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  

And it use the same engine as Yak-130 with afterburner.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then to be supersonic is necessary for a light fighter/bomber? Why?

Speed does not make any aircraft safe, but in terms of effectiveness a plane that can get to a target faster and hit it earlier and then get back to base to rearm and refuel speed can be important.

Speed wont make a small light fighter safe from being shot down by ground or air defences, but in an interceptor a faster... ie supersonic fighter can intercept targets further from their targets reducing the chance that those attack aircraft have already deployed their weapons (ie like anti ship missiles or land attack cruise missiles) and are on their way out of the area.

Also in air to air combat being able to fly at supersonic speeds even just for short periods can allow a Yak-135 to climb to high altitude and fly at supersonic speed before launching an air to air missile greatly increasing its speed and range, compared with the same missile fired from lower altitude and lower speed.

In the light attack role it means that though the aircraft might not be supersonic fully armed, it would allow a higher speed exit from the danger area.

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.

It is like tank armour... no level of speed (or armour) will make you completely safe and the question comes down to cost and role. A light recon unit can't afford to have heavy armour as it would slow it down, and you couldn't afford to have every vehicle in your land fleet with MBT level armour... the fuel costs alone would be crippling...

For a fighter or a bomber having supersonic speed capability is useful SOMETIMES... there are likely some fighters and even bombers that never fly at top speed operationally because it takes time and fuel to reach top speed and few planes can maintain top speed for very long without using up all their fuel anyway.

For a trainer there are no reasons to fly supersonic... it burns fuel and limits you manouver performance and makes you an easy target for an IR guided missile.

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 experience of supersonic flight consists of flying up to medium altitude and then going full AB for a few minutes... odds are most people would not notice the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight except by looking at the instruments. It is actually rather a non-event... and nothing you would actually need any training in.

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.

Fair enough.

What I am trying to suggest is that there is no real training value in being able to break the speed of sound and in a trainer aircraft the value of supersonic flight is close to zero if not actually zero.

Where supersonic speed becomes useful is in a small light aircraft with radar and self defence capability that could be used as both a trainer and a light fighter/bomber.

In such a case supersonic speed even if it is very rarely used is useful when it is needed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sales of the Yak-130 jet trainer are expected to make their way to a number of Latin American countries according to Anatoly Punchuk, the deputy director of the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation. It is hoped that the combat training aircraft is selected as a number of air forces plan to renew their current fleets of flight equipment. Punchuk's comments were made as he participated in the FIDAE-2016 arms exhibition in Chile, where foreign experts were allowed to test the aircraft for themselves.


http://sputniknews.com/military/20160330/1037188523/russia-chile-fidae-yak-130.html


i hope that its the armed version they are planning on buying, South American air forces have some pretty outdated aircraft, i have always said the Yak-130 would be ideal for poorer countries especially South America and African countries. I wonder if we will see any sales to Africa and South east Asia.

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/

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.

Very few reactive engine trainers ever were built for civilian use. They were mostly obtained by civilians via surplus sales after they served some time in armed forces, let alone that some major numbers were sold on market for civilians.

Na, numbers are separate actually. Just South Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, Turkey and Taiwan operated more than 1000.

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/

Yes its laser rangefinder.






There is another variant with it too, which probably grew to be this one above.



Its also mentioned in this video

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

Most likely yes.

Night fly.

Militarov 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.

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.[/quote]

Very few reactive engine trainers ever were built for civilian use. They were mostly obtained by civilians via surplus sales after they served some time in armed forces, let alone that some major numbers were sold on market for civilians.

Na, numbers are separate actually. Just South Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, Turkey and Taiwan operated more than 1000.[/quote]

I guess KAI T-50 and Chinese L-15 are supersonic not due need for trainer to be supersonic but heavily promotes as light attack plane... BTW this shows also that Yak-130 attack/fighter version can be supersonic (aka Yak-135)

New contract

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

Viktor wrote:New contract  

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

WTF Ulukayev made a provocation or this is clear sabotage of Russian interests?!!!

Russian Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said that France's Airbus company had shown interest in buying a stake in Russian helicopters.
http://sputniknews.com/business/20160415/1038097215/russia-helicopters-privatization.html

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.

This is not correct.
Northrops history on this is well known and has been in the public domain for decades. The info is freely available.

The original design by Northrop was called the N-156. It was designed as a fighter.
This followed on from their original lightweight fighter design called the N-102 Fang, but Northrop decided to make use of the brand new J85 engine, which was small enough to make the lightweight fighter even smaller. The aim of the design was to make a low cost, low maintenance fighter, and early designs were also directed to a potential naval application to operate off smaller carriers. The early carrier-borne light fighter versions had a two seater trainer derivitive due to the demanding nature of carrier ops.

While the fighter design of the main N-156 was basically being completed and being frozen, Northrop were informed of a new USAF trainer requirement, and decided to adapt and modify their lightweight N-156 fighter design and enter a modified version of the design into the USAF's requirement for a supersonic trainer. This then led Northrop to issue the designations N-156F for the original fighter role, and the N-156T for the trainer version, which had a series of differences from the fighter.
Because the N-156T was selected by the USAF as its supersonic trainer, Northrop decided to put the original fighter version, now called the N-156F, on the backburner.
Even after Northrop devoted more resources to bringing the derived trainer N-156T (called the T-38 Talon in service) to the fore due to the order, the fighter version flew rapidly 1 month after the trainer.

To recap: The design was that of a lightweight, low cost, low maintenance fighter called the Northrop N-156. The N-156T was modified by Northrop from the N-156 light fighter design, and became known as the T-38. The N-156 light fighter was then redesignated N-156F, and was known as the F-5 once it was ordered and entered service.
The only reason the trainer T-38 flew first was because it was ordered first, causing Northrop to concentrate on getting it up to speed quicker.

Myanmar, Latin America Interested in Russia’s Yak-130 Fighter Trainer

Myanmar, as well as a number of Latin American and North African states, are interested in purchasing Russia’s Yakovlev (Mitten) Yak-130 jet trainer, head of the International Cooperation Department of Russia’s state technology corporation Rostec, Viktor Kladov, said.

"The Yak-130 is being considered on various markets, a whole range of Latin American countries is eyeing it, it has already been supplied to Bangladesh, Myanmar has expressed great interest in it, as well as a number of countries in North Africa," Kladov told RIA Novosti.

He explained that one of the advantages of the two-seat advanced jet trainer is its ability to imitate the attack aircraft of any country and class, which makes it easier for pilots to prepare for flights on both Russian and foreign planes.

The Yak-130 lead-in fighter trainer is the world's only training aircraft with the aerodynamic configuration and subsonic flight performance characteristics of modern jet fighters. The two-seat reconnaissance and light attack jet has a combat load of up to 3,000 kilograms (about 6,614 pounds).

Don't know who produced that info graphic but they are lazy SOBs... they clearly cut and pasted some western chart... the air to ground missile is a Maverick missile and the bomb weights are US standard sizes... ie imperial weights rather than metric.

Russia does not use 454kg bombs or 227kg bombs... these are American bomb types better known as 1,000lb and 500lb bombs respectively. The Russian and Soviet equivalents are 500kgs and 250kgs.