SrbinHmm 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
TVC on an advance trainer, how many do you see of those?
really never
I’d like to see these tests, especially what conditions that made it “survivable”.
I will try and dig it up, read it a while ago.
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?
Yak-130 and M-346. The Yak-130 can carry KAB-500KR and L and many other weapons.
That’s a good question too, I thought the L-159B offer was pretty good.
True, and the Yak-130 also outperforms both of them.
SrbinAn unfortunate incident, if it canot intercept decoy warheads on Scud Ds, one wonders how far away an Arrow capable of intercepting Shahab class missiles really is.
Kind of true.
If it really cant hit simple and 50s Scuds then i wonder how it would cope with modern BMs like the Iskander and many others, especially those fast ones.
I think Missiles technologically are way ahead of Anti-Missile technology currently.
SrbinBeyond 2020, the F-35 is going dominate manned fighter aviation and it’s going to be really dull. Makes you wish for the 50s when all sorts of amazing jets were coming out everywhere.
HAhahah yeahh so true. I think it will take another World War to have a boom like that.
SrbinOhh and another thing, the T-50B LIFT/A-50 version with American weapons and avionics would be hard to export to anyone, this is why I would give it some Russian or Israeli weapons and avionics. Hell the same can be said about the M-346 having various European stuff.
I also like the L-159B if its going to cost some 8mn as mentioned. If it will cost something like above 12mn then forget it just give me a M-346 or Yak-130. Though I would want to heavily customize it with various different weapons.
SrbinNot the T-50, but the A-50 can, it has the thrust to weight ratio comparable to light fighters such as the Gripen and is already intended to carry a wide array of A2G and A2A weapons. The A-50 WILL have a radar as well as the single seat F-50. The T-50 is simply a super sonic trainer. I know you’re on ACIG, check out Fujik’s post for more information there
Yes, I am talking about the armed T-50B LIFT which is also known as A-50.
The Su-25 and A-10 aren’t exactly subsonic AJTs, they are subsonic combat aircraft. There is a big difference.
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.
Simple, just look at it’s engine power and weight. It can mimic sustained agility like a 4+ generation aircraft but that’s about it. Many air forces such as India use aircraft of that weight and power class as an intermediate. Furthermore don’t take all the marketing stats as fact, it is after all marketing.
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)
The MiG-AT is an AJT, but definitely not the Pampa or Bielik, they are NOT in the same class as the MiG-AT. Often some air forces use something much lighter and less capable as their Advance trainer.
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.
And in this modern era where more sophisticated Manpads can be easily acquired, then those lack of full defensive suite will be it’s failing. At least aircraft specifically designed for CAS such as the A-10 and Su-25 have some kind of protection. That’s the difference between a specially designed CAS aircraft and an AJT that has some CAS potential but is NOT designed primarily for it.
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.
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.
So is everyone in agreement about the following:
BAe Hawk Mk 127/128 LIFT
The most expensive in this list perhaps and inferior to most of them in most ways. It’s also the oldest
Cost: well above 20mnIs India stuck with a Turkey?
I would love to know why India picked the Hawk over the L-159B and the Yak-130 and other AJTs.
Its definately not a turkey, but I think they would have not bought them had they known how well the Sitara was going to turn out.
Can the sitara be used to train pilots for various aircraft like M2Ks or Su-30MKIs or LCA?
SrbinWhat missile was it exactly that it didnt hit?
SrbinWhat do you think about the Brazilian AMX? I heard they are offering a trainer version of that, and Im sure it has better combat abilitys than the M-346.
It’s alot more expensive, I believe the standard AMX is someting like over 30mn(twice as more than M-346 or Yak-130), though it’s payload is little bigger(by 800kgs) on 7 hardpoints. It has a radar, but only carries AIM-9s. Venezuelan AMX-Ts are said to be equipped with EL/M-2032 radar. I think it’s downsize is it’s cost. The biggest advantage it offers is the radar capability, something like Kopyo-M/F could easily be fitted on a Yak-130 or any Grifo on the M-346 and even give them a BVR capability.
