Training and combat: the modernized Yak-130M is applicable in real combat conditions.

11 177 61
Training and combat: the modernized Yak-130M is applicable in real combat conditions.

Last November, at the Dubai Airshow 2025, the Rostec State Corporation demonstrated the upgraded Yak-130M combat trainer aircraft abroad for the first time. In Russia, the first exhibition prototype was unveiled a year earlier at the Army 2024 International Military-Technical Forum.

The modified aircraft, based on the Yak-130, which first flew back in 1990, is radically different from its predecessor. At the Dubai Air Show, the Yak-130M generated enormous interest among visitors from around the world.



Experts note that the modified Russian aircraft has a number of significant advantages over Western or Chinese equivalents. It demonstrates high reliability, thanks to its domestically produced engines. Furthermore, the Yak-130M is cheaper than its foreign counterparts.

A video review provides more details about the Yak-130M combat training aircraft and its comparison with the modernized Su-25SM attack aircraft.

Russia has unveiled a multirole aircraft capable of operating not only for training purposes but also in real combat situations. The upgraded Yak-130M has been equipped with full combat equipment and can operate around the clock in any weather. At the air show in the UAE capital, it was presented with a KAB-250 guided bomb and a new radar. As for the FAB-250 with UMPK, the Yak-130M is capable of carrying four such bombs. This makes it a formidable weapon for engaging ground targets in real combat situations.

According to the press service of the Rostec State Corporation, the combat training aircraft is designed to train pilots mastering modern fighter jets, including fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft.

The modernization will allow the Yak-130M to be armed rockets air-to-air and high-precision aviation Air-to-surface weapons with satellite and laser guidance systems. The integration of new onboard systems will allow the Yak-130M to be used for training and combat missions around the clock, even in adverse weather conditions. The aircraft's combat missions include the destruction of ground and air targets, including heavy-duty UAVs.

The modernized Yak-130M was equipped with the BRLS-130R onboard radar station with an active phased antenna array produced by NPP Radar-MMS, which allows the use of medium-range missiles with active radar guidance.

As was written back in 2024 in a comparative review According to Military Review, the Yak-130M is equipped with a fully digital cockpit and offers an optimal weight-to-thrust ratio. The aircraft boasts exceptional maneuverability for its type.

This makes the aircraft, ostensibly designed for training cadets, a practically fully-fledged combat aircraft. The Yak-130M is capable of striking both ground targets using guided munitions and unguided rockets, as well as airborne targets with short-range R-73 and RVV-MD missiles.

The new aircraft is equipped with the President-S130 airborne defense system, developed based on the experience of Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft in the Air Defense Zone. This system includes a number of electro-optical, laser, and infrared sensors, electronic countermeasure units, launchers for firing false heat targets, and electromagnetic interference. The system effectively counters enemy anti-aircraft and air-to-air missiles and provides pilots with timely warning of their launch.

Earlier, in February 2025, during the Aero India air show in Bangalore, Rosoboronexport representatives announced that the Yak-130M's export potential was at least 40 aircraft. At the same time, Ruslan Pukhov, head of the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology (CAST), noted that sales of the Yak-130M on the global market in the current environment would be subject to a number of market challenges related to Western sanctions against Russia.

However, these restrictions, surprisingly, have also created advantages. The Russian military and civil aviation industries are successfully implementing a process of complete import substitution, including not only materials, components, and equipment, but also domestically produced power plants. This increases the competitive advantage of our aircraft in foreign markets. Foreign buyers find it more convenient and reliable to cooperate with a single country that, unlike Western opportunists, has never violated contractual obligations to suit political decisions since the Soviet era.

61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    28 January 2026 20: 23
    Well, if it’s applicable, then it’s applicable, but it’s definitely not a Su-25.
  2. +3
    28 January 2026 20: 39
    If the Su-25 has another ten years of remaining service life, then it would be worth converting it into a carrier of the FAB with the UMPK.

