almost as strong as fighters, in that they must withstand the 500 kt, 7+ g type manuevering that fighter jets do. Fast jets in general are built very strong and it takes very destructive munitions to do critical damage to them. If youre really serious about ground attack capability, you should take a second look at the A-6 intruder. Now thats a jet that carry a huge warload and very long range for the same engine power as the su-25.

You are again taking things out of context, my comparison was between dedicated CAS jet powered aircraft such as the A-10 and the Su-25 versus the higher end AJTs, the Yak-140, M-346 etc. As terms of fast jets go, each “fast jet” are built differently from one another, your examples are all nothing more than over generalizations.

Using your logic, the F-5 is built the same like an F-15? or a MiG-21 built the same as an Su-27? Do you expect an F-5 to be able to take the same damage from a Manpad as an F-15? Like wise the same could be applied to an Su-25 and an F-5. The Yak-130 and M-346 have been built with training in mind, and to replace other existing trainers, while the Su-25 and A-10 were built from the ground up to be CAS aircraft. You simply cannot add more protection that INCLUDES other forms of protection, not merely armor, with out weight penalty. The L-139’s built in counter measures only includes a RWR, everything else will have to be podded and hung on it’s pylons, thus reducing space for ordinance. The Su-25, along with RWR, titanium plating in key areas, also carries Gardena jammer, dual use decoy dispensers that includes chaff and flares, which are all internal, along with the laser ranger and target designator, things which are not included with the L-159 and many other advance trainers.. which would require some kind of structural adjustment to allow space for them, or carry them as pods, thus using up another pylon. The Yak-130 has some of these built internally, but much of it’s “offensive avionics” will have to be carried on it’s pylons.

As for the A-6 they don’t make those anymore and have generally been costly to procure, maintain and operate.

Actually, was the M-346 which was based on Yak-130, the plans were sold by Yakovlev then an American engine was put into it. I don’t think it will be extremely hard to change the engine.
Actually, the FTC-2000 is also supersonic and even faster than the Golden Eagle I believe. Though in combat, fully loaded how fast can an A-50 really go?
As for Yak-130, I believe they will integrate those weapons if they are not already integrated since production Yak-130 already made it’s first flight. I seriously don’t see why you have a problem with the planned integration of Yak-130’s weapons.

The M-346 IS definitely based on the Yak-130, however there were very significant changes in the M-346’s design in that it’s dimensions differ, it is lighter, and the new American Engines being stronger. Furthermore it already has a new FBW code that Aermacchi has been developed. If the Yakovlev decided to introduce new engines, which will require re programming the codes as well as further tests on the aircraft structure, how much more longer will it take? can the company afford the money and extra time for such a venture? and especially, if a country wanted a Yak-130 with western engines, why not just go for the M-346?

As for the FTC-2000, there has been no plans by any air force to acquire it. As fo now it is simply a prototype competing with the other supersonic advance trainer called the Hongdu L-15. Furthermore in comparison to the Golden Eagle, the FTC-2000 appears to continue using the J-7 engine and half of it’s fueselage. As for speed, speed isn’t everything, but the Golden Eagle should be able to reach super sonic speeds and match the agility of modern 4th generation fighters.

And as far as weapons integration goes.. the A-50 will be using an APG-67v4 (A version very similar to the Golden Dragon radar used in the Ching Kuo and F-5 upgrades) , a proven radar that has already been integrated with numerous weapons that include BVR AAMs. Now I ask you what radar does the Yak-130 use now. The idea of adding in a podded radar simply takes away a valueable pylon that could be used for a fuel tank on an other wise, short legged jet.

Well I guess I like the M-346 because it’s Russian too. The thing is I like the M-346 and Yak-130 because of their strike and cas abilities and the weapons they carry, I like the L-159B and Pampa because they are cheaper but less capable and carry some nice weapons too. However I do not like the A-50 because it’s may have way too much performance and cost for just a twin seat trainer(its as heavy as LCA and Gripen, yet does not offer the same capabilities) and is of course expensive, and not to mention it’s made up a lot of American parts which can easily be subject to embargoes and such, sure M-346 and L-159B have an American engine(funny that its the same engine, M-346 uses two while L-159B uses one), but those can easily be replaced by a similar Russian engine(the one of the Yak-130 the AL-222-25, though I am sure the Yak-130 can be fitted with the same engine the L-159B and M-346 use) while I am not sure the same can be done about the T-50.
As for A-50, I really would like to see what kind of weapons are planned so far, because right now all I see is bunch of unguided munitions and Mavericks integrated so far, wheres AIM-120 or JDAM?(I know those are planned for F-50 but this is the A-50 we talking about)

