Yak-130: News

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:There is only one reason the Yak-130 is not supersonic... its non afterburning engines don't put out enough thrust.

Putting in larger more powerful engines could easily have made it supersonic, but in the training role there are very few reasons to go supersonic.

1,4Ma version of Yak-130 oops I mean L-15  

GarryB wrote:

I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.

Do you know that the most produced military trainer has been a supersonic trainer? I was surprised when I found it. The T-38 has been surely the most succesful of the military trainers until now, and is supersonic. Then, the idea of a supersonic trainer has at least some point.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I see interesting a small supersonic trainer for the first supersonic experiences of the pilots, instead of doing it in bigger and more expensive Su-24, MiG-29,...

A supersonic trainer can help to save money.[/quote


But that is the problem... the extra cost of making the trainer supersonic will make it more expensive to use, yet the vast majority of its time will be spent at subsonic speeds training pilots in all sorts of things at subsonic speeds.

Breaking the speed of sound is a total non event... doing it at medium to high altitude and the only way you know you are supersonic is by looking at your speed instruments.

the reason the vast majority of LIFT aircraft are subsonic is because flying supersonic is of no value to a training aircraft. It is the same for CAS... there is no advantage to flying so fast you can't spot targets and threats on the ground.

Speed is useful for an interceptor, or for attack but speed wont make you safe.

The only reason to make a light trainer supersonic is to make it into a light fighter/bomber.

Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why? The answer to this question explains many things about the value of the speed on aircrafts. Nothing in this life make you safe, but somethings like the speed in the air (and the armour on land) make you safer in contested areas.

In some comments it seems that to make a supersonic version of the Yak-130 is easy and cheap, in other comments seems that is expensive... The point of my comment was that if it is cheap, I would see interesting to have some supersonic trainers to give to the pilots their first supersonic experiences instead of doing it in more expensive aircrafts. If the Yak-135 is developed as a supersonic version of the Yak-130 it would be interesting to take advantage of it also for training purposes.

The concept of a trainer aircraft is to give experience to the pilots wasting less money in operational terms and risking less money in terms of equipment. It is also to avoid accidents in more expensive aircrafts. Not all the trainer aircrafts need to be supersonic.

For fighters/interceptors superonic capabilities are required to fight, without it they are useless, they cant chase, cant intercept, cant sprint to dedicated gathering area, you lose response time, also afterburners are used in actual combat to allow certain maneuvers... And there is no point in having supersonic trainer as you MUST put pilots after Yak 130 for a while on two seat dedicated fighters to adapt for its subsystems, controls, handling etc. When its about feeling there is no much difference between high subsonic and low supersonic from pilots perspective.

Supersonic variant of Yak-130 would be cheap multirole fighter, however it wouldnt be cheap trainer. Also worlds basically only real supersonic trainer is T-50 Golden Eagle, which costs to operate same as F16 Block 40.

Do you know that the most produced military trainer has been a supersonic trainer? I was surprised when I found it. The T-38 has been surely the most succesful of the military trainers until now, and is supersonic. Then, the idea of a supersonic trainer has at least some point.

Well aware of that, and its operational costs are basically same as of F5 Tiger which was mainstray fighter of many NATO countries for decades. Majority of trainers are subsonic only and it will be that way probably till the moment when manned aircraft disappear from our skies.

Also i wouldnt call T38 most succesful advanced trainer till now, not even by a long shot, it was averagely present in service due to US influence. Far better service records have BAE Hawk, L-39 Albatros, L-29 Delfín.. hell even Aermacchi MB-326, which are all legends among trainer aircrafts. Imo T-37 Tweet was far better machine for that role than Talon.

It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.

Militarov wrote:

It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.

Doesnt matter which one was the first, doesnt change fact T38 as a pure trainer had same operating costs as real fighter which doesnt really make any sense whatsoever, not even by a long shot.

Also you confused something there, F5 was produced in over 2000 pieces while T38 was produced in somewhat over 1000 examples. And its nowhere near being the most produced advanced trainer, L-29 Delfín was produced in over 3.500 examples probably near 4000, L-39 Albatros almost 3000. If we merge production of BAE Hawk and T-45 Goshawk (as they are same design) we have again more than T38, with side note that Hawk is to be produced for at least another decade probably more. Lockheed T-33 was made in thousands, probably over 6.000, Yugoslavia alone operated 125.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

It is necessary to say that the F-5 was developed from the T-38 and not the inverse case. Also the T-38 has been about a 25% more produced than the F-5.

To say which has been the most succesful trainer is open to discussion, but the T-38 has two significant data on its side. First, to be the most produced trainer aircraft and second to be 55 years in active service (and increasing).

I think the data are enough good to prove that the idea of a supersonic trainer has some sense.

Doesnt matter which one was the first, doesnt change fact T38 as a pure trainer had same operating costs as real fighter which doesnt really make any sense whatsoever, not even by a long shot.

Also you confused something there, F5 was produced in over 2000 pieces while T38 was produced in somewhat over 1000 examples. And its nowhere near being the most produced advanced trainer, L-29 Delfín was produced in over 3.500 examples probably near 4000, L-39 Albatros almost 3000. If we merge production of BAE Hawk and T-45 Goshawk (as they are same design) we have again more than T38, with side note that Hawk is to be produced for at least another decade probably more. Lockheed T-33 was made in thousands, probably over 6.000, Yugoslavia alone operated 125.

It maters in this sense. It is not right to call F-5 to the T-38. The original design was a trainer aircraft. The T-38 is not a fighter modified, while the F-5 is a trainer aircraft modified to be a fighter. The T-38 is not supersonic because it was developed from a fighter. The T-38 was designed supersonic to be a trainer, and has been successful.

From what I know the number of 2000 is for both, the T-38 and the F-5, with about 1175 T-38s and 925 F-5s (aproximately). Also, I think you are including in the numbers for the other trainers, aircrafts of versions for civil use.

d_taddei2 wrote:a nice pic of Yak-130 with what could be laser rangefinder and TV camera or other targeting systems.

and a nice couple of older articles on the Yak-130

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-yak-130-fighter-the-tiny-terror-nato-should-13782

http://warisboring.com/articles/this-tiny-russian-plane-has-a-ridiculous-amount-of-weapons/

sepheronx wrote:I believe salt-25 is supposed to work on Yak-130, not just Su-25SM3. So thermal imaging/tv sensors too.

Militarov wrote:

Viktor wrote:New contract  

VKS Russia will receive 30 training aircraft Yak-130 until the end of 2018

eehnie wrote:

It maters in this sense. It is not right to call F-5 to the T-38. The original design was a trainer aircraft. The T-38 is not a fighter modified, while the F-5 is a trainer aircraft modified to be a fighter. The T-38 is not supersonic because it was developed from a fighter. The T-38 was designed supersonic to be a trainer, and has been successful.