    The two paragraphs of text don't fit together well: what range missiles can the aircraft carry—medium or only short? (The answer is clear, but why single out the R-73?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. +1
    28 January 2026 20: 45
    The Su-25 attack aircraft could operate on the front lines, but alas, there are plenty of air defense systems even on the front lines... Aviation is forced to operate from a distance.
    The Yak 130... a training aircraft, like a combat aircraft, can participate in low-intensity conflicts... what else?
    Oh yeah, the Su-25 fleet is limited... the question is, what should be produced to replace it?
    1. +3
      28 January 2026 20: 59
      Aviation should operate from a distance (before the SVO, this was considered a sign of 21st-century aviation, and they said the Americans had SDB and JASSM to fire from afar, but Russia flies over LBS)
      1. +1
        28 January 2026 21: 02
        From a distance, yes, but then the question is... what kind of combat aviation platforms are needed?
        Specifically, what and how much is needed?
        1. +1
          28 January 2026 21: 12
          Well, in my opinion as an armchair expert: we need single-engine aircraft like the Su-75 and larger, and for them, fabs with replaceable parts, with the installation of an UMPK and a body with an engine, expensive cruise missiles, and cruise missiles like the Geranium-5 or Parnerol, air-to-air missiles on the same base like the R-27 (i.e., the ability to add a fuel compartment and turn a medium-range aircraft into a long-range one).
          1. +5
            28 January 2026 21: 32
            Even experts and professionals can't predict everything all the time. Only actual combat operations provide answers to most questions, and even then, only with a correct, objective assessment of all the various factors.
          2. 0
            1 February 2026 00: 43
            If you're launching from a distance, a transport aircraft is sufficient. At least an An-12. And the payload is large—you can carry dozens of those same bombs from a UMPK and hover in the launch area for quite a while, waiting for additional reconnaissance data and firing at the specified coordinates.
            1. +1
              1 February 2026 00: 51
              Well, get on an An-12 and drop bombs from the UMPK, and there's a video online of Su-34 pilots evading Patriot missiles (and judging by the sounds, they'd be unlikely to avoid the missiles while in the An-12).
              1. 0
                1 February 2026 00: 56
                Do the Patriots have them on their LBS?
                Ha, three times. And a bomb from a UMPK can fly up to a hundred kilometers. So, we should engage targets right at the line of fire. With cover, of course! It would definitely be much cheaper and more effective than flying Utyat missiles or even Grachi missiles with a couple of bombs. No?
                1. +1
                  1 February 2026 01: 01
                  Why would a Patriot stand at a LBS? It's perfectly possible to set up ambushes at a distance of 50 km from the LBS (firing range is 150 km), so the AN-12 won't be able to operate there.
                  To drop a bomb with wings, the Su-34 fighter needs to climb to altitude and maneuver to avoid the missiles; the An-12 can't do that.
                  and I don't understand why I'm explaining this to you, everyone should know this on a military website
                  I think we could use an An-12 with bombs or a Su-25 against the Popuans.
                  1. 0
                    1 February 2026 11: 56
                    You are obviously a great expert in air defense!
                    Patriot 50 km from LBS - that's... Gerasimov-style, yes!
                    Well, that's not the point, I'm just curious why the "sworn friends" are rigging up C-130-based gunships with cannons. They must know something 🤷🏻‍♂️
                    I accept your answer that it is against the Papuans, but... the Papuans don't have any more Arrows and Stingers than the "enlightened armies" now
                    1. 0
                      2 February 2026 13: 55
                      On March 9, 2024, a Russian Iskander missile system destroyed two Patriot air defense missile launchers with a missile strike, located approximately 50 km from the front line in the Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk) area.
                      Gunships appeared in the 70s, when there were no MANPADS. In newer versions of gunships, for example, the 6-barrel system was abandoned and missiles and bombs were introduced. It is clear to anyone that a gunship is against a PLAAF.
                      And where are these Papuans hung with arrows and stingers?
    2. +11
      28 January 2026 21: 08
      The Yak 130... a training aircraft, like a combat aircraft, can participate in low-intensity conflicts... what else?

