Read the forum code of contact
By: - 4th April 2004 at 01:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The cockpit of the latest Yak..
btw the versions you have posted above are the older ones, the current one has a pointier radome..
as for a replacement for MiG-21s, Mirage IIIs, etc.. the Yak-130 loses out to the F-50 in the fact that the Yak-130 is still a subsonic jet aircraft, while the F-50 has performance figures close to the Gripen. The climb rate, acceleration, etc of the Yak-130 still puts it as an advance trainer, although it has much better sustained turns and AOA than the average advance trainer.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 01:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I thought Yak-130 was barely supersonic.
Anyways like i said more powerful engines would be better, or maybe a single strong engine since two engines are very fuel thristy but that would take too much money to change I think or maybe not.
Anyways stronger engines and refined wing and it should be able to go supersonic easily.
I doubt F/A-50 would have a better chance than MAKO or Yak-130 because F/A-50 would be using mostly American weapons like AIm-120 and JDAM which can only be sold to American friendly countries, but Russia would sell their weapons to anyone. MAKO would also have problems because it comes with European weapons and thats also a problem.
Yak-130 fighter would have a better chance because it would probably be much cheaper(it'd be produced in Russia) and not only comes with Russian weapons and avionics but also some western stuff.
I think the biggest disadvantage of Yak-130 over F/A-50 is that it's a twin engined and currently it's slower and has smaller range.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wouldn't put too much hopes on the MAKO being competitive any time soon.. the UAE has lost interest in it, the Luftwaffe doesn't seem interested in it..and by the time they get anything produced, other aircraft would've dominated the market already..
As for the Yak-130.. making it go supersonic would most likely require some structural changes, the Yak-130 was clearly designed to be an armed advance trainer first that could emulate AOA of modern fighters, and because of its capabilities, wanted to expand on it.. Also while it is fast..I wouldn't say it's at barely supersonic speeds.. however its counter part, the M-346 is significantly faster than the Yak-130 and that required re-engining and structural changes.
but, the T/A/F-50 was clearly designed from the offset to be BOTH an advance trainer and a combat aircraft to replace F-5s, which is why even before the A-50 was produced, the South Koreans already knew what kind of radar they wanted, etc. They definitely intend to have this aircraft armed with a BVR type missle (most probably AMRAAM)..while the yak-130 so far has mostly been seen with short range AAMs.
you're certainly right over the disadvantage of the double engines on range.. like Elp best says.. its another engine that sucks up fuel on a small air frame..
If a country wants a cheap light fighter and they don't want the possible political limitations that come with the T/A/F-50, then they would most likely go for the FC-1 or MiG-29 before they would even consider the Yak-130.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 04:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by GarryB
AOA will be comparable to Russia's advanced fighters. It will have dial up manouverability to perform like the aircraft it is training the pilot for.Regarding speed, is the SHAR crap... because it is subsonic too.
As a defender subsonic is important but not crucial. The reduced costs of not being supersonic means that you can have three aircraft for every supersonic fighter you could have bought.
The SHAR is a poor example for comparison because it was not primarily designed as a training aircraft, furthermore the poster suggested an aircraft to replace the MiG-21, F-5, etc something that you will not see airforces wanting any Harrier as a replacement. Like I said earlier.. if a country wanted a cheap aircraft to replace the aircraft he mentioned, and want to avoid American components, then the FC-1 and MiG-29 will be a better choice.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well the Yak-130 is a lot smaller than the T/F/A-50 I think
Well FC-1 isn't that modern comapred to T/F/A-50 nor is it a light weight nor is a Mig-29 a light weight.
Yak-130 is already a good plane, it has a decent range, very good payload for it's size(3000kgs), something like 7 hardpoints and it's speed is almost supersonic. However, the biggest problem I see with T/F/A-50 is it's cost and weapons that would come with it. I don't know the cost of it but I have a feeling it will be pretty expensive and with the weapons it would come with like AIM-120 and JDAM then you need US approval for that. Perhaps South Korea can make it compatable with Russian weapons and avionics or even Chinese and make SD-10/R-77/other Chinese/Russian ASMs compatable with it
However Yak-130 would need some structural changes, maybe different wing, stronger engines, and as soon as you remove the second seat and make space for more fuel you got more range, and probably you can even stretch the fuselage a little more. Maybe add 2 more hardpoints somewhere under the fuselage and you got 2 wingtip pylons for R-73 and you got the rest of the hardpoints for other weapons.
Yak-130 would be significantly cheaper than T/F/A-50 probably and would not come with all those political demands, even if it is currently better.
Anyways if they could just put in one engine I think Yak-130 would be much better, not only probably faster but with much bigger range and better payload and easier to maintain.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 04:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Srbin
Well the Yak-130 is a lot smaller than the T/F/A-50 I thinkWell FC-1 isn't that modern comapred to T/F/A-50 nor is it a light weight nor is a Mig-29 a light weight.
