Potential and advantages of the Yak-130 aircraft

96
Potential and advantages of the Yak-130 aircraft
Yak-130 with combat load. Photo by "UAC"


Since the beginning of the 130s, serial combat training aircraft Yak-130 have been delivered to the Russian Aerospace Forces. They gradually replace outdated equipment and become the basis for the training system for young pilots. The Yak-XNUMX has broad training capabilities, and they were obtained through the development and implementation of a number of important solutions.



Promising project


Development of a new combat trainer (CT) to replace the existing L-39 fleet began in the late XNUMXs. Over the next decade, the program went through a competitive phase, with the Air Force comparing designs from various aircraft manufacturers and selecting the best.

One of the participants in the competition was the Yakovlev company with its UTS-Yak project, which later received the Yak-130 index. The project was developed in the first half of the nineties, and in 1996 the prototype first took to the air. In 2002, it won the competition and was further developed. Refinement of the design and improvement of the onboard equipment continued almost until the end of the decade.

Serial production of the Yak-130 began in the late 2010s at two sites at once: Sokol in Nizhny Novgorod and the Irkutsk Aircraft Plant. The first production batch was ready in XNUMX and soon entered service. Since then, the production of new combat trainers, their delivery to the troops and their commissioning have become a regular and continuous process.


Construction of the Yak-130 at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant, 2020. Photo by the Russian Ministry of Defense

The production of the Yak-130 continues to this day. Recently, the industry handed over another batch of aircraft to the Ministry of Defense. To date, the training structures of the Ministry of Defense and the Aerospace Forces have received at least 160-180 units and put them into service.

As production continues, the new Yak-130s are replacing the remaining L-39s in service. It is known that the number of the newest UBSs already exceeds the number of obsolete machines in service. All this leads to a fleet renewal, and also gives our VKS new training opportunities.

Russian trace


At the stage of the Yak-130 project development, Yakovlev joined forces with the Italian firm Aermacchi. Later, the cooperation ceased, but under the terms of the agreement, the Italian aircraft manufacturers received documentation for the airframe and some technical solutions of the Russian project.

Based on the documentation received, Aermacchi developed its own version of the UBS, the M-346. Despite using a ready-made concept and some of the developments, the M-346 differed from its Russian counterpart in its design and equipment. The first prototype of the Italian UBS took to the air in 2004.


The forward cockpit of the aircraft. Photo Airwar.ru

By the end of the 346s, Aermacchi had completed testing and development of its UBS and was accepting orders. The M-8 attracted the interest of the Italian Air Force, and soon XNUMX export orders were received.

It is interesting that not only Italy showed interest in the concept and ideas of the Yak-130 project. In 2001, the Chinese company Hongdu Aviation Industry Corporation presented a model of its training aircraft under the designation L-15. Externally, it resembled the already flying Russian aircraft and the Italian one being designed.

The prototype L-15 was built in 2005, and in 2006 it made its first flight. Testing and improvements continued until the beginning of the 2013s. The new combat trainer entered service with the PLAAF in XNUMX. Subsequently, the Chinese industry received three orders from foreign countries.

Since the middle of the last decade, the Turkish company TAI has been developing its project of a promising UCAV, externally similar to existing models. The development of the Hürjet aircraft was completed in 2021, and in April 2023, the prototype made its first flight. In the near future, the new aircraft is planned to be adopted by the Turkish Air Force and presented on the international market.


The upgraded Yak-130M combat helicopter and compatible weapons. Photo by UAC

Design features


The Yak-130 is a high-wing aircraft with a normal aerodynamic configuration and a swept wing, two engines and a two-seat tandem cabin. It is designed to train pilots before moving on to front-line aircraft. aviationThis aircraft can also be used as a light fighter or attack aircraft.

The Yak-130 is approximately 11,5 m long and has a wingspan of 9,84 m. The dry weight of the aircraft is 4,6 t, the normal takeoff weight is 7,7 t, and the maximum is 10,3 t. In the attack or fighter version, the combat load can reach 3 t.

The Yak-130 is equipped with two AI-222-25 turbojet engines with a thrust of 2500 kgf each. The aircraft is subsonic and develops a speed of no more than 1050 km/h. Stability in flight is maintained at speeds of up to 180-150 km/h. The service ceiling is 12500 m, and the service range is 1850 km.

A digital integrated control system KSU-130 was developed for the Yak-130. It includes several computers for different purposes, a set of sensors, an electric remote control system with actuators and other components.

The two cockpits are equipped with instrumentation based on three large-format liquid crystal displays. Traditional pointer indicators are absent. The front cockpit, intended for the pilot being trained, is equipped with an indicator on the windshield. Both cockpits are equipped with class "0-0" ejection seats.


Serial Yak-130 for the Russian Aerospace Forces. Photo by UAC

The KSU-130 system has a mode for simulating flight characteristics, controllability and stability of aircraft of different types. In the latest versions, it is capable of simulating the entire fleet of domestic fighters and bombers of the 4th and 5th generations.

The Yak-130 can carry different types of weapons. For air combat, it is equipped with rockets short-range R-73. For work on ground targets, unguided missiles of domestic types and various bombs with a caliber of up to 500 kg, including guided ones, are offered.

