It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Air Force to get 250 Yak-130 jets(5 Gen trainer +Light strite Aircraft)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

MOSCOW, June 15 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Air Force is looking to purchase 250 new Yak-130 aircraft to train pilots, a senior aviation official said Thursday.

The Yak-130 can be used as a light strike aircraft or as a trainer for fourth and fifth generation fighters. With a production line launched in May 2003, the plane is also being actively touted for export.

"We need 250 aircraft of this kind, which will account for 75% of the total training fleet, while the remainder will comprise the MiG-AT Miser combat trainer," Air Force Commander Vladimir Mikhailov said.

He said production would start in the Siberian city of Irkutsk, in addition to an already operating plant in the Volga region city of Nizhny Novgorod, to meet demand, and that four Yak-130 were undergoing flight testing.

"The tests are successful and there is no doubt the production of these aircraft will increase," Mikhailov said.

Testing, including spin and combat tactics trials, will be completed this year prior to delivery of the planes to the Air Force.,

www.globalsecurity.org...

Another news report says

Mikhailov also said four Yak-130 training aircraft with AI-222-25 engines, which are to be used in fifth-generation aircraft, were undergoing flight tests.

en.rian.ru...






Can anyone explain me what is a "Light strike Aircraft"? What is it specifically used?
How is it diffrent from Light combat aircraft? and what are the popular Light strike Aircrafts in this world?




posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Light Strike aircraft are like the A-37 Dragonfly the USAF used to use. They carry small bomb/rocket loads.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Well like zap said they aren't "full" fighter/attack planes. But primarly used for advanced pilot training. However they can be equipped with light weapons like small bombs and rockets.

And isn't the Hawk, Alpha-jet and AT-63 light attack-aircrafts.?? Even though their primary mission is advanced jet-training.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
LCA (light combat aircraft ): Tejas that is under development by the Indians belong to this catagory?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
No, the LCA is closer to the Gripen & F-16 rather than the Hawk and Yak 130. It is supposed to be supersonic and have substantially higher capabilities. Light strike aircraft in the Yak case means it will work together with Su-25 and repalce older Su-25's. Although it is vastly inferior to the Su-25 in that role, but it is economically superior, meaning, more flight hours and easier maintenance.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
No, the LCA is closer to the Gripen & F-16 rather than the Hawk and Yak 130. It is supposed to be supersonic and have substantially higher capabilities. Light strike aircraft in the Yak case means it will work together with Su-25 and repalce older Su-25's. Although it is vastly inferior to the Su-25 in that role, but it is economically superior, meaning, more flight hours and easier maintenance.

I believe the Su-25 Frogfoot's counterpart is the A-10 Thunderbolt, they both do the same thing, which is not Light Strike.

Why replace the Su-25 with a light strike aircraft? The Su-25 can carry heavy loads just like the A-10 can.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
what makes you say that they will replace older sukhois ....airforce sources say they will sreve as mere "TRAINING " aircrafts.

Moreover as far as I know the Yaks are Supersonic too.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
ow much is the Yak-130?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
what makes you say that they will replace older sukhois ....airforce sources say they will sreve as mere "TRAINING " aircrafts.

Moreover as far as I know the Yaks are Supersonic too.

Didn't say they were going to replace anything, or were you talking to Pazo?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
i was talking to Pazo



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
No it's not supersonic. It will not replace Su-25 one for one, but as older airframes of the Su-25 are phased out, part of their missions will be taken by Yaks, the newer Su-25's will remain in service for a long time as there is nothing that can replace them soon. As seen from the Chechen wars, the Su-25 was the most valuable plane the russians had for such conditions.
However, the airframe of the Su-25 is much closer to the Yak-130 than the A-10 (I think the A-10 is the more capable aircraft). Difference is that the Su is heavily armored. In fact the lightened version of the Su-25 UB (Su-38) was an entry in the same advanced trainer competition that was won by the Yak-130. Having in mind that single seater versions of the Yak-130 are on the drawing boards, I wouldn't be surprized if in time, armored versions of the Yak with more powerfil engines replace the Su-25 altogether. This would be a big step towards reducing the total types in service and costs. And as advanced as the Yak is, it would be a shame if they only end up using it for training. That's the main reason they chose it in front of the MiG-AT, It has more military potential.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Great News. The Yak-130 has always been one of my favorite designs. It will be hartening to see it enter service.