      Do you think the SVO is a low- or high-intensity conflict? What difference does it make whether it's a Su-34 or a Yak-130 dropping four FAB-250s? But I think the cost per flight hour is significantly different, and the Su-34's lifespan should be saved for more important missions.
      1. 0
        28 January 2026 21: 30
        A universal deputy is a complicated matter.
        To carry out any task efficiently, you need some kind of super plane...
        The Poles are looking at the Super Tucano again and it has a flight hour that is cheaper than many, if not all.
        1. +4
          28 January 2026 21: 43
          Perform any tasks efficiently

          The thing is, 90% of the tasks are routine and don't require any exceptional capabilities. And yes, that's precisely why the Tucano is so popular. It doesn't seem to have an onboard radar, though. And that's very useful for drone hunting.
          1. +2
            29 January 2026 09: 39
            Everyone who looks around more carefully is now trying to solve the problem of countering attack drones.
            The solution will most likely be comprehensive and aviation will certainly be involved in it.
      2. +5
        28 January 2026 22: 34
        Why even need a pilot for a fab-throwing mission? You can just jettison both passengers and one engine, and the plane will instantly be half the price. And nothing complicated is required to accelerate and release four to six fabs; they'll reach their destination on their own.
        1. 0
          29 January 2026 00: 21
          Quote from alexoff
          Why do you need a pilot for fab-throwing?

          In fact, the Yak-133 drone was designed on the basis of the Yak-130...
          1. +1
            29 January 2026 17: 57
            About 10-15 years ago. And there was even a radar and radar department there. Back then, we had so many designs in place that you couldn't see much of anything. request
      3. +1
        29 January 2026 03: 10
        The FAB-250 wasn't effective even in Afghanistan; at least 500 were needed. The Yak-130 can carry the FAB-500, but not very far—its fuel tank is too small and there's no in-flight refueling. The Su-34 can carry the FAB-3000, and can do so from afar.
        1. +1
          30 January 2026 15: 51
          The FAB-250 was not effective even in Afghanistan.

          At the same time, they are regularly used in the SVO.
          but not far - the gas tank is too small

          Why drag him somewhere far away? He's not a strategist. He dragged him to the LBS and dropped him with the UMPK.
          1. 0
            30 January 2026 15: 55
            Combat radius is always important, no one wants to go back on the run.
            In Afghanistan, everyone was fed up with fighter bombing, but even there they took two FAB-500s + two FAB-250s + a PTB. Sometimes just FAB-500s. The FAB-250 is more of a helicopter caliber.
  4. +5
    28 January 2026 21: 19
    Ah, a long-term PR project.
    For 15 years they promoted the Yak-130, now for 3 years they have been promoting the Yak-130M.
    And even then they were bought for training, and now even the native Russian Aerospace Forces don’t want to order them in particular.
    The plane is good. But it looks like something is in the way.
    1. -1
      29 January 2026 15: 21
      They don't want to order it because they have 112 Yak-130s in service, and Russia has a lot of attack aircraft, so the Yak-130M is more likely intended for export.
  5. +1
    28 January 2026 22: 08
    It demonstrates high reliability, which is achieved by the presence of domestic engines....
    Yeah... There's not much information.
    Question: what engines?
    The AI-222-25 clones were originally developed in Ukraine in 2008, and their production was then expanded to Russia at the Salyut Gas Turbine Research and Production Center, where production of all of its components was launched in 2015.
    Or the SM-100, about which they wrote: ".... will be completely interchangeable with the AI-222-25, but instead of a nine-stage high-pressure compressor, it is planned to use a six-stage compressor, and the implementation of this project will make it possible to obtain a basic gas generator, on the basis of which it will be possible to create a whole range of modifications of engines for civil and military purposes. The SM-100 gas generator will be ready in 2018, and testing of the first fully finished power units is planned for 2019.......Also, a reinforced drive box has been created for the new Russian turbofan engine, allowing the installation of a drive-generator, the nominal power of which is twice as high as that of the basic version of the AI-222-25 engine....... The planned indicator is to increase the service life by 2 times.."
  6. +1
    28 January 2026 22: 31
    Gentlemen, comrades, does this combat aircraft have a radar? The nose is too small and atypically shaped, and I don't see any serious radar. recourse
  7. -1
    29 January 2026 01: 50

    What's the difference between dropping four FAB-250s from an Su-34 or a Yak-130? But I think the cost per flight hour is significantly different, and the Su-34's lifespan should be saved for more important missions.

    Su-34 can also throw 4 FAB-500.
    1. +1
      29 January 2026 11: 25
      The Su-34 can carry up to 16 FAB-500s, and up to six guided missiles (KAB-500s or FAB-500s with UMPK).
      They take less so that the thrust-to-weight ratio does not suffer too much; sometimes they have to dodge both air-to-air and air-to-air missiles.
    2. 0
      30 January 2026 15: 09
      Su-34 can also throw 4 FAB-500.