Yak-130 is already a good plane, it has a decent range, very good payload for it's size(3000kgs), something like 7 hardpoints and it's speed is almost supersonic. However, the biggest problem I see with T/F/A-50 is it's cost and weapons that would come with it. I don't know the cost of it but I have a feeling it will be pretty expensive and with the weapons it would come with like AIM-120 and JDAM then you need US approval for that. Perhaps South Korea can make it compatable with Russian weapons and avionics or even Chinese and make SD-10/R-77/other Chinese/Russian ASMs compatable with it
However Yak-130 would need some structural changes, maybe different wing, stronger engines, and as soon as you remove the second seat and make space for more fuel you got more range, and probably you can even stretch the fuselage a little more. Maybe add 2 more hardpoints somewhere under the fuselage and you got 2 wingtip pylons for R-73 and you got the rest of the hardpoints for other weapons.
Yak-130 would be significantly cheaper than T/F/A-50 probably and would not come with all those political demands, even if it is currently better.
Anyways if they could just put in one engine I think Yak-130 would be much better, not only probably faster but with much bigger range and better payload and easier to maintain.
You sound like you don't know what you want.. what kind of capabilities are you looking for, because the Yak-130 is first and foremost a TRAINER with NO BVR capability.. to suggest an air force to adopt the Yak-130 to replace their MiG-21/F-5/etc is absurd.. especially when the FC-1 (which is about the same weight as the T-50), offers a BVR advantage, not to mention what the MiG-29 can do.
The Yak-130 is a good plane, yes.. and a trainer able to fill a market that lacks advance aircraft with high AOA.. but it does not mean it'll make a good light multi role aircraft that can compete with other light combat aircraft with out extensive modifications of the structure that you want..which would involve costs and time.
Furthermore aircraft such as the Hawk 200 which is a combat aircraft derived from an advance trainer, hasn't been selling very well..with the two sole users preferring to adopt REAL combat aircraft. While the AMX, also a smaller subsonic aircraft designed for combat, isn't selling that well either, with the cost per unit being greater than the MiG-29 and as much as an F-16 from Italian reports.
further more I suggest you come down from the "what-ifs" mode, because one can certainly see the potential if you changed a little of this, add a little of that.. but in reality it is much different.
now some questions for you if you don't mind..
how much do you think the Yak-130 will cost, and how much do you think it will cost after extensive modification to make it into the aircraft you want.
how much do you think the FC-1 and the F-50 will cost
and what kind of capabilities do you want.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You sound like you don't know what you want.. what kind of capabilities are you looking for, because the Yak-130 is first and foremost a TRAINER with NO BVR capability.. to suggest an air force to adopt the Yak-130 to replace their MiG-21/F-5/etc is absurd.. especially when the FC-1 (which is about the same weight as the T-50), offers a BVR advantage, not to mention what the MiG-29 can do.The Yak-130 is a good plane, yes.. and a trainer able to fill a market that lacks advance aircraft with high AOA.. but it does not mean it'll make a good light multi role aircraft that can compete with other light combat aircraft with out extensive modifications of the structure that you want..which would involve costs and time.
Furthermore aircraft such as the Hawk 200 which is a combat aircraft derived from an advance trainer, hasn't been selling very well..with the two sole users preferring to adopt REAL combat aircraft. While the AMX, also a smaller subsonic aircraft designed for combat, isn't selling that well either, with the cost per unit being greater than the MiG-29 and as much as an F-16 from Italian reports.
further more I suggest you come down from the "what-ifs" mode, because one can certainly see the potential if you changed a little of this, add a little of that.. but in reality it is much different.
now some questions for you if you don't mind..
how much do you think the Yak-130 will cost, and how much do you think it will cost after extensive modification to make it into the aircraft you want.
how much do you think the FC-1 and the F-50 will cost
and what kind of capabilities do you want.
Dude, are you reading what I said above? I said that it needs alot of changes to be able to compete with T/F/A-50 stuff like. read:
-single seat
-more powerful engines
-few more hardpoints
-perhaps a larger wing
-stretched fuselage for more fuel
-allow it to carry wide array of Russia Air to surface and air to air weapons as well as some more Western weapons
-arm is with at least a good radar to allow it to fire R-77 and other weapons
However Yak-130 would need some structural changes, maybe different wing, stronger engines, and as soon as you remove the second seat and make space for more fuel you got more range, and probably you can even stretch the fuselage a little more. Maybe add 2 more hardpoints somewhere under the fuselage and you got 2 wingtip pylons for R-73 and you got the rest of the hardpoints for other weapons.
If Yakovlev ever developed a light fighter out of it, a single seat and etc then it could be very good.