Great benefits


The Yak-130 combat training aircraft has a number of characteristic features that determine its technical, operational and performance characteristics. It compares favorably with domestic and foreign combat training aircraft of previous generations and provides significant advantages in the process of training pilots. The high potential of the Russian Yak-130 has led to the emergence of a number of foreign analogues.

The Yak-130 has a successful airframe design. Its aerodynamics provide high flight and maneuverability characteristics, which are necessary for modeling other aircraft and training pilots. At the same time, the construction process does not use excessively complex technologies and materials, which simplifies production and repair.

For comparison, the Italian M-346 UBS has similar aerodynamics, but is assembled using composites. This design does not give it significant advantages, but increases the cost of construction and complicates repairs.


Yak-130 before takeoff. Photo by UAC

The key advantage of the Yak-130 over the previous generation of UBS is its special control system. The electronic fly-by-wire control system (EDSU) with computers not only transmits signals from the controls to the rudder drives, but is also capable of making adjustments to this process. Due to this, the KSU-130 system imitates the stability, controllability and maneuverability parameters of other aircraft.

The simulation modes used in the KSU-130 system allow pilots to train in controlling specific types of aircraft. They help master complex piloting, maneuverable air combat, etc. It is also possible to practice the use of air-to-surface weapons, including situations with the presence of Defense conditional adversary.

The KSU-130 system on Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft has modes for simulating all the main models of domestic frontline aviation. This means that the Yak-130 can train future pilots of MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30/35 fighters, as well as Su-34 bombers. A similar model of the newest Su-57 aircraft has probably been developed.

The export version of the Yak-130 can receive software with other operating modes. In this case, it is possible to imitate common foreign tactical aircraft, such as the F-15, F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon and others.


During a demonstration flight. Photo by UAC

The Yak-130 carries various weapons as standard. This allows the pilot training program to be expanded through real shooting, launches, or drops. In addition, if necessary, the training aircraft will be able to participate in combat operations, complementing full-fledged frontline aircraft.

New concept


The Yak-130 project was based on the original concept of a combat training aircraft with an expanded set of functions. For the first time in domestic and world practice, the combat training aircraft received a special control system that can simulate the parameters and behavior of combat aircraft.

In this regard, the Yak-130 and similar aircraft are fundamentally different from previous generations of UBS, which had limited functionality. Thanks to fundamentally new systems and functions, it was possible to significantly increase the efficiency of pilot training. In addition, the foundations were laid for further renewal of the aircraft fleet, without the need to replace training equipment.

The Yak-130 is produced in a fairly large series and supplied to both the Russian Aerospace Forces and foreign customers. In addition, the Russian combat training aircraft has served as an incentive for the creation of several foreign projects. All this confirms the potential of the Russian aircraft, and also demonstrates the correctness of the chosen concept and the solutions applied.
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    12 September 2024 05: 14
    Questions to the author.
    With what domestically produced air-to-ground guided missiles can this aircraft be used as a combat aircraft?

    Why do we need such a heavy and twin-engine aircraft as a training aircraft?
    1. +2
      12 September 2024 07: 39
      Why do we need such a heavy and twin-engine aircraft as a training aircraft?

      Twin-engine - additional safety guarantee, heavy:
      Weight, kg
      empty aircraft 4500
      normal takeoff 6350
      maximum takeoff 9000
      so that the cadet gets used to piloting an aircraft with characteristics close to a combat one. This is most likely not an initial training aircraft, for that there is a Yak-152:
      https://yakovlev.ru/products/yak-152/
      1. +2
        12 September 2024 11: 59
        Not the correct answer, and Luminman's too.
        1. 0
          12 September 2024 12: 08
          What is the correct answer?! request
          1. +5
            12 September 2024 12: 15
            The correct answer is that it is essentially a combat aircraft, with a quite decent load of 3 tons.

            And the training one should be lighter, smaller, cheaper.
            1. +1
              12 September 2024 13: 06
              And men don’t know! laughing They didn't equip it with everything necessary for conducting combat operations...
              1. +2
                12 September 2024 13: 36
                Well, remove the sight from the Pe-2, will it stop being a bomber?
                1. +2
                  12 September 2024 13: 50
                  Not only the Pe-2, but also the Po-2 were made into bombers at one time, but this was not done for the good of life. Of course, it is possible to make a combat aircraft out of the Yak-130, the only question is: is there an extreme need for this? Is this the best option? Is there no alternative?
                  1. 0
                    13 September 2024 04: 57
                    It can be used as a cheap platform for a situation where a massive raid and the use of bombs/missiles weighing more than 500 kg are not needed.

                    Here it is a matter of economics, if it will allow saving money, completing the task and NOT LOSE THE MACHINE AND PEOPLE, then it is possible to expand production and operate.

                    And so you can use a multi-role fighter, it can carry missiles and bombs of normal weight, or even a cargo plane with a pallet of missiles.
                    1. -1
                      13 September 2024 05: 05
                      The only question is whether the Air Force, Aerospace Forces, General Staff and Defense Ministry command will find it expedient. My intuition tells me that it is unlikely - it is weak, flimsy, the energy is insufficient for serious avionics (we will have to look for other engines, more powerful ones, but where to get them?!), and we do not have the appropriate avionics for it, and no one will sell it to us now. And so on.
                      Therefore, most likely no one will start such an event and will not provide funding for it, and this is the main thing... feel
    2. +1
      12 September 2024 07: 47
      Why do we need such a heavy and twin-engine aircraft as a training aircraft?