      Maybe. But you don't always need 500; 250 is often enough.
  8. +2
    29 January 2026 01: 58
    Quote: Max1995
    Ah, a long-term PR project.
    For 15 years they promoted the Yak-130, now for 3 years they have been promoting the Yak-130M.
    And even then they were bought for training, and now even the native Russian Aerospace Forces don’t want to order them in particular.
    The plane is good. But it looks like something is in the way.

    What's stopping them? About 180 aircraft have been launched. They are in service in nine countries.
  9. P
    -3
    29 January 2026 02: 42
    There can be no talk of any combat operation in any sensible concept of use. Two engines in a light vehicle = to the morgue. Twice as many major (expensive) components, twice as much maintenance by expensive and scarce technicians. To the morgue.
    1. 0
      30 January 2026 15: 12
      Two engines in a light car = to the morgue.

      The SU-25 was specifically designed with two engines to ensure survivability.
      1. P
        0
        30 January 2026 16: 05
        The modern concept of use does not allow for combat over LBS or over enemy territory => The armor is garbage, the two engines are garbage. So, this is a training machine, or an export one for completely underdeveloped countries.
        1. 0
          30 January 2026 16: 09
          modern concept

          A modern concept requires a new aircraft. It takes years of design, prototyping, and testing. But shooting down drones and dropping FABs from UMPK missiles is what we need now. And here we have a flying aircraft. With all sorts of suitable performance characteristics. Why not use it?
  10. +2
    29 January 2026 03: 01
    The Yak-130 has a fundamental flaw: a small fuel tank and few hardpoints. If you add drop tanks (which are also small), the Yak-130 is left with only two hardpoints for ground operations.

    The Italian copy is superior in every way – at a minimum, it has a central pylon for a third drop tank, which the Yak-130 lacks due to its awkward landing gear placement. The tank itself is larger (2 tons versus 1,7), as are the drop tanks (505 kg versus 450 kg), and it also has an in-flight refueling system.
    1. +2
      29 January 2026 09: 05
      For clarity, we can also talk about the Yak-130 and why it doesn’t have a central drop tank.
      1. -2
        29 January 2026 15: 24
        The Yak-130 was designed as a training aircraft and is used as such by the Russian Aerospace Forces. The Aerospace Forces have many attack aircraft. The Italians don't know how to make fighters, and so they are trying to squeeze something out of a training aircraft.
    2. 0
      30 January 2026 15: 18
      Well, for example, the Jews got away with it with the F-16.
      1. 0
        30 January 2026 15: 36
        If you were making an attack aircraft, you could increase the fuel capacity by adding a co-pilot, add conformal fuel tanks, and redesign the landing gear to accommodate a central drop tank or bomb. Add armor, strengthen the wings. But no one will do that. It will remain a trainer.
        It would be better to modify the Su-25 to accommodate new engines and new bombs.
  11. 0
    29 January 2026 05: 21
    Quote: Kull90
    aviation must operate from a distance