The "Chinese Yak-130" (read L-15) is also set to enter service in the PLAAF.


prelude, the Indian LCA Tejas is in a higher league when compared to the class of airplanes the Yak-130 represents. The former is a full fledged multirole combat aircraft, while the Yak-130 is a trainer with limited strike/attack capability.

The Indian equivalent to the Yak-130 project is the HTJ-39 Combat Advanced Trainer (CAT). Details Here

I am hoping that the Yak-130 will do well in the export market as well. The South Korean T-50 and the Hawk will surely face a hard time when the Yak-130 starts competing with it.


Enjoy this cool graphic :




posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Prelude,

>>
MOSCOW, June 15 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Air Force is looking to purchase 250 new Yak-130 aircraft to train pilots, a senior aviation official said Thursday.
>>

Like they were going to 'really soon now!' introduced the Su-35 back in the 90s? You have to realize that the Russian word is so highly devalued after a solid decade and a half of hollow bragadaccio that the only thing we look for is contracts with foreign countries that actually have the cash to back up their orderbook with real planes.

>>
The Yak-130 can be used as a light strike aircraft or as a trainer for fourth and fifth generation fighters. With a production line launched in May 2003, the plane is also being actively touted for export.
>>

Nonsense.

It lacks either the pylon count, wing area or thrust loading to carry a decent payload and without smart weapons suite (LGTM and a targeting pod at least) it cannot emulate the 'level, high, sly' standard of even basic smart bombing. Similarly, without supersonic capability, all you can offer is leadin training and that's something that should be common to both fastjet and commercial or cargo tracks because _most fighters fly better than most airliners_ when it comes to smooth, steady, slightly fast, approaches. And yet this is all that the Yak has the performance margin to replicate. Along with procedurals and basic formation work.

>>
"We need 250 aircraft of this kind, which will account for 75% of the total training fleet, while the remainder will comprise the MiG-AT Miser combat trainer," Air Force Commander Vladimir Mikhailov said.
>>

Which is simple the Russian way of saying they are still constipated with favoritism and partisan politics. You didn't need a Delphin and an Albatross but you got them. The problem being that, again, 'even a trainer' is going to cost Russia more than it can afford as anything like a reasonable (scalar economics) purchase. 333 jets X6-8 million each = 2.7 BILLION dollars.

And for what? I'm sure you are running the ragged edge of competent pilot corps but if you get them out of UPT and into track and then into the squadrons where they STILL only fly 20-60hrs /per year/ on-type, their tactical competencies as well as their desire to reup will remain just next to worthless.

>>
He said production would start in the Siberian city of Irkutsk, in addition to an already operating plant in the Volga region city of Nizhny Novgorod, to meet demand, and that four Yak-130 were undergoing flight testing.
>>

I don't know the politics of the production centers anymore, so much has changed since the Cold War. But that is almost certainly what this is speaking to, either industrially or by regional powerblocks.

>>
"The tests are successful and there is no doubt the production of these aircraft will increase," Mikhailov said.
>>

The only reason to make big-words promises at this point is if Italy's clone needs s a big start-order customer to point at in justifying their own Westernized 'really works!' version.

>>
Testing, including spin and combat tactics trials, will be completed this year prior to delivery of the planes to the Air Force.
>>

Whoopy. If you don't have a lightweight (Hellfire or Dominator) class, self homing, weapon as well as dumb-IAM options _small enough to be exploited_ by this class airframe, it's just next to worthless. Because by the time you integrate radar and onboard targeting your weight and costs are going to be important issues for what SHOULD BE little more than an airliner-profiled bombwagon. Straight and Level, too high for trashfire, drop on command from engaged forces or UAV target cue.