      That's why it has two engines, because it's a training aircraft, for greater flight safety...
      1. -1
        12 September 2024 09: 37
        Interesting. That is, F-16 pilots, which are also significantly more expensive, are dying of fear that their engine will fail in flight....
        1. +1
          12 September 2024 11: 52
          Quote: stoqn477
          Interesting. That is, F-16 pilots, which are also significantly more expensive, are dying of fear that their engine will fail in flight....

          Another concept: A light fighter operating in the presence of overwhelming superiority in forces and information about the enemy.
          In our country, the final rejection of single-engine aircraft occurred already during the Russian Federation, in the early 90s. However, it all began back in Soviet times, when the TTT was issued for a promising frontline fighter with a twin-engine power plant prescribed in the requirements. After the PFI was divided into light and heavy branches in 1972, the future MiG-29 inherited twin-engine capability.
          And it seems to me that the experience of real combat use of domestic single-engine machines played a significant role here.

          It is noteworthy that the potential enemy, in response to the FX program which began developments on the PFI, in the same 1972 split this same FX into heavy and light branches - the future F-15 and F-16. Moreover, for the same reasons - the future F-15 was too heavy and expensive.
          1. 0
            19 September 2024 09: 01
            The TTTs were uniform, and Mikoyan proposed the "two-aircraft" scheme when he saw that he was losing to Sukhoi. Well, they decided not to offend the "fighter" design bureau. Belyakov remembered the American LWF and the two-aircraft fleet when he realized that he was losing. But this did not make the MiG easy. In order to fit into the "two-aircraft fleet" concept, the MiG-29 had to be twice cheaper than the Su-27. But it was clear from the start that you wouldn't get this on a two-engine machine.
        2. +3
          12 September 2024 16: 35
          Quote: stoqn477
          That is, F-16 pilots, which are also significantly more expensive, are dying of fear that their engine will fail in flight....

          There is no need to compare F-16 pilots who have completed flight training and received flight certificates with a rookie cadet who has just sat at the controls of an airplane, even with an instructor...
          1. -1
            12 September 2024 22: 03
            Quote: Luminman
            Quote: stoqn477
            That is, F-16 pilots, which are also significantly more expensive, are dying of fear that their engine will fail in flight....

            There is no need to compare F-16 pilots who have completed flight training and received flight certificates with a rookie cadet who has just sat at the controls of an airplane, even with an instructor...

            Seriously? So those who have been flying L-29/39 for decades are cyborgs compared to your "they haven't had a certificate yet". Seems stupid, right?
        3. 0
          19 September 2024 06: 04
          That is, F-16 pilots, which are also significantly more expensive, are dying of fear that their engine will fail in flight...

          When their only engine fails in flight, they don't feel the slightest joy... They think: if only this were an F-15 right now?! lol
      2. -2
        12 September 2024 21: 13
        Quote: Luminman
        That's why it has two engines, because it's a training aircraft, for greater flight safety...

        A very strange conclusion, however. laughing
        Training aircraft usually do not fly in combat zones. They have no particular reason to duplicate systems so radically. Look at the Po-2 or Yak-152.. But the cost of the aircraft, as well as the cost of training for two engines, has increased sharply.
        Pilots' opinions about the Yak-130 were rare, but they were not delighted. It was difficult to control for a cadet and expensive for a continuous training carousel. In general, the replacement for the already legendary L-39 turned out to be so-so.
        1. +2
          13 September 2024 06: 41
          Training aircraft don't usually fly in combat zones. There's no particular reason for them to have such extensive duplication of systems.

          Training aircraft are flown by those who are flying for the first or second time, so there is a very, very good reason to duplicate systems...
          1. -1
            13 September 2024 21: 13
            Quote: Luminman
            Training aircraft are flown by those who are flying for the first or second time, so there is a very, very good reason to duplicate systems...

            Don't you think that you are writing complete nonsense? Do you think that a cadet gets into the cockpit solely for the purpose of destroying the engine? It is difficult to do this from the cockpit even if you want to. A stronger chassis is understandable, but why the second engine? fool
            1. +1
              15 September 2024 07: 27
              Don't you think that you are writing complete nonsense?
              This is complete nonsense - this is what you have...
              Do you think that a cadet gets into the cockpit solely for the purpose of destroying the engine?
              Get into the cabin first newcomer - this is the main thing...
              It's hard to do this from the cabin even if you wanted to.
              This can be done from the cabin, even without desire. Or the engine may fail - just like that, just go and fail...
              1. -1
                15 September 2024 20: 21
                Quote: Luminman
                Or the engine might fail - just like that, just go and fail...

