Yak-130

By: Anonymous - 6th April 2004 at 09:30 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06

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.

It was a good example of a subsonic aircraft that has been used as a fighter in a real wartime situation and not come out second best.

Obviously no LIFT can really compare directly with a real fighter like a SHAR as the SHAR has a very good radar, and had superior weapons and training to its enemy in the best known case of its use in combat.

The real question is how often does a Mig-21 use itrs supersonic speed and why does it use it. I would suggest that for most missions it doesn't exceed the speed of sound to increase its otherwise rather short range. As a defencive aircraft having numbers is as important or more so than actual speed. For example having Yak-130s based in every main NZ International airport would mean better coverage than having a dozen or two F-16s all based in the North Island. The response time would be better due to reduced distances rather than high speed.

(A situation made worse by the long narrow shape of NZ but the point remains more planes even if they are slower is often better if you can get more and they aren't too expensive to buy and operate.)

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.

Proper larger multirole aircraft would be more useful, but if money is very tight and you need jet trainers anyway... the commonality issue with having a fighter that is a single seat version of an aircraft you are going to have in service anyway is quite attractive.

There is no doubt that it will be less capable than a dedicated fighter, but there is no reason why it should be worse than previous generation fighters like the Mig-21s and F-5s. Certainly they will have glass cockpits and all the features of a modern fighter.

With a datalink you could have a Mig-29M2 detecting targets and passing target data to Yak-130s carrying a full load of R-77s. Their smaller sizes making them better able to get closer to the target without being spotted/detected. This way you minimise the threat to your Migs, you can get the numbers of planes you need to do the job of CAP and you can replace your Mig-21s and Mig-29s all in one go without changing to a completely different aircraft. The Yak-130s would be ideal as jet trainers too.
(I wouldn't worry about single seat Yak-130s at all, twin seat models would allow more operational flexibility... for a really poor country that doesn't really need a bvr fighter at all then a single and twin seat fighter/trainer mix might be a good idea though.)

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.

I think most Russian design bureaus are used to proposing many variants to maximise potential income from every design... that doesn't mean all of them let alone any even see the prototype stage. For example the carrier trainer is really dependant upon what the Russian Navy want to do carrier wise in the future. It also depends upon what they actually do... they might want Nimitz class and end up focusing on Subs instead.

(note in addition to the requirement for jet trainers in the RuAF... which will probably amount to anything from 300 to 900 aircraft, the Yakovlev OKB also make the standard RuArmy artillery spotting and recon UAV).

Equally if the Su-25TM ever gets chosen (over the SM they have currently chosen due to cost) then the light strike role might be covered for the Russian forces.

By: Anonymous - 6th April 2004 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06

Just making a quick check the Yak-130 uses two RD-35 engines that produce 2,500 kg thrust each. If you were to go with my idea of mixed Yak-130s as the low fighter with Mig-29M2s as the high fighter providing BVR data to the Yaks via data link an interesting move might be to fit the Yaks with a single late model RD-33 engine. In dry thrust it would be equal to the two RD-35s at full power, and in full AB the latest model RD-33 with 9 tons thrust would give it a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1 at max weight.

It would be interesting and useful regarding parts commonality, but I don't know if it would fit properly as I don't have specs other than max thrust for the RD-35s. Also no doubt the intakes and other design features would need to be altered to allow for the engine change. The increased weight at the back might make a large radar an option... perhaps one of the models offered for upgrading the Mig-21s could be used.

The Su-25TM can use an underwing pod mounted radar for use with R-77s so it is not impossible for the Yak-130 to do something similar if needed. (I think the idea of radar silent small Yak-130s carrying R-77s ahead of Mig-29M2s sending them target data is pretty good with single engine model Yaks with common engines to the Migs and interesting possibility).

By: Anonymous - 7th April 2004 at 07:41 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06

Alone it probably lacks decent BVR missile capability. With a larger aircraft to support it and provide it with targets... whether that be a Mig-29 or Su-30 or AWACS it would be a much better defender.

Of course the whole point behind using a LIFT is to save money and Su-30s and AWACs aircraft aren't cheap... a Mig-29M2 isn't too bad and 20 of the with, say 80-100 Yaks would be quite useful.