SrbinNo one said it was a joke at all. I think the Yak-130 would make a great advance trainer, however to say it is capable of replacing the Su-25 in the role it was developed for is something else. I believe the armed version of the Yak-130 would be quite similar to the Alpha Jet, which also was armed quite a bit for an advance trainer. However it didn’t really see much use in many theaters of combat, although I heard the Thais are using it for very low intensity operations against smugglers. But in that case I would rather prefer a turbo prop as it would be much cheaper to operate. However in the case of operating against Guerillas or separatists, etc.. the aircraft is expected to go down low (or at least in the Su-25’s case), be able to with stand bullet fire from bullets up to 30mm, and the occasional manpad they sometimes posses and the countermeasures to avoid it.
As for the Yak-130, it could probably be integrated, perhaps make room by using up the 2nd seat, but again this would require more development, and the current Yak-130 would be carrying all those counter measures that the Su-25 generally has internally integrated, on pods, which would take up valuable space. And if you’re intending to carry fuel tanks and these pods, how many useful hardpoints are you ended up with? Furthermore can it at least take ground fire?
If it’s just about the defensite avionics then I don’t see a big problem that those cannot be integrated, I mean the nose can be lengthened to house more avionics and as well as the small Kopyo-M/-F radar and give BVR capability.
No, the M-346 does not reach super sonic speeds, although it is faster than the Yak-130. Besides, if it went up to m.1.2-1.3, it’d be fast as a super hornet
The Yak-130 is almost supersonic but not entirely, meanwhile the M-346 is lighter than standard Yak-130 and it’s engines provide 500kg more thrust all together than that of Yak-130 so I would assume it would be faster, though I think my estimates were a little too big.
I’ve already given you a link, look on ACIG, and then do a seperate search for the radar it will use and what has been integrated on it. You will be able to find it if you look under F-20 and F-5 upgrades.
no you have not, all u told me was by who it was posted to, I looked for it but did not find it. Mind providing me a link of the thread?
maybe, maybe not. But the Yak-130 IS a small aircraft, could it carry such large draggy weapons with such a small range and internal fuel that it’d actually be practicle? I’ve even doubts on the Hawk 200 as a fighter.
Well R-77 is no problem, as for larger weapons like Kh-35, well if its said to be able to carry as much as 4 KAB-500L/Krs(all together 2000kg) then I don’t think 4 Kh-35 missiles(where each weighs around 481kgs) will be a problem.
Though I think attaching almost a 980kg Kh-59M might be a problem, but I think it may be able to lift one or two.
At least you and I can agree on the Hawk 200, however what goodies does Yakovlev give? Not everyone offers the same types of “goodies” as BAe.
Well, I think they can provide any of those, spares, support, training, anything, just how good those might be varies from company from company. The same can be said about any other plane.
I don’t know if it woudl be cheaper than the Pampa, however as far as radar goes. I don’t think the prototype has a radar installed yet. But this would probably be better answered by Crobato.
I don’t see why not, the FTC-2000 is more of a further development of the J-7, it’s whole back fuselage and engine are of the J-7 and I don’t see why it cant cost way under 7mn. Also I asked crobato but he does not have much info on the FTC-2000.
SrbinI am not sure if it’s expensive or not, compare it to other long range SAMs in the World, ohh wait there are none.(PAC-3 does not really count).
SrbinHeyy umm, were there any mentioned costs for the S-400 system?
Srbin6-8? That’s rather very small. If it could accomodate at least 13+ then it would be ok I guess.
SrbinYou 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.
That is true that the Su-25 was from the start obviously built as a pure CAS aircraft and Yak-130 mostly as a trainer, but the Russians seem to have put an emphasis on CAS and Strike too for the Yak-130, for it’s number of hardpoints, range, and payload and especially very modern avionics I would NOT call it a joke at all. Though when you compare the Yak-130 and older Su-25s, alot of the things the Su-25 has the Yak-130 has it too, but things like the Jammer the Yak-130 does not carry, but I don’t see why alot of those things cannot be integrated.
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?
Yes, Aermacchi put in little stronger American engines in it and I believe they also redesigned the wing and such for supersonic speeds, I think M-346 can go over m1.2-1.3 now and is definitely faster than Yak-130. While Aermacchi put an emphasis on speed, Yakovlev put more emphasis on combat, they increased number of hardpoints by adding wingtip rails which M-346 does not have.
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.