                Let me remind you that two engines are mandatory for aircraft carrying 9 or more passengers. For a two-seater military aircraft, additionally equipped with catapults, this is absolutely not an argument.
                1. +2
                  16 September 2024 07: 33
                  Let me remind you that two engines are mandatory for aircraft carrying 9 or more passengers.
                  You just quoted an ICAO rule for civil aircraft...
                  1. -1
                    16 September 2024 21: 32
                    Quote: Luminman
                    You just quoted an ICAO rule for civil aircraft...

                    You finally guessed it!
            2. 0
              19 September 2024 06: 08
              A stronger chassis is understandable, but why the second engine?

              Incorrect smiley: on twin-engine aircraft, you can turn off one engine and restart it in flight from autorotation, for example - there is such an exercise.
              And, of course, safety: when a snotty cadet who doesn't yet know how to fly well, when the only engine fails, the situation becomes doubly worse for him...
              1. -1
                19 September 2024 22: 08
                Quote: Strelkin
                And, of course, safety: when a snotty cadet who doesn't yet know how to fly well, when the only engine fails, the situation becomes doubly worse for him...

                And you too! laughing
                Just now, above, we reminded that even in civil aviation the safety requirements are much softer than you come up with for the military. Of course, you can do a lot of things "just in case", but this is not a free reinsurance. Both in the cost of the aircraft itself and in the cost of operation and maintenance. That is why the pilots are unhappy, in practice this results in a reduction in flight hours for each cadet.

                And again, I will remind you that the initial training aircraft - Yak-18..Yak-152 - have only one engine, although the most inexperienced cadets fly there first.
                1. 0
                  19 September 2024 22: 12
                  And again, I will remind you that the initial training aircraft - Yak-18..Yak-152 - have only one engine, although the most inexperienced cadets fly there first.

                  This is not because life is good, it is a necessary measure... winked
                  1. 0
                    19 September 2024 22: 14
                    Quote: Strelkin
                    This is not because life is good, it is a necessary measure...

                    One engine is normal. A training aircraft with a simple, non-powered engine should not break down every five minutes.
                    1. +1
                      19 September 2024 22: 31
                      If it's well made, it won't break. Here, for example, is another single-engine training aircraft, with the personal name "Grob":
                      1. 0
                        19 September 2024 22: 49
                        Quote: Strelkin
                        plane, with the personal name "Grob":

                        Actually, it seems like a registration number, but it turned out great! good
                      2. 0
                        19 September 2024 23: 14
                        This is the name of the company and the names of its aircraft, the same name:
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_Aircraft
                      3. 0
                        19 September 2024 23: 28
                        Quote: Strelkin
                        This is the name of the company and the names of its planes.

                        An interesting approach. This is a German company, and in German Grob means rough, clumsy.
                      4. 0
                        19 September 2024 23: 32
                        Most likely, this is the surname of the company's founder. And it can be anything, since it came from the darkness of centuries... smile
      3. 0
        5 November 2024 14: 16
        Quote: Luminman

        That's why it has two engines, because it's a training aircraft, for greater flight safety...

        Most likely, because we do not have a sufficiently powerful engine that is suitable in terms of weight and dimensions for single-engine aircraft, both combat and training.
    3. 2al
      +3
      12 September 2024 14: 48
      In reality, it is used not only in training, but also in combat units, as an aircraft for introducing pilots "into service" after breaks in flight practice and for checking flight skills. A training aircraft must have two engines, because risking the lives of an instructor and a 4-year student is already expensive, which is why the Italians and Chinese also chose a twin-engine aircraft as a means of advanced pilot training. With the help of suspended sighting containers, almost all types of guided weapons can be used.
      1. 0
        13 September 2024 04: 53
        Single-engine training jet aircraft - Yak-30, SR-10.
        Didn't go into production.

        The question about domestically produced air-to-surface guided missiles was not just like that? So which model can be used with the Yak-130, given that its Italian version carries weapons weighing up to 500 kg on its pods? hi
        1. 0
          19 September 2024 06: 28
          So which model can be used with the Yak-130, given that its Italian version carries weapons weighing up to 500 kg on its pylons?

          Firstly, there are air-to-surface missiles of such mass. Secondly: who said that the load should be distributed evenly across all six pylons, 3000 = 500*6?! It is not true. The load on the inner pylons is always greater, on the middle ones - less, on the outer ones - minimal. For example, on the F-35.
          1. 0
            20 September 2024 12: 07
            1. And what model are these rockets?)
            2. The Italian brother Yak-130 takes 4 at 500 kg.

            Here is a photo of the Yak itself with 4 bombs of 500 kg each.
        2. DO
          0
          5 November 2024 11: 12
          They write about an unmanned version of the single-engine CP-10 "Argument".
          It could become a good means of delivering autonomous ammunition (for example, Lancets) to the enemy rear - for work on logistics, on reinforcement columns. Breakthrough of air defense - at extremely low altitude, with anti-aircraft maneuver.
  2. 0
    12 September 2024 06: 08
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    This aircraft can also be used as a light fighter or attack aircraft.
    For the war with the Papuans wink
    1. 2al
      +2
      12 September 2024 14: 51
      Yak-130 can use UMPK having all the necessary equipment for this. So it can get even quite advanced Papuans and at an acceptable cost.
      1. 0
        12 September 2024 20: 59
        Quote: 2al
        The Yak-130 can use the UMPK, having all the necessary equipment for this.