>>
Mikhailov also said four Yak-130 training aircraft with AI-222-25 engines, which are to be used in fifth-generation aircraft, were undergoing flight tests.
>>

Like anyone gives a damn. Twin engines on a trainer are only important if you are planning on switching to multiengine followon platforms and to be honest Russia can't afford such luxury in either their combat or training spares pipes (twice everything means twice the failure rates). OTOH, if your engines are _reliable_ you don't /need/ more than one, especially on a subsonic trainer system where T/Wr doesn't mean much to sustained energy performance. And thus /combat/ performance is even less (loaded down with drap and weight). Making standoff the driving performance variable.

>>
Can anyone explain me what is a "Light strike Aircraft"? How is it diffrent from Light combat aircraft?
>>

Strike was original a word reserved for nuclear capable platforms. In the 60's light strike would include the A-4 and Sepecat Jaguar and even the Harrier I suppose.

Today it basically means bombing the crap outta people that can't fight back with more than light AAA and MANPADS at best. As such it is more akin to a 'COIN' aircraft like the OV-10, A-37 or even early F-5A/C. As others have mentioned, armed trainers have been around for quite awhile and while their success depends a _great deal_ on understanding the limits of their employment (no where that effective VSHORADS can be found. ABSOLUTELY nowhere that high performance threat air is located, and not more than about 50-100nm from base), they can be employed in secondary combat zones on the fringes of a main battlefield. And have been since WWII when the Germans used Hs.123 and similar (largely bipe) trainer/observation platforms as COIN ships in the Balkans, Norwegian, African and Russian theaters.

>>
What is it specifically used?
>>

Guns, Rockets and light bombs in the 50-500lb category are typical, the types of weapons only useful on fielded forces in open view or 'guerillas' and their villages. Delivery then being through a primitive gyro-LCOSS or HUDWAC type bombing system requiring that the typical LSA be used under 10,000ft (often under 3,000ft) against targets which the pilot can directly MOB spot (and which see him bloody well too). Weapons load weight, aerodynamic limits and the need to keep speed on the airframe after what is almost certain to be an overflight (laydown or shallow dive-toss) pass will further limit the number of attack profiles used and specifically the count and carriage mode of the platform (i.e. many armed traners use lightweight containerized rocket/gun systems or bomblet 'dispensers' incompatible with other, frontline, jets, they just can't take the weight). While some of the later aircraft, notably the AT-29, can and do mount internal targeting systems, the cost of these plus the glass cockpit to use them drives cost up into the high teens for a turboprop and low twenties for a jet, making them non-competitive with 'real' fighter/bombers.

>>
...and what are the popular Light strike Aircrafts in this world?
>>

Actually, many nations have, at one time or another, imagined themselves to be 'self sufficient' airpowers or nascent aircraft building nations, only to discover that they are spending their money to buy design influence or major systems components from a 'sponsoring' (debt ownership) Western power for aircraft with intrinsic (deliberately engineered) flaws which render them useless wastes of money in the long term.

As such, you can name multiple variations of existing jets, Alphajet-Pampa, Hunter-Galeb, Jaguar-Super Galeb, MB.326-AT-26 Xavante, AT-3/S-211 and of course the Marut/Gnat/Ajeet variations. There also being slews of real and converted propjob modifications which are basically centered around Civillian baseline airframes (The 60's and 70's African wars saw many such utility/sport aircraft conversions of bush planes). The Skymaster was popular at one point while the 'classic' Bird Dog is more or less a militarized Piper Cub for technology equivalency. More recently, the Pilatus/Shorts line of turbotrainers in the PC-x and Tucano lineup have also been used for specific missions (Iraq as an anti-helicopter gun platform in PGW-I).



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Nowadays, the system emphasis seems to be splitting. You have higher end performers like the Hawk being reheated as 'LIFT' platforms with complete contract maintenance and glass cockpits. Gradually moving towards more capable fighter-trainers in the T-50 and Mako

You really cannot 'emulate' modern BVR-centric combat with anything less than a dedicated aircraft and heading towards an F-5 reinvention with a single, cheap, engine gets you both a squadron trainer and a percentage-force, APG equipped, missileer in one basic package for those nations wanting air defense on the cheap (it should be noted that AAMs are vastly easier to integrate than heavy A2G loads).