Engines are NOT plug and play, they require you to restructure the engine “wells” to make sure that the new engine actually fits inside as well as requiring a complete re-write of FBW codes, which are not only costly but very time consuming. You’d better have one big potential order or customer who wants a specific engine, other wise most companies wouldn’t bother re-engining their aircraft. It will be very unlikely to see the L-159 series or the M-346 being re-engined with a non-American alternative. Futher more what Russian engines would you re-engine them with? Will they be as fuel efficient or have as long a service life? those are some key points to also think about.
Your constant use of American embargos, etc that prevent the sale of weapons system could be applied to many other cases. You will always carry a risk when purchasing equipment from a foreign supplier.. are the French and Russians a stable supplier? where the former charges much and has even stopped sales to countries such as Taiwan and Israel, while the latter has had a bad history of not delivering on time and in some cases not the quality the customer wanted. This is why countries who want to maintain their political neutrality buy weapons from two sources (i.e UAE, Greece, etc). Further more, American engines have been exported to much more countries than French or Russian engines.

As for the Golden Eagle, of course it will be more expensive, it is in a class of it’s own when it comes to advance trainers, as it is the only super sonic trainer apart from the T-38. Keep in mind that the Koreans intend to use the A-50 and F-50 as a replacement for the F-5B and early model F-16s.. which means, they INTEND to use them as COMBAT aircraft. You mention that it is as heavy as the LCA but does not offer the same capabilities, I ask you to prove it. It is true in comparison with the Gripen as the Gripen has had the benefit of being out much longer, however the Gripen is very expensive for an aircraft of that size.

As for weapons, the Yak-130D’s selection and plans look very good, but apart from hanging any ol’ weapon on it’s pylons, how many of them have actually been integrated and tested on?

You got to be kidding, 400nm – 675nm range, and you call that good? Were talking range here, not radius. Better hope anything youre attacking isnt 200nm away from your airfield.

Sorry I meant to say Radius. It’s range and carrying capability should be better than the Yak-130.

Anotehr name for it is T-50B LIFT. I seriously dont know who would buy the unarmed T-50A. Also, what kind of weapons will be added later?

So far the AMRAAM seems like a definite for the LIFT and single seater. Also based on Flug-Revue’s information, the aircraft has already been doing captive Sidewinder tests, gunfire tests as well as carrying 3 fuel tanks. Since the Koreans do intend to use this for CAS, perhaps we’ll see JDAM, however this is my own assumption.

Look at their specifications. The only thing the Yak-130 has smaller than the Su-25 is payload and number of hardpoints(Yak-130’s max payload is 3000kg while Su-25’s is 4400kg and Su-39’s is 6000kg, Yak-130 has 9 hardpoins while SU-25 and Su-39 have 10). It’s a little faster, has better STOL capabilities, it’s MUCH cheaper to run and uses MUCH less fuel(Su-25/-39 carries 3500kg of fuel while Yak-130 carries 1750kg of fuel for the same range). Their range is about the same while Yak-130’s ceiling is higher(Su-25’s max ceiling is 7000m and Su-39’s is 10000m while Yak-130’s is 12500). The Su-39 is much better, it has the Kopyo-M radar, but I dont see why you couldn’t easily put such a radar in Yak-130’s nose to utilize weapons like R-77 and Kh-35 and others. As for their empty weight vs thrust its someting like 4600kg empty weight for Yak-130 and 5000kg of thrust(from 2 Al-222-25 engines) while Su-25’s empty weight is 9185kgs and it’s two engines produce around 9000kgs of thurst.

Depends on the Yak-130’s nose, it can certainly house a radar, but it’s radome is smaller than the Su-39. The Su-39 is a rather tall aircraft. Furthermore you don’t exactly see many orders for the Su-39.. the aircraft itself seems to be an attempt at turning a CAS aircraft into a multi-role fighter, which is probably not that suitable for that airframe.

As for the specs, of course the Yak-130 would use less fuel since the Su-25 uses turbojets. However it is still much more powerful and can haul the weapons further than an AJT like the Yak-130, not to mention that the Su-25 already has more armor and better defensive suites than the unarmored and much lighter Yak-130, there is no way around that. If the Yak-130 wanted to mimic that, it would gain substantial weight, and then it would need more powerful engines to cope with that.

maximum range while carrying the maximum combat load plus two drop tanks is 400 nm (750 km) at low level or 675 nm (1250 km) at altitude. Let’s see how the Yak-130 fairs carrying it’s maximum combat load, and drop tanks.