        Why did you decide that? Just recently someone wrote that he was not given any guided weapons. He does not have such equipment.
        1. +1
          13 September 2024 01: 16
          What kind of equipment is there for the UMPK? It seems like the wings are attached to the bomb from below, and the target coordinates can be entered on the ground.
          1. 0
            13 September 2024 21: 31
            Quote from alexoff
            What kind of equipment is there for the UMPC?

            I haven't seen any details anywhere yet. I suspect that it is necessary to specify not only the final but also the initial launch point, right at the moment of launch. (Judging by some ground systems.) I think that even if there is no such standard equipment for the Yak-130, it can be somehow improvised if desired, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are fantasizing about attaching American missiles to the MiG.. But so far, no activity in this direction has been noticed from our Aerospace Forces.
            1. 0
              13 September 2024 21: 38
              I think that the launch point is rather communicated to the pilot with an approximate direction, and then it flies on its own; the calculations required are quite simple.
              Quote: Saxahorse
              The Ukrainian Armed Forces are fantasizing about attaching American missiles to the MiG.

              There they drilled a hole, put a wire through it and connected it to the iPad, where you need to enter numbers with two fingers. And here we generally like checkers, it was decorous and noble, and it is even better for the management not to do anything at all. Whereas the Turks attached high-precision weapons to the Soviet Su-25 without any incredible tricks or nanotechnology.
              1. -1
                13 September 2024 21: 57
                Quote from alexoff
                I think the launch point is rather communicated to the pilot with an approximate direction, and then it flies on its own.

                Definitely not. Ground missiles with GLONASS need to know the launch point, if they are jammed at the moment of launch by electronic warfare (their own), then the missile flies wherever God sends. More precisely, simply by ballistics. I don’t know about air missiles and UMPK, but I suspect that the principle of calculating the trajectory is similar.
                1. 0
                  13 September 2024 22: 33
                  The enemies took out the "comet" block from the UMPK, which is hard to jam. The bomb flies for quite a long time and has time to orient itself. I don't know what's in military missiles, our programmers for government agencies write such things that make your hair stand on end, only people like "just in case" can block everything if the signal is not received right away. The pilot probably needs to know where and what he's throwing. I don't know about the inertial system, is there one? Geraniums have one.
  3. Owl
    -2
    12 September 2024 06: 32
    As a combat training aircraft, the Yak-130 can only be used for training pilots; any combat use against a target with a basic air defense system (from MANPADS to ZSU) will result in unjustifiably large losses of aircraft and pilots. Keeping them on combat duty as interceptors of aircraft-type UAVs (the "Flying Fox" from Ukraine) is inappropriate; if the attack is carried out by a UAV with similar speed characteristics, the probability of interception is reduced to dangerous critical values, and the target is without reliable protection from air attack weapons.
  4. 0
    12 September 2024 07: 05
    Question for IAS: Is it possible to make a civil aircraft for local airlines using the AI-222-25 with a thrust of 2500 kgf? It would be faster than endlessly suffering with the VK-800.
  5. +2
    12 September 2024 07: 52
    Please note that the dashboard is completely devoid of the so-called classic instruments that have been replaced by monitors. It only remains to be seen whether they are manufactured at our factories or you know which ones...
    1. FID
      +2
      12 September 2024 09: 50
      Our LCD matrices are more expensive than imported ones... but our indicators are produced.
  6. 0
    12 September 2024 11: 31
    Last year there was an article about MiGs and Su
    almost unanimously said that MIG is the last century, we need Su
    Today the Yak-130 is also not Su
    but the plant where the assembly takes place is in Irkutsk
    I understand that the key word is UAC, but still - who is the designer of MiGs and Yaks today?
    Is everything done by "one company"? Or did they leave "pieces" from the Yakovlev and Mikoyan design bureaus?
    1. +3
      12 September 2024 12: 10
      Quote: Dedok
      I understand that the key word is UAC, but still - who is the designer of MiGs and Yaks today?

      Yes, it seems no one. Pogosyanism destroyed the design bureaus competing with Sukhoi in Russia. Yakovlev, in my opinion, did nothing after the 130th, MiG is trying to launch the 35th, but Sukhoi, it seems, will not allow it, it is simply squeezing dry all the money allocated for the renewal of the VKS fleet.
      In general, in my opinion, something more or less independent remains from MiG, but as Rostec admits, the design bureau “has lost its significance as an independent developer of aviation equipment.”
      Several times, there were attempts to merge MiG and Su. The last time this was discussed was in 2021, but how did it come together and did it come together at all?
      And Yakovlev only advertises the sports Yak-152 on his website.
  7. +1
    12 September 2024 11: 53
    By the end of the 2000s, Aermacchi had completed testing and refining its...are the 2000s over already?
    1. UAT
      0
      12 September 2024 15: 33
      This is how the author cleverly calls the 2000s. He is being as creative as he can.
  8. 0
    12 September 2024 13: 00
    A question for forum members "in the know" - why do they often write with pride that airplanes have color LCD displays? Do they really use such a fragile technology with a small viewing angle as liquid crystals? Why not LED? Or is it just a general term, like "xerox"? If it's flat and without analog arrows, then it's LCD?
    1. UAT
      0
      12 September 2024 16: 05
      I wonder why large viewing angles of the LCD are needed? To control the machine while being outside the cockpit? Normally, the pilot sits in the seat.
      1. 0
        19 September 2024 13: 00
        God bless him, the viewing angle, we are talking about the fragility of the screen, thanks to the technology of manufacturing LCD - polarization of amorphous structures between two thin strips of glass. Why not LED, they can rot, and the cost is much lower. That's what I mean.
        1. UAT
          0
          19 September 2024 15: 33
          Thank you, I understand. That is, the small viewing angles that I only wrote about are really insignificant.
  9. 0
    12 September 2024 14: 03
    Quote: avia12005
    Question for IAS: Is it possible to make a civil aircraft for local airlines using the AI-222-25 with a thrust of 2500 kgf? It would be faster than endlessly suffering with the VK-800.