SrbinAs I’ve repeatedly stated elsewhere, Many of these jet aircraft are definitely NOT in the same class, there’s a big difference in power, cost and capabilities between say a Pampa and a T-50. Infact the T-50 is quite close in size and weight to the Gripen, which is why I often rather clump the Golden Eagle series as Light fighters. The same goes with the Chinese design that uses parts of the J-7 design.
Further more, some of the ones listed are often used as intermediate trainers, not AJTs, while some such as the Bielik are simply basic trainers that use jets instead of Turboprops.
The M-346 and Yak-130 look pretty capable for an AJT class, but some how I doubt they will do well, or at least the Yak-130 will have domestic orders. As for other roles, I have no confidence in using subsonic AJTs in combat unless the enemy is severely handicapped with lack of half way capable weapons.
The T-50B LIFT/A-50 really cannot compete with Light Fighters like Gripen or LCA, especially with the types of weapons it carries, hell it does not even have BVR and is a twin seater. I would consider teh future F-50 version to be like Gripen or LCA.
You dont have confidence in subsonic AJTs? AFAIR alot of aircraft were subsonic and have done well in combat(ie Su-25 and A-10). Despite T-50B/A-50 or FTC-2000 being supersonic, how often will they go supersonic with full combat loads?
Also I dont see how the Bielik is only an intermediatte trainer when it is said to be able to be a AJT for F-16s and Mig-29s.
I agree. Putting a lot weapons on a trainer doesn’t make it superior to average fighter or bomber. The K8 has options for simple ground work or A2a but who would risk that in real combat?
True but when they dont have a radar or BVR then forget it. Besides the K-8 simply cannot compete with the Yak-130 or M-346 in anyway.
Realistically I think low cost intermediate jet trainers and not advanced jet trainers are going to get orders. I think the Mig-AT, K-8, Pampa, Bielik and Indias new jet trainer the Sitara should all see export success
Pampa? Mig-AT? Bielik? Intermediate Jet Trainers? I would not say so.
Besides, I would not say the Yak-130 and M-346 are a joke, sure for Air COmbat they are not the best, for for other roles like Strike and CAS they will do very well for, especially for the type of weapons athey carry, how many of them and for their relatively very modern avionics. All tey lack is radar, BVR, full defensive suite and a few things to make em decent fighters.
SrbinInstead of the VPAF replacing it’s Russian Yak-52s with the South Korean KTX-1, how about the ‘LASTA’, it is a new basic trainer made in Serbia, but I forgot to post the picture of this aircraft at the time of writing this next post.
Well when Serbia gets into into production itself and then they can offer it for export. It might have a chance in Vietnam but not as good of a chance as the South Korean one. Despite good Serbian relations with Vietnam, I think the T-50 and the KTX-1 will have better chances, as Vietnam as expressed interest in both and might buy it unless US steps in and says no(since alot of the parts in those planes are American, otherwise, Yak-130, Lasta, Mig-AT and other things will come into interest).
SrbinWhat were some of the costs mentioned for the Dhruv? What was it offered to Chile for?
SrbinA plane like the mirage 2000 is definitively harder to catch on radar than any non stealth aircraft.
I would say so, though it would not be by a big margin. It’s because of M2K’s aerodynamics and size.
SrbinTheres something that kind of bugs me here.
I’m not that keen on the M2K for BVR either. It’s design does not lend to reduced RCS, the antenna size can only do so much, and the MICA isn’t a long ranged missile. It does not have any distinct advantage over any other small plane with an ARH. The only clear advantage to the MICA is that it does not have political hamstrings like AMRAAM.
reduced RCS? I don’t think Gripen, Mig-29 or F-16 have any reduced RCS(it still doesn’t matter even if they did, much like for the F-18E/F cuz they carry their weapons externally). Antena size? What do you really mean with this, I thought the radars of the latest M2Ks are fine. You are right about the MICA but it’s still better than AIM-120 because of the political issues.