I would not call the Yak-130 a joke, especially for it’s twice as smaller weight, internal fuel and thrust to have such a large payload and range.

Who said the Yak-130 is a joke? I think it’d make a good advance trainer, but that’s about it.

I will try and dig it up, read it a while ago.

Thanks, I look forward to it

Yak-130 and M-346. The Yak-130 can carry KAB-500KR and L and many other weapons.

No it can’t, it’s only been planned to carry it. When they actually do active tests then I’ll believe it. Until then, like so many other aircraft projects in RUssia (and other places too), it’s all just talk of potential that sometimes does not achieve reality.

True, and the Yak-130 also outperforms both of them.

Given the strong ties between Russia-India, and the fact that India does have a bit of two engined aircraft as well, I’m surprised they didn’t consider the Yak-130 either. I know deliveries ASAP were required, but I’m not sure on who wuold be able to deliver the fastest.

Yes, I am talking about the armed T-50B LIFT which is also known as A-50.

Hmm I’ve never heard the LIFT being called anything else other than A-50, but regardless, it will have a radar. The APG-67, and will be cleared to drop some of the more common weapons such as Maverick, AIM-9, and dumb bombs such as the MK.82, etc. More will be added later.

True, but the difference isnt exactly that big, except AJTs are twin seaters. The Yak-130 is very well comperable to the Su-25, in terms of payload, range, speed, survivability, armour, and etc. Though I am not sure how well it would stack up against a BVR Su-39.

How is it comparable? Does the Yak-130 feature any titanium “Bathtub” plating around the cockpit? Does it have the 8 under wing hardpoints that could be utilized like that of the Su-25? How do you expect the Yak-130, to be 10,000 kg lighter empty and produces almost 15,000kg LESS Thrust to be COMPARABLE in Payload, Range, Speed, Survivability and Armor! This really boggles me.

Are you talking about T/W Ratio? Because it’s T/W ratio is not bad at all as it seems. Also it is said that it will be equipped with TVC engine in the future.(dont ask me what model)

TVC on an advance trainer, how many do you see of those?

If you use a definition of T/W ratio that would decide if a trainer is a IJT or AJT then the Mig-AT simply wont make that cut either.

No, I used Thrust and Weight, not T/W Ratio.. have you ever bothered looking at the empty weight and the thrust power of the MiG-AT or the Pampa? There is a HUGE difference.

Actually that somewhat true but like I said in recent Russian tests Yak-130s showed to be more survivable than Su-25s. Now like I said I dont know how well it would stack up against AJTs.

I’d like to see these tests, especially what conditions that made it “survivable”.

Also, the thing is, these fixed wing aircraft can stay above altitude and out of reach of MANPADS and other low level trashfire and do not really have to get low. They can always drop LGBs and other Guided munitions from higher altitude.

What altitude is considered safe? Which AJT is able to carry LGBs? So far none of them. and even if they do, which of these AJTs do you think have the the power and carrying capabilities to carry these LGBs, and at a decent range too?

I would love to know why India picked the Hawk over the L-159B and the Yak-130 and other AJTs.

That’s a good question too, I thought the L-159B offer was pretty good.

BTW.. What’s the current status on MAKO..

it is pretty much dead. Germany hasn’t shown interest and the UAE lost it’s interest.

Who was the first Asian in space?

Pham Tuan of Vietnam was launched into orbit in July 1980, making him the first Asian in space.

Depends how far in the world do you want to consider “Asia”. There was a post in CDF that proved other wise.. you had Russians born from the Asiatic side of Russia that been into space long before Pham Tuan, and if those don’t count, then you had those “Asian looking” ethnic minority Cosmonauts that already went up before the 80s.

I’ve had alot of interest in the FC-1 these days and I was wondering several things.
Did Pakistan officially stated that it wanted the Grifo radar? If yes, is there any news that China is planning to integrate the SD-10 to the Grifo?

There has been alot of talk on other alternatives to using the Grifo for the export market. How likely is it that France with its RC radar and Mica or Israel with its Elta series, will cooperate in supplying their avionics to the FC-1? Especially with the latter being pressured by the US every now and then.

Also what kind of EW suits are being planned for this aircraft?