    No, you can't. AI-222-25 is a bypass turbojet engine.
    For civil use, three-circuit engines (with a fan) are more economical.
  10. +1
    12 September 2024 17: 21
    The question of a light attack aircraft will become acute when the Su-24, Su-25, Mig-29 and others inherited from the USSR exhaust their last resource. But while the old men are flying, the matter will not move forward in principle.
    1. +1
      12 September 2024 21: 06
      Quote from mildsar
      But as long as the old guys are flying, the matter will not move forward in principle.

      Old-timers don't fly. Except for rare shootings with pitching. And they can't carry guided weapons. They don't have the same equipment as the Yak-130.

      By the way, the Su-24 can in no way be classified as a light attack aircraft. And yet it flies.
      1. 0
        13 September 2024 11: 17
        Sorry. But it will take a couple of UMPKashki. And I think the cost of a flight hour will be lower, as will the ashcan itself. Not a bad option in my opinion.
        1. 0
          13 September 2024 21: 22
          Quote: vinschu
          Sorry. But it will take a couple of UMPKashki.

          Who would be against it? But something is still missing, even the Su-30SM doesn't carry them yet, although the aircraft is much better equipped than the Yak.
  11. +1
    13 September 2024 18: 52
    I'll start from the "stove": in order to create something necessary, optimal, advanced, in the sphere that has long been "cultivated" by the world scientific and technical thought and regularly "gives out" samples, among which masterpieces appear, a sufficient number of so-called "schools" are needed... These "schools" have their own history, style and creative approach to the implementation, in the "bronze and marble," of this thought... Aviation is no exception... "Schools" allow this "thought" not to "freeze" in dogmas, to work for the future and in "its own way", "to raise a change," and the state - to be sure that it can always find what it needs at the moment among that "diversity" to strengthen the welfare and defense capability of the Country... In the USSR - there were 13 such "schools" (firms) - design bureaus... And these are only the creators of aviation platforms for various purposes... What is there now? There is a certain "United Aircraft Corporation" (UAC), into which they "dragged" everything that was still "breathing" in aviation developments under the auspices and close "supervision" of the unforgettable firm "Su" of Pogosyan's "brew" ... Where "Su" rules the financial "ball", the rest are "backup dancers" ... Not quite wise, but quite smart and pragmatic President of the USA - R. Reagan & Co. "killed" in the "embryonic" state the attempt of the US aviation and defense bureaucracy and part of the thieving Senate, too, to create in the USA the "United Aircraft Corporation of the USA" ... The 40th President of the USA and his associates realized that this corporation would be a kind of closed "club" for mediocrities from aviation, a refuge and a solid "feeding trough" for the children of senators and congressmen, their friends and girlfriends, and most importantly, a very "successful "design" for the painless and difficult to control "sawing up" of the US military budget... And, most importantly, the "spirit" of competition will leave the design of aircraft, their diversity, coupled with specialization... The same thing was done in the US shipbuilding industry... As they say, the absence of corporations in the critically important defense sectors of the American economy can be "looked at" by the diversity of specialized aircraft platforms, the speed of their modernization and deliveries to the Armed Forces... What am I getting at? "Yak-130" is a worthy, reliable, universal, jet TRAINING aircraft, a worthy replacement for the old Czech L-39, though with its own "cockroaches in the head"... And trying to "make" out of it a light aircraft for "attacks" - in my opinion, this idea is excessive and unproductive in this context of considering the issue and the state of the enemy's air defense systems on the LBS and in its rear, on the 933rd day of the war...
    1. +1
      13 September 2024 19: 26
      "Yak-130" is a worthy, reliable, versatile, jet TRAINING aircraft, a worthy replacement for the dilapidated Czech L-39

      Not too old: in 2018, the Czechs revived a new generation of L-39NG... smile
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39NG#Specifications_(L-39NG_Stage_2)
      1. 0
        13 September 2024 19: 49
        Dear Strelkin! I agree that the Czechs are modernizing their most successful models of aircraft. But! We have not been able to update the "fleet" of "L-39" and provide technical support for the machines since 2015, especially since they knew WHO flies and learns to fly on these machines...
        1. 0
          13 September 2024 19: 53
          Perhaps in a couple of years the situation will change. The L-39 is a light, time-tested machine, and may even be useful for teaching cadets... And arm the Yak-130 and send it to the front! lol
          1. 0
            13 September 2024 20: 14
            Dear Strelkin! For THIS war, this device is not armored, weak "eyes" and requires decent modifications... As a "forest orderly" of enemy "spaces", in case of destruction of all enemy air defense systems, including MANPADS - as an option - YES! And "in a couple of years", everything and everyone is possible... We'll see, as they say, in the still, for now, non-Russian city of Odessa...
            1. 0
              13 September 2024 20: 19
              For THIS war, this device is not armored, has weak "eyes" and requires significant modifications...