Same with Mig21 derivatives. Does it mean that Mig 21 is superb compared to the competitors?
About USA policy not selling certain weapons to certain even trusted allies/sattelites…. As long as they fully support Israel, that is not much better then those others, there is not a sign of sane behaviour.
It has nothing to do with Israel, alot of countries dont support Israel but they get advanced US weapons.
I always heard figures like
grippen 2200$/hour
M2000 2600$
F-16 block 50 3500$
I am not sure baout F-16 or M2K, but I constantly hear $2000 for the Gripen, so it’s similar I guess. I guess the Mig-29SMT $5500 is likely then if those figures for F-16s and M2Ks are correct.
F-16 Blk 60 is excellent machine for Strike role. Its Radar and EW suite (PowerPC G4 processor) are among the most advanced in the world. 9 Ton external weopon load with around 4.5 Ton fuel load gives new engines gives it better capability than Su-35 with all the new Radar, Avionics and EW advantages.
I agree to some extent but it’s a lot more expensive to buy than the Su-35 which has much longer range. IF the blk60 wants to reach as far as teh Su-35 it must carry external fuel tanks, even despite it’s CFTs it’s range is still not as long as of that of the Su-35. ALso the SU-35 has more hardpoints, not to mention how often would you load an F-16blk60 with 9 tons of weapons?
Though I do like the F-16blk60 better than Typhoon or Rafale or even F-18E/F(which sucks), and for the same reasons as UAE. Sure it’s older than Rafale or Typhoon, but it’s already fully developed, ie it’s weapons, avionics and etc, while Rafale and Typhoon are still at the early stages of full weapons integration.
I don’t think the Gripen and/or M2K is superior to the latest (blk 50 & 60) F-16’s in the multi-fighter role. Either, in price or capablilities Thats not to say both don’t offer excellent designs. The Gripen offer much of the F-16 capabilities and is cheaper to own and operate. On the other hand the Mirage 2000 is a very good high altitude interceptor I think Tawian is a good example. It operates Mirage 2000-5 in the Interceptor role. IDF’s in the light fighter role (i.e. like Gripen) and the F-16 in the multi-fighter or fighter bomber role. I think if you only had the resources for one fighter. Than the F-16 offers the most flexibility. Thats why countries like Poland, Oman, and Israel are still buying F-16’s IMO…….Note: The same argument could be made for F/A-18’s and Mig-29’s! Both of which sell better than the Gripen and M2K also.
Regardless, many countries use their M2Ks in the strike roles, like Greece, UAE and Peru and others.
All 4, the Gripen, latest M2Ks, F-16blk50 and Mig-29SMT/M are fine multirole aircraft, just they have their advantages and disadvantages.
SrbinFTC-2000 is just like a temporary salve. The L-15 would be a more serious trainer and its FBW is said to be able to emulate different aircraft. But I’m not that keen on FBW for trainers; in my opinion, the trainee should learn the “feel” of the aircraft, and not fly it like a video game with a joystick.
I guess thats kind of true, but the FTC-2000 is not all that sophisticated, it still lacks alot of the things the L-15 might have.
SrbinThat’s why it was meant more as a trainer. Even with 2,000kgs payload, it matches that of the Q-5, but China isn’t giving up on the Q-5 as the CAS role isn’t very demanding.
The FTC-2000 would levy on existing support infrastructure for the J-7, and it would be cheap to build. Yet at the same time it should have the nice flight qualities of the J-7Ewith more sophisticated avionics.
I guess, but Chinese need for heavy close air support does not seem to be a very big priority, I mean not like they face a large Army with **** load of tanks and such.
I wish the FTC-2000 would be more sophisticated like having FBW, HOTAS and other goodies in it. Besides, it’s engines are also very old.
SrbinHow did Mig-23 do in AA combat vs Israeli F-4s and South African Mirage F1s in the hands of Angolans and Cubans?
Sign In