Once the performance baseline for 'training' looks more lika a T-38 high performance system right out of the box, most of the subsonic jobs will be relegated to obsolescence as it is cheaper to go- flight screener>>turbo-UPT>>squadron-hack than to have an intermediate, low performance jet in the platform-tracking middle (smaller nations contract out their airline crew training anyway and helo training or small-multi are both specialist paths that don't need a fast jet experience).

At the other end of the scale are roles which would normally be assigned to drones, if there were not a persistent need for high speed transit/altitude performance or organic strike-on-targeting backup to what is now called 'NTISR' but which in days of yore came down to road recce. The big question here is whether you want to pay for a bunch of skyknights and whether you can afford the hourly-costs of their mounts /without/ having to give up the sensor package which makes them worthwhile.

Nor are all of the missions combat-dedicated. Antidrug (OV-10s using sprayers and IR-linescan in South America) and fisheries protection (currently private-contracted in Australia to a renta-copter firm) as well as resource exploration/exploitation monitoring all come under much the same category requring decent range and range /coverage/ (in a given time window) with a safe, reliable, (not powered sailplane) platform.

Of course the worthless pilot corps, once known to wail and gnash their teeth that the thought of 'mere drones' doing what they did, twice as well, are not moaning and yammering about the 'strain' of being treated _just like_ a UAV in the Non Traditional Intel/Surv/Recce mission. Wherein hours are spent doing nothing but sanitizing great wide empty.

Here is where the real future of 'light combat aircraft' is located because if you pull the 3-5,000lbs of cockpit related crap out of the design, even a smaller turbine (ca. 1,500lbst) suddenly provides quite adequate baseline performance with a good payload margin besides. Something which puts a chill in the balls of the Aerial Assassin Aristocracy the world over. Because they know beyond all doubt, deep in their ugly black little hearts, that a yutz with a Play Station Education can do most of their mission set better than they can. Given the onboard systems augment or flat out take over the landing and takeoff phases (JPALS and the like).

CONCLUSION:
Russia could lead the field in 'getting there' but for the fact that she still lags behind in avionics and _cheap_ precision weapons engineering to make a new name for herself. As is, she pretends she's still a superpower in more than nuke-name and thus continues (if only by paper airplaning) a long heritage of monkey-see-do design mimicry with the moronic PAK-FA as 'T.50'.

The Yak-130 may make them some money. I doubt it because nobody who knows anything will buy out-of-pew from their primary weapons supplier. And nobody who wants to WIN will buy anything but U.S. or Euro PGM-centric combat platforms. Either way, the writing is on the wall for piloted platforms in general and combat systems in particular (DEWS and Hunting Weapons). So having a 'combat capable trainer' may not make as much sense in the long run as the reinvent-training-pipe fantasy may seem to imply.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Why dont you say that you cant bear the fact that Russian air force is improving....you speak about funds ...dont forget Russia is the second largest defense sender (3rd largest according some).

No other country in this world today apart from USA has the a aircraft Industry and tradition similar to Russia

And surely the project will make a lot of money ...after all we have our Technically underdeveloped and ignorant customer -China

educate yourselves :
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.airforce-technology.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
And surely the project will make a lot of money ...after all we have our Technically underdeveloped and ignorant customer -China, educate yourselves :


Educate yourself, it wont make any money, China is going to buy anything from russia

JL-9 - which has already been selected by the PLAAF to be the PLAAF next generation fighter. It finished the project in 2 years, hardly under-developed compared to the russian airforce equipment


Also the L-15 wasn't a modifed Yak-130 it was later re-designed with the Yak corporation and hence has some of the Yak-130 design features. The eariler prototype looked similar and only a few changes actually took place

AKA - NO russian help of major importance




Another "relative" of the Yak-130 (a remote one, frankly) is the L-15 supersonic trainer China develops with Yakovlev's assistance. Says Yakovlev's Director General Oleg Demchenko: "Our full-scale cooperation with the Chinese aircraft industry dates back to 2000 when the AVIC II corporation, based on Yakovlev's advances in Yak-130 development, invited us to join the L-15 supersonic trainer development programme. The L-15 developer is the Hongdu company in the city of Nanchang, a specialist in developing such planes. Its K-8 trainer is in production and sells well enough on the global market. The L-15 is being developed to meet the requirements of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Yakovlev's role is consulting, which can be called scientific and technical support of the aircraft development programme. We are participating at the preliminary design stage, while the Chinese side is fully in charge of working out the design documentation and making the aircraft. This is a Chinese plane. The Chinese designers just correlate their technical solutions with the opinion of ours."