              Yes, it's all clear to tears. For now it can be useful, for example, and very well, for hunting enemy drones over your territory, you just need to install a small radar and a couple of machine guns on each pylon... Here its flight characteristics are just right.
              1. 0
                13 September 2024 20: 55
                Dear Strelkin! The speed of "current" drones is from 90 to 190 km/h. It is desirable to "hunt" for it at the same speed, either with a radar or with a pilot's eye... But here's the problem - at such speeds, our "Yak" will "fly" like a stool thrown from a window - this is its "stall" speed range... And the "operating hour" is too expensive for such a "safari"... Here - a light helicopter, like "Robinson R66 Turbine", in "rifling" with a suspended machine gun - 5,65 mm container.... And, all the same, without decent air defense and missile defense support, this process of "hunting", as in the famous Slavic saying: "Beer without vodka is money "down the drain"...." That's how it is...
                1. 0
                  13 September 2024 22: 23
                  The speed of "current" drones is from 90 to 190 km/h. It is desirable to "hunt" for it at the same speed, either with a radar or with a pilot's eye...

                  However, the Yak-130's merge speed is 160-180 km/h, with a maximum indicated speed (at low altitudes) of over 700 km/h, because you still need to quickly approach the UAV, and for this, the Yak-130's attack aircraft speed range is the most suitable. And for shooting at a UAV, you don't need a speed that is absolutely equal to its speed, if it is 50-70 km/h higher - this is not scary for aiming.
                  The Ukrainians (foolishly) did not dare to use L-39 for these purposes, of which they have plenty, as well as pilots for them, but in the third year they are trying to adapt Yak-52 and helicopters against the "Shaheds". But against the jet "Shahed", with a speed of 500 km/h, these aircraft are generally "nothing"...
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. 0
                      14 September 2024 13: 57
                      You have completely forgotten that in World War I, in World War II, very often in the Korean War, very often in the Vietnam War, very often in the wars in the Middle East - visual target acquisition, and then visual targeting and destruction with machine guns, and then cannons - was the main method of combat operations! Including small targets against the background of the earth! Today there are plenty of radars that will guide the pilot to this small, slow-moving target...
                      1. 0
                        16 September 2024 12: 51
                        OLS, if visually...
                        Even older generations allow you to "see" up to 30 km, modern ones that are installed on the Su-35/57 see much further, but the latest generation is not needed for hunting UAVs...
            2. 0
              14 September 2024 13: 47
              And how does armor help the "Rook" in this conflict? Above the trenches, especially in the enemy rear, there is no aviation for obvious reasons. The armor of both the "Rook" and the "Duck" is pointless. Classic cast iron and similar ASPs are practically not used. NAR with pitching out of desperation.
              1. 0
                14 September 2024 13: 58
                And how does armor help the "Rook" in this conflict? Above the trenches, especially in the enemy rear, there is no aviation for obvious reasons. Armoring both the "Rook" and the "Duck" is pointless.

                What about MANPADS?! What about MZA?!
                1. 0
                  14 September 2024 14: 01
                  And... I don't understand you. The result is the same - shot down! Once again over the site of a combat clash, there is no aircraft in the enemy's rear now.
                  1. 0
                    14 September 2024 14: 03
                    Why does it have to be "shot down"? It can only be "hit", but it can successfully make it home! But with a hole in the head, the pilot will not make it home...
                    1. 0
                      14 September 2024 14: 08
                      During the First World War, pilots on the Farmans and Nieuports would place two large frying pans on the seat, one inside the other, with a pillow on top - and then sit on all of this themselves. Sometimes this saved them from rifle bullets from below...
                    2. 0
                      14 September 2024 14: 08
                      From the current conflict, I remember only one example that "made it". Perhaps armor reduces the losses of flight personnel, but there are examples of personnel surviving on aircraft and without it when hit not only by MANPADS, but also by SAMs. The cause-and-effect relationship is not at all obvious! (Armor-rescue)
                      1. 0
                        14 September 2024 14: 11
                        From the current conflict, I can only remember one example that "made it".

                        A huge number examples from the Vietnam War, from the Afghan War, from the Gulf War and from a bunch of local wars in all parts of the world...
                      2. 0
                        14 September 2024 14: 15
                        Firstly, we are talking about today. Secondly, specific examples (armor is the salvation of the aircraft). Thirdly, do not consider it cynicism, even if the pilot survived thanks to the armor, as a fighter he ceased to exist.
                      3. 0
                        14 September 2024 14: 20
                        First of all, we are talking about today.

                        Today, all manned aircraft have at least some kind of pilot protection.
                        Secondly, specific examples (armor-salvation la).