It should be single seat, by removing the second seat would create a lot more space for fuel, give it stronger engines or give it just one strong engine instead of two, give it the necessary avionics like much better radar with BVR capability to fire R-77 and other Russian ASMs, also possibly make some other structural changes to the wing or something to allow it to fly supersonically and maybe add some more hardpoints under the fuselage/under the wings and there you got yourself a very nice light single seat cheap multirole fighter all under 20mn probably that can also be bought with not only Russian weapons and avionics but Western stuff too.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont understand this, they might use principles they learnt on the yak 130 but theirs no real need to keep the airframe, to make a combat aircraft they might be better of by starting on a clean sheet and only using some of the parts from the 130 like its landing gear and actuators etc etc..
By: - 4th April 2004 at 16:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Yakovlev homepage has all the developments of the Yak-130 they're planning, including a UCAV.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes but that would take a lot more time and money to develop, Yak-130 is good as it is and would just require a few more changes
here's what I drew up
By: - 4th April 2004 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-so in total it should have 6 underwing hardpoints, 2 under fuselage hardpoints and 2 wingtip pylons for shorter ranged missiles like R-73 and other stuff
-give it good multimode radar inside
-arm it with all kinds of ASMs
-it's single seat and as you can see the cockpit has been greatly lowered and therefore should decrease drag
-since you should give it one more powerful engine rather than two weaker ones, this should increase range, speed and payloadm. I'd expect it's speed to be around mach 1.4, payload should be increased by another 500kgs and range should be increased because not only you'd have one engine but since I removed the second seat you'd have mor space for fuel
-give it all kinds of avionics like datalink, HMS with R-73 and all kinds of other stuff.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 17:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.yak.ru/ENG/PROD/new_130m.php
they have plans for
UCAV(60% complete), Aircraft Carrier Trainer(5% complete), striker(15% complete), fighter-bomber(15% complete), jammer(15% complete) and recoinassance aircraft(15% complete)
I seriously don't get whats the difference between striker and fighter-bomber
By: - 4th April 2004 at 17:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Other variants of the Yak-130 being considered include a navalised carrier-based trainer aircraft, a lightweight reconnaissance aircraft and an unmanned strike aircraft.
(airforce tech)
By: - 4th April 2004 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I seriously don't get whats the difference between striker and fighter-bomber [/B]
Look closely at the two pictures. Notice the nose- clearly some sort of targeting optics (like Shvkal), on the striker, as well as something on the hardpoints that look like ATGMs (Vikhr or Hermes-A, most likely).
By: - 4th April 2004 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what about visibility? looks a bit too low, most advance trainers and light combat aircraft i've seen (except for the Aero L-XX series) have pretty good rear view.
I kinda doubt they'll be able to make a fighter-bomber with that airframe, but probably something more like a Su-25 Jr at most.
another thing is.. does Yakovlev have the money to finish the development of these variants? their design firm doesn't sell large quantities these days like Sukhoi or even MiG..and the orders for trainers so far is not that large.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 18:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well teh visibility will be as good as it was in the normal Yak-130 front seat, I just removed the second seat and changed the lines a bit to reduce drag.
I think UCAV is kind a waste unless Russia is interested in it, striker and fighter-bomber and recoinassance should just be combined in a multirole aircraft while the carrier trainer could proceed.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
rear view visibility is what i meant Srbin..
and I agree abou the UCAV thing..seems kinda extravagant to use the Yak-130 airframe for it.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ehhh rear visibility would be ok.
By: - 4th April 2004 at 18:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Srbin
ehhh rear visibility would be ok.
you generally get better rear visibility with a bubble cockpit, other wise you'll be relying on mirrors. the tandem arrangement the yak-130 has, the front seat pilot doesn't get the best rear visibility.
Posts: 1,930
By: Srbin - 4th April 2004 at 00:42
I know Yakovlev has planned to develop a nice little multirole fighter out of Yak-130 but there has been no hint out there that they will do it.
Perhaps they can partner up with MiG and develop a fighter out of the Mig-AT or Yak-130, probably Yak-130 since it's better
-single seat
-more powerful engines
-few more hardpoints
-perhaps a larger wing
-stretched fuselage for more fuel
-allow it to carry wide array of Russia Air to surface and air to air weapons as well as some more Western weapons
-arm is with at least a good radar to allow it to fire R-77 and other weapons
With all that you got yourself a nice very cheap low observable capable small multirole fighter which can also be bought with the twin seat Yak-130 trainer. The current Yak-130 costs anywhere from 10-12mn, this fighter's cost shouldnt be that much higher, shouldn't over 20mn
This could be a great competitor to F/A-50 Golden Eagle as a replacement of Mig-21, Mirage III and F-5.
A poor man's fighter.