    This is the reality of today. Attack aviation was created specifically to support troops at the LBS and to carry out bombing and assault strikes at the same LBS and slightly beyond.
    1. -3
      29 January 2026 08: 58
      Moreover, it often engaged its own troops in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. Until they banned operating without a gunner and striking within 2 km. From above, it's difficult to distinguish friend from foe.
      1. +1
        29 January 2026 15: 26
        and the attack aircraft worked very well and efficiently against their own (Americans and others) in Iraq, using the A-10
        1. 0
          30 January 2026 01: 34
          In Afghanistan, our columns were accompanied by air controllers; without them, the direct air support that is periodically talked about here is a fiction.
          1. +1
            31 January 2026 14: 08
            Nothing changed when escorting aircraft controllers and UAVs, but how can strikes based on intelligence data be called fiction?
            1. 0
              31 January 2026 14: 37
              It's just that some people here are saying that the Su-25 will support infantry during an assault and search for targets itself. Yeah, sure. But I'm saying that from the air, you can't tell friend from foe, and that's why, ever since Afghanistan, they've banned flying without an air controller and firing within 2 kilometers of friendly fire. And even then, friendly fire has occasionally occurred, like in Chechnya.
  12. Eug
    0
    29 January 2026 09: 33
    In today's reality, I envision a completely different concept for a light combat aircraft (UCA) – with a single, non-afterburning engine, version 177 or version 30, in single or dual-seat configurations. A sort of conceptual analogue of the MiG-21, inexpensive to produce and operate. Plus, the task of combating heavy drones and anything flying from the enemy's side, both in the frontline zone and deep within friendly territory.
    1. +3
      29 January 2026 12: 30
      The Yak130 was preparing for a competition back in the 1980s in the USSR, and one of the conditions of the competition was the presence of 2 engines.
      In the early 90s, the Italians entered the project (using a completed airframe) with the task of adjusting the characteristics to the European competition for a combat-trainer aircraft. This is precisely why the Yak-130 became a combat-trainer aircraft.
      The Italians didn't want to see parts from the CIS on the aircraft, especially an engine from Ukraine. So they parted ways, but the Italians left with the Yak-130 airframe. And the Yak was left without its Ukrainian engines. So the Italians bought American engines and modified the airframe, installing French electronics and an AFARK. And we had to create a copy of the Ukrainian engine in Russia. That's how the Yak-130 came about. As a trainer, it's the only option and not so bad, but as a combat aircraft, it falls short and is therefore not purchased. Because it lacks combat radius, and essentially two pilots carry two bombs. The Su-25, with its plethora of KAB-500s, is clearly superior, but it needs serious modernization.
      1. -1
        29 January 2026 14: 17
        A cheaper alternative will soon be available: a single-engine MiG. The Yak-130 is a good trainer. It's no wonder the MiG-AT won that competition. But the French didn't invest heavily in it, only providing Larzacs.
        1. 0
          29 January 2026 15: 29
          The MIG-AT has two engines and it lost the competition.
      2. 0
        29 January 2026 15: 28
        The Yak-130 was designed and is used as a training aircraft; we produce other aircraft for strike missions.
        1. 0
          30 January 2026 01: 35
          Initially yes, but thanks to the Italians and the European competition, it was obliged to become a combat training vehicle.
          1. 0
            31 January 2026 14: 06
            We need this aircraft as a training one, attack aircraft are being produced
            1. 0
              31 January 2026 14: 34
              But they're still trying to push it as a combat aircraft, and this was discussed about 10 years ago, but they opted for a flawed redesign of the Su-25. Yak, meanwhile, was ready to create a single-seat attack version of the Yak-130.
              1. +1
                31 January 2026 14: 41
                Those who produce always want to push their product, and of course that's right.
  13. +1
    29 January 2026 16: 46
    Any modern aircraft is capable of combat use, even the IL-76. laughing
    Any of them can be equipped with a KAB or a bomb with an UPMK.

    Even the Dornier Do 217 could do this. wink
    Bernhard Jope sank the entire battleship Roma with a Fritz FX-1400 aircraft.
    Back in 1943... wink
  14. +1
    29 January 2026 20: 39
    Quote: Kull90
    The MIG-AT has two engines and it lost the competition.


    The competition required a twin-engine aircraft. Mikoyan, Yakovlev, and Myasishchev design bureaus participated. The MiG-AT won. But the government couldn't find the funds. The Italians provided the funding for the Yak-130, and they ultimately bought the documentation for $70 million. From there, we and the Italians went our separate ways.
  15. 0
    30 January 2026 07: 18
    And not a word about the engine? What kind is it, the original 222 or the new 100? That's the main intrigue!
    1. 0
      30 January 2026 16: 08
      The intrigue is: who will be the first to buy this modification?
  16. 0
    31 January 2026 10: 58
    They promoted and promoted this plane, but it turned out to be just another suitcase without a handle.
  17. 0
    1 February 2026 02: 13
    I remember I was on industrial training at the Tbilisi aircraft plant, where they were making the MiG-21 twin-engine fighter and were switching to the production of the Su-25.

    ps
    Studied in Kharkov (Ukraine), completed an internship in Tbilisi (Georgia), and served in the army in Astrakhan (Russia).
    Such were the times.
    Our address is neither a house nor a street,
    Our address is the Soviet Union!
    🥲