                        And the aircraft's armor saves, even if it's very partial.
                        Thirdly, don’t consider it cynical that even if the pilot survived thanks to the armor, he ceased to exist as a fighter.

                        Why would that happen? Even a bulletproof vest can save you from a fatal wound; instead of a hole in your heart, a soldier gets away with a bruise and a cracked rib...
                      4. 0
                        14 September 2024 14: 23
                        We are slipping into demagogy. Pardon me, I take my leave.
                      5. 0
                        14 September 2024 14: 24
                        ?? I don't go downhill. I answer as specifically and to the point as possible.
              2. +1
                16 September 2024 12: 54
                Reservations help a lot...
                There are many cases when the plane came under fire and returned to the airfield with such damage that no other plane could withstand...
                Not to mention that the armor saves the pilot's life, even if the plane is shot down. And the pilot is one of the most expensive parts. And if the plane is shot down, but the pilot survives - this is precisely the merit of the armor.
                1. 0
                  16 September 2024 13: 58
                  Please provide specific examples of when armor allowed an aircraft to return to its airfield and subsequently continue combat sorties. War is, first and foremost, rationalism, calculation and competent organization of combat operations. As for the pilot, his life and health are undoubtedly priceless, like the life of anyone, but after the aircraft is damaged, the pilot, as an air fighter, is out of action for at least some time (capture, wounds, injuries) with "armor" in particular, ejection without injuries is not a rule. I will try to illustrate my idea: when wounded with varying degrees of severity of injuries are admitted to doctors, the military doctor will first of all provide assistance to lightly wounded (I hope the motivation is clear). I am talking about rationalism. The same is true for the pilot, if the aircraft is damaged, with or without "armor", he is most likely out of action. The titanium armored cockpit on the Su-25 weighs more than 700 kg. How much would the performance characteristics improve without the "extra" 500 kg? The titanium cabin of the Su-34 probably weighs twice as much, the question is why? Speed, maneuverability, payload are in the minus. Not to mention the hassle with the centering. It does not fight at extremely low altitudes, in the rear there is already "no way", the SAM will knock down both with "armor" and without. Without "armor" there are also enough cases of survival of the LS after defeat and without serious injuries. There was a long interview on the Internet with the pilot of the Su-34, according to him, he does not know of any cases where "armor" allowed the aircraft to return after defeat. There is an interview with the pilot of the MiG-29 was shot down, ejected, unharmed, captured. My fabrications are based on the realities of today, the combat use of aircraft as far from the front line as possible.
                  1. +1
                    16 September 2024 22: 18
                    Please provide specific examples of when armoring allowed an aircraft to return to its airfield and subsequently continue combat sorties.

                    In 1982, during the "Battle of the Bekaa Valley", a Syrian R-60 missile hit the nozzle of an Israeli F-15. The warhead there was very small, only 3 kg, but it tore the engine apart. However, due to the armored partition between the engines, the second engine was not damaged at all, the plane reached the airfield, landed successfully - and after three months of work was returned to service.
                    1. 0
                      17 September 2024 11: 14
                      Thank you for the example. We are talking about different things. I am talking about the armored cockpit of the Su-25, Su-34. You are talking about the protection of critical units and assemblies. "That's completely different." laughing
                      1. +1
                        17 September 2024 11: 15
                        The pilot is the most critical unit (or component?)... laughing
                      2. 0
                        17 September 2024 11: 19
                        Can you guess for yourself? I use demagogy, but I try not to exceed the limit.
                      3. 0
                        17 September 2024 11: 23
                        Well, what is there to think and guess about? What is the point of these hackneyed platitudes? It is obvious that it would be good to protect both the pilot and the main units and assemblies. But all this comes out as additional weight, which leads to deterioration of the flight characteristics.
                        So the creators of combat aircraft are balancing "on the edge of a knife"...
                    2. 0
                      17 September 2024 11: 26
                      If I remember correctly, this partition does not protect against external influences, but against fire, destruction of one of the engines, i.e. possible technical problems with one of the engines and preservation of the second.
                      1. 0
                        17 September 2024 11: 28
                        True. An external impact (enemy air-to-air missile) destroyed one engine and caused a fire in it. The armored partition between them saved the plane and the pilot.
  12. 0
    17 September 2024 10: 15
    Quote: goloigor
    Why not LED?

    Probably by LED you meant OLED screens (organic light-emitting diodes) with a pixel size of ~0,15 mm? Because LED screens have a minimum pixel pitch of 0,5 mm, the pixel size is slightly smaller since it is impossible to make a zero gap between the elements (a pixel is formed from three or more LEDs). And also cunning manufacturers called LCD monitors with LED backlighting instead of mercury lamps LED.
    OLED monitors are more resistant to vibrations, consume less power, but are several times more expensive than LCD. And the service life is shorter, and there is also an effect of residual image (though if the same image is on it for a very long time. There was an anecdotal case at work: the monitor that displayed the image from the CCTV camera died, but a very pale image was visible on the screen, and the management said that the dust on your camera has not been wiped for a long time.)
  13. 0
    17 September 2024 12: 54
    Why isn't it tested on the SVO, as an addition to the SU-25? They can't carry more than 2 rocket launchers and 2 drop tanks anyway