Yakovlew design bureau

[edit on 14-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Hey there Chinawhite. Not sure that these two pictures are something to brag about. The JL-9 is clearly a MiG-21UM with a new nose/air inlets.
The L-15 is for anyone who's not blind with both eyes a single engined version of the Yak-130. There are planes for which China can be proud (J-10, although it uses AL-31F and some Israeli know how on the initial stages), but the ones you posted are more the product of the Russian thought than Chinese.

ch1466, you need to get a life man, seriously. The Cold War is over, relax, take a deep breath, feel the love coming from Russia. They are not going to nuke your a** anytime soon. We're talking planes here because most of us love planes and flying. You on the other hand have only wars on your mind. Chill out, piece



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Pazo, you are completely wrong in what you say, the JL-9 isn't just a MiG 21 with a new nose.

It has a reshaped wing as well.


But seriously China is doing very well from a virtual standing start tech wise. It is easy to mock MiG 21 derived aircraft but they have served a very useful purpose in allowing China to build up an indegenous knowldge base and the fact that such as the L-15 and J-10 look to be perfectly up to date designs by general standards is a mark of that.

Just look at what China was churning out as recently as the 1980's by comparison with the rest of the world to see the difference.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
Hey there Chinawhite. Not sure that these two pictures are something to brag about. The JL-9 is clearly a MiG-21UM with a new nose/air inlets


Im not bragging, im showing that china already has her trainers in production and wouldn't buy russian products like the posted originally claimed they would. The JL-9 is substanialy different from the Mig-21UM even though it used that design as a base. The whole plane was modifed in the proess to fit engines and the most important feature double delta wings which make it 100% different even though it used a aircraft as its original base


The L-15 is for anyone who's not blind with both eyes a single engined version of the Yak-130.


The L-15 has TWO engines


Also please refer to the comment from the Yak website. The only possible help the Yak company gave to china was probaly the layout of the wings and maybe the airtake since they were asked to help. But apart from that the original L-15 concepts were pretty much similar since both parties were designing similar aircraft













but the ones you posted are more the product of the Russian thought than Chinese.


100% of the JL-9 is chinese while the L-15 uses ukrainian engines but apart from that it is 100% chinese



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Apologies for the 'single engined L-15' the first picture you posted looked to me as single engined, and indeed from other angles it does look rather different except for the forward fuselage. So, my bad, it's a nice plane and China can be proud with it. I admit when I am wrong.
Not so sure bout the JL-9, yes I did miss the double delta wing
, again because of the angle of your picture, but then I researched it a bit. Still I think it is not much more than a hot-rodded MiG-21 UM, if both designs are competing like I read, China should go with the L-15 (eventhough now it looks to me more like a MiG-29 meets F-16 while flirting with a Superhornet).

Waynos, never questioned the value of MIG-21 derived aircraft for the Chinese aircraft industry, on the contrary, I am a great fan of the MiG-21 (one of my top 3), and I absolutely love how China managed to keep alive designs such as MiG-19 and MiG-21 with constant upgrades.
I only pointed out that the JL-9 is not something that the Chinese should take FULL credit. I mean it's fairly easy to develop an aircraft when you've got a tried and tested platform and just add some bells & whistles (but I think you got my point from the first post
)
Anyway, China is getting there, and this is great, although I've still to see an indigenous design that is not heavily influenced by Russian or Western types. On a second thought the JF-17/J-9, not very sure of the designation, looks very original and pretty good design, it's growing on me, I have a sweet spot for ultra light fighters (and cars)




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join