It should be able to reach supersonic speeds, so should the M-346 but in combat wiht heavy loads they will never be able to do it.
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.
I’ve been looking for some heavy A-50 info, mind providing me with this?
Also, I don’t think it will be a problem to add a radar size of Kopyo-M/-F onto the Yak-130 and let it use Kh-35, R-77 and other weapons, I mean Yak-13’s nose will be able to easily accomodate a radar like that.
Although I do agree with you that the Hawk is rather expensive, I must ask you.. what are the “goodies”?
I like to refer to “goodies” as training, spares, weapons, ToT, support and etc that come with some aircraft, and most of the Hawks sold to various countries come with these sort of things.
Hawk is a very nice aircraft, and I especially like the Hawk 200 but it is WAY too expensive for my taste.
Also, as for FTC-2000, it will be definitely cheaper than Yak-130, M-346, L-159B or even the Pampa and may as well come as low as a J-7E at around 5-6mn, but it’s not technologically as advanced and it’s combat capabilites suck, I mean only 5 hardpoints and it’s payload may as well as be under 1500kgs. It does seem to have a radar of sort but I am not sure which.
SrbinWell as it appears MiG Designers really did not actually focus on the actual design of the aircraft to reduce the RCS because the “plasma generator” was to be the primary device for it so they focused on pure performance and not really the shaping and such.
Though I am sure that for the production variant, if they saw that if the plasma thing might’ve not worked then they would’ve probably redesigned it. Though I think it’s safe to assume that this prototype aircraft will have smaller RCS than Su-27 or Mig-29 and even the Eurocanards, I mean it will carry all it’s weapons internally, where it’s internal bays must be huge to be able to accomodate 12 AAMs.
SrbinEven if the RN chooses to operate non VTOL and conventional fixed wing aircraft, they will prolly go for the F-35C instead of the navalized Typhoon.
SrbinEngines 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?
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.
And you assume the above mentioned planes have a better weapons capability? Surely you jest….
The Hawk 100/200 series (including the 100 LIFT models) have a wide variety of weapons options on seven hardpoints, including the hard-hitting 30-mm Aden cannon pod, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, AGM-65 Maverick, Paveway series of laser-guided bombs, Mk-80 series unguided bombs as well as various types of cluster and anti-runway munitions then of course the various types of rocket pods. The radar-equipped Hawk 200 series has been tested successfully with the AIM-120 AMRAAM and I believe the Skyflash radar-guided AAM’s….though the 200 series is of course a single-seat light fighter rather than an AJT. I believe the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile was also tested and certified on the 200 though I don’t know if any 200 operators even use the weapon.
My point is that the Hawk can carry a good array of weapons, and the Yak-130 and others don’t have any real advantage on it.
And you mention age as if that’s a bad thing. Not only is the Hawk a proven airframe, but they are still being produced, and with the latest avionics, weapons, structures, etc. Airframe life is obviously not a problem, and the wing on the 100/200 series offers increased agility, meaning the Hawk is able to perform a manuver just as well as the Yak-130 and others.
The nose is also able to accomodate a variety of sensors, including FLIR, and a laser rangefinder I believe. The cockpit is full NVG capable, as well as a modern glass layout closely simulating the latest fighters.
You haven’t really provided anything that convinces me that the Hawk is so inferior to the other types mentioned. I’d be just as willing to take it into combat as I would the others because it can do the exact same things they can. Give me a specific example of how the Yak-130 for example is a better close air support aircraft than the Hawk?
And dislike it as you may, the others will never have the international export success of the Hawk, and with planes still being built it will be around for some time to come.
Actually look at the Hawk’s cost. On average the latest Hawks(not the single seater Hawk 200) is sold for around 24-25mn where you might be able to get a M-346 or Yak-130 well under 18mn and that includes with all the goodies. Hell Africa the latest customer paid some 30+mn for their Hawks.
Look at the Hawk 100’s performance and compare it to Yak-130 lets say. It has 7 hardpoints and can carry up to 3000kgs of weapons. While the Yak-130 has 9 hardpoints and can also carry up to 3000kgs. Yak-130’s max range is something like 2545kms, while Hawk 100’s is 2,594 km with two drop tanks(which means two inner wing hardpoints will be occupied) or 1850km without em, which means Yak-130 will have 9 hardpoints free and range of 2545k0 while Hawk 100 will have 5 hardpoints(probably the inner ones will be used) for a range of 2594kms. Not only that but how is Hawk 100’s STOL abilities, can it operate from unprepared strips or how short is it’s take off and landing runs?
