MiG-UTS single engined trainer

So, I think that the MiG-AT would cover the same niche between Yak-152 and Yak-130, so in this case the more basic and simple it would turn out to be, the better.

I think the MiG-AT would overlap too much with the Yak-130 and would not be a significant amount cheaper, but if you replace the MiG-AT with the MiG-UTS then I can fully agree with that.

When training units have all the Yak-152s and Yak-130s and MiG-UTSs they need they can start making extra planes for operational units, and depending on the unit they could offer different aircraft, with the Yak-152 being the cheapest simplest airfield hack, but I think the MiG-UTS would also be useful in that role too... if they can make it cheap and simple to operate and maintain then it could be used in lots of out of the way places where more sophisticated aircraft would struggle to remain operational.

Remember also that all three of these aircraft are two-seaters so roles like anti drone missions with cannon pods or machine gun pods or missions to operate drones and use drones would be rather interesting and affordable... you could replace those weapon pods with external fuel tanks or sensor pods or jammer pods...

the Yak-130 is not cheap and would be considered expensive compared with the L39 but in an operational unit compared with taking out an Su-30 for flight training it would be cheap... and deliver the level of training that would be useful. For many airfields including transport etc a lighter cheaper MiG-UTS might make more sense.

Maybe it is possible that Russia declared using the AI-222 for the MiG-UTS as disinformation and or to avoid problems to India.

Using the same engine as the Yak-130 in a training unit would just make sense from the perspective of maintenance and costs and training.

Introducing an engine that the Russian AF currently doesn't use does not really make sense... no matter how much the engine maker would prefer otherwise.

Some time down the track they might improve the Al-55 further and the Russian AF might decide to change both the Yak-130 and MiG-UTS to this engine, but it would have to be based on some really solid facts... things like a direct comparison where the Al-55 was more powerful and lighter and much cheaper to buy and operate and more reliable etc etc.

I still believe that for the size and weight mentioned, the AL-55 would make more sense than the AI-222 (lighter cheaper and would consume less fuel), especially if it is already in (or it is going to start soon) serial production.

Who owns the rights to the engine... your notes show that India paid for the engine to be made so will it be cheaper?

Also production of the Al222 has already been paid for and it is serial producing the engine for Yak-130s... why have a training unit with three completely different engines.. Al-55, Al-222 and whatever the Yak-152 ends up using?

Further down the track they might decided to phase out production of the Al-222 simply because it has been superseded with a newer better Russian engine... but I suspect they will keep using the Al-222 for a while... which could be an opportunity to perhaps develop an all new 2-3 ton thrust engine for trainers that replaces everything.

God no. Kill it with fire. No MiG-AT please.
The single engine trainer is a fine project. But there is no need for another twin engine trainer.

That was a 2018 suggestion to solve the problem that the Yak-130 is too expensive and sophisticated and too big a leap from the prop/turboprop Yak-52/152, so there is a gap between them currently filled by the L39.

The MiG-AT is lighter and cheaper than the Yak-130 and could fill the gap, but a lighter even cheaper single engined version makes more sense.

Yes but that is exactly the issue. Not having an intermediate trainer means you have to fly more hours on the yak-130, even for the part of the trainings that could be done on a simpler and cheaper aircraft.

Right now they are using three aircraft... the Yak-52, the L39, and the Yak-130, but the L39 is a European aircraft they can no longer get support for and it needs to be replaced by something Russian.

The MiG-AT was simpler and cheaper than the Yak-130 but the proposed MiG-UTS is even simpler lighter and cheaper and is designed specifically for the role of intermediate trainer.

Having three types is also useful because it gives you three planes for use as airfield trainers depending on the location and purpose having a cheap prop or turboprop aircraft or a light single jet or twin jet to take up can save enormous amounts of money.

Imagine a base with Su-30s and Su-35s and you have pilots that need to boost their flight hours near the end of the month... flying Su-30s is not cheap, while a Yak-130 is sophisticated enough that they can try all sorts of manouvers and of course two pilots could go up at a time and switch roles to both get their flight hours.

If you get someone visiting the airfield who wants to fly you could take them up in an Su-30 if they have $20K, but for $500 they can go up in a MiG-UTS jet... obviously if you have the money and loved the Flankers then the decision is less obvious, but most of the time the cheaper aircraft means such a request is more likely to be granted than if there were only Su-30s or MiG-31s.

Light planes are an important component in an air force... for years their light helicopters were Mi-2s and then the next up was the Mi-8... that is quite a gap too.

The issue with the rights should be clarified, but It was not written anywhere that india owns the IP.
Like they did not own the IP on the Su-30MKI 

Who owns the rights to the engine... your notes show that India paid for the engine to be made so will it be cheaper?


Also production of the Al222 has already been paid for and it is serial producing the engine for Yak-130s... why have a training unit with three completely different engines.. Al-55, Al-222 and whatever the Yak-152 ends up using?


Further down the track they might decided to phase out production of the Al-222 simply because it has been superseded with a newer better Russian engine... but I suspect they will keep using the Al-222 for a while... which could be an opportunity to perhaps develop an all new 2-3 ton thrust engine for trainers that replaces everything

Russia is already working on a modernisation/ replacement for the AI-222. It is called SM-100. A high bypass derivative of that has been proposed for large drones and or for regional passenger jets similar to the Tu-324. I posted about it on another thread.

Anyway the AI-222 (and the SM-100) is a larger and heavier engine than  the AL-55 (or of the old AI-25 of the L39). The difference is comparable to the one between the Su-27 engine (the AL-31) and the MiG-29 engine (Klimov RD-33).

And the thrust is much higher than the engine on trainer aircrafts of comparable size.

This means higher weight, internal space and consumption.

It is also beneficial for Russia to have in production engines in different niches (if there are aircrafts which require them, of courses), also to be ready for other projects, including drones.

The issue with the rights should be clarified, but It was not written anywhere that india owns the IP.
Like they did not own the IP on the Su-30MKI

I am sure the IP rights are pretty clear and well defined... and Russia cannot sell to any country a Su-30MKI without Indian permission I would suspect because they paid to develop it. Sukhoi is of course free to sell variations of the Su-30MK which they own all rights to, so China could buy the Su-30MKK, but not the Su-30MKI, which as the I suggests is Indian.

Equally while Brahmos is based on the Yakhont Russia could sell the Yakhont to anyone it pleases but would likely need Indian permission to sell Brahmos missiles and probably pay a royalty to India via the contract with the customer.

Russia is already working on a modernisation/ replacement for the AI-222. It is called SM-100. A high bypass derivative of that has been proposed for large drones and or for regional passenger jets similar to the Tu-324. I posted about it on another thread.

I think the way things work is around engines... if you make a good reliable efficient light engine then old prototypes that went nowhere because of a lack of a suitable engine can be dug up and upgraded, and of course new designs can be developed too... it is just a question of looking for niches where engine power gaps exist that are worth filling.

Sometimes the cost involved of developing a new engine just doesn't make sense because there is no need for that power level in the market, or that power level would make any aircraft using the engine uncompetitive in the open market.

If the PD-8 with about 8 tons thrust can be converted into a gas turbine for the Mi-26 to replace 11,500 shp engines then maybe the 2.5 ton thrust Al-222 could be upgraded to the SM-100 which is supposed to have 20% more thrust, which would mean just over 3 tons of thrust... is it unreasonable to expect a power rating of 4K-5K hp for a gas turbine helicopter motor version or turboprop engine for light transport aircraft?