I may have been wrong when I said Hawk is old, but there are these newer and better birds.
BTW I love the single seat Hawk 200, but if a the AJT is something like 24-25mn how much will this Hawk 200 be? 30mn?
http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/hawkMAIN.html
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRJak130.htm
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Hawk.html
SrbinSrbin,
Why does it not surprise me that the only one you seem to like is the Yak-130……perhaps because it’s Russian?
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.
So what if it’s pricey….it’s a incredibly capable airplane and just because its an older design doesn’t mean the Yak-130 or M-346 are better than it. The Hawk has a great track record, good performance, and it can perform a wide variety of training/combat roles.
The airframe proved to be a perfect one to adapt to carrier operations, so you have the resulting T-45 Goshawk.
Everything the Hawk can do, the L-159B, Pampa, Yak-130, M-346 and T-50 can do it better for a much smaller cost(though the T-50 should be around the same cost and offers WAY bigger performance). And Hawk’s performance is smaller than those aircraft.
Hawk is old and needs replacement.
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)
SrbinFirst because its really expensive , second , becase it would be complicated , third because mayve the riskr fr getting earth falls are beggier thean we think with heavy bombs… Well thats what I think ( oh yes surely a nuke bomb correctly launched as a bunjer buster would destroy it anyway
Well it would not be as expensive as building 5 equivelant airfields. Though how often would a nuke bomb be used on an airfield? The only disadvantrages I see of this is one that it will be only one airfield complex and if you have a large country and shorter ranged fighters then it might not work very well.
SrbinActually the Yak-130 much like the M-346 are not fully developed yet as it seems. The Yak-130 I think is still going testing but the first production variant already flew so I really am not sure. The M-346 seems to be behind and the first M-346 prototype with Italian modifications from existing Yak-130 flew not long ago and it’s testing and such will start soon or it already started.
SrbinATG’s Javelin
Anyone got info on this aircraft? AFAIR it’s a civilian aircraft
SrbinWould it be a good idea to build one very large airfield complex with many scattered long runaways(like away from each other so when one strip is hit others wont get damaged) and then heavily protect it with Air Defense and Anti-Missile SAMs and etc
Wut does anyone think of this tactic?
SrbinNow I dont know much about materials or whatever but the Yak-130’s cockpit, engines and the avionics compartment are all fitted with Kevlar armour protection, not as good as that of the Su-25 or Su-39 which have titanium but it’s still not bad.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak_130/index.html
Though not as good as the Su-39 IMO, I still would pick the Yak-130 anyday over any Attack Helicopter for CAS Missions, and it’s much more flexible and such. Arm it with a small radar like Kopyo-M/-F and there comes in BVR capability with R-77 and it may even take on roles of Anti-Shipping with Kh-35. It would make a cheap and decent AD fighter too. It could already take on roles of AJT, CAS, Strike, COIN, can operate from unprepared and shorter strips, easy and cheap to run and buy. I like it’s weapon selectio nof KAB-500Kr & L, Kh-25ML, Vikhr and even Kh-29T & L could probably be integrated at some point.
Heyy I am still trying to find the Yak-130 vs Su-25 tests. Also could you show me any sources on planned weapons to be integrated onto the A-50?
SrbinSo 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.
I guess, though I have yet to see any indication that AMRAAM or JDAM will be integrated onto the A-50.
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.
Actually the Su-39 does not carry it’s radar in the nose but rather externally. Actually, the Su-39 is more of a multirole striker, CAS, Recoinassance and Anti-Shipping aircraft aircraft, much improved over the existing Su-25 but however it’s AA capability really is decent, it can fire R-77 and such but if it ran over a fighter or anything else it would have little chance of surviving, though at BVR it might be able to put up a fight.
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.
That’s true that the Su-25 and Su-39 are much more armoured, but the Yak-130 is pretty armoured too, also not to mention it really would not matter since I would keep my Yak-130s or Su-39s at a medium level and out of reach of low level trashfire.
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.
Every site mentions it can carry it, not only that but it has been pictured like in the first pic carrying one. Besides I would assume that it has been tested and such especially now that the Yak-130 will enter production
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.
It might’ve been that the Yak-130 couldn’t have been delivered as fast as the Hawk, otherwise the yak-130 was not ready back then, it still isn’t now. Though I still would then wonder about teh L-159B.
Sign In
