"Emka", who are you really?

24 555 105
"Emka", who are you really?

That's how quietly and routinely the crew, consisting of test pilot 1st class Alexander Guskov and honored test pilot Andrei Voropaev, lifted the Yak-130M on its maiden flight. It happened in Irkutsk, aviation branch plant of PJSC Yakovlev.


A first flight is always a momentous occasion, even if the aircraft isn't destined for a long life. But in our case, that's exactly the case: the Yak-130M, which is designed to complement or replace the Yak-130, will, if all goes well, live and serve for a very long time.



What’s interesting is that it’s happening in parallel with the Yak-130, which no one is planning to write off, at least for now.

In an official statement, UAC reported that the flight lasted 50 minutes at altitudes of up to 2000 meters and speeds of up to 600 km/h. The flight mission was completed in full and without incident.

That's probably the best thing that could have been said, right?

Why is everything so interesting and why is so much attention being paid to the event, it is worth considering through history The Yak-130. And then we'll move on to the Yak-130M. And, looking ahead, we can draw some very interesting historical parallels.

So, here's the story.


And our history is known to almost all fans of our aviation. At one point, the time came to retire the L-39 Albatros, a Czechoslovakian training aircraft that paved the way for thousands of combat pilots to take to the skies.


Designed by Jan Vlček of Aero Vodochody, the product has received recognition in many countries. Aero Vodochody training aircraft are truly a classic. Easy to fly, forgiving of mistakes, and as reliable as a Yak-18. Only jet-powered.


For a long time, Soviet and Russian cadets conquered the skies in jet-powered Albatrosses. But in the 90s, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, following the USSR, collapsed, ties were severed and destroyed, and the question arose: what to do with the L-39, which the Czechs themselves had already discontinued: should they carry it as long as they could and then buy a replacement, or should they manage to make their own?

Considering how quickly the remains of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic ended up in NATO hands, the idea of ​​purchasing the brand-new L-159 from them didn't exactly ring a bell. So they decided to do it themselves, since training aircraft are historically Yakovlev's "own, traditional" product. They compensated for the lack of funding by inviting the Italian company Alenia Aermacchi. The Italians, however, dropped out of the project at the final stage, taking their share of the technical documentation and using it to build their own training aircraft, the Aermacchi M-346, which bears a striking resemblance to the Yak-130.


Nikolai Dolzhenkov, Vitaly Naryshkin, and Konstantin Popovich carried their commitment to its logical conclusion, the introduction of the Yak-130 into production. And in doing so, they resolved the question of what would train future Russian pilots for many years to come.

Yes, and the Yak-130 became the first new Russian aircraft, developed entirely from scratch, without being based on modernization of an existing model.


It's worth noting that the Yak-130 is a trainer aircraft. This means it can be used as a combat aircraft. The aircraft has six pylons, which can carry up to 3,000 kg of payload.

But this is a very conditional load:

- unguided bombs and rockets;
- homing missiles type R-73;
- containers with guns;
- containers with reconnaissance equipment or apparatus EW.


A kit for a very light attack aircraft. For modern military conflicts, it's not very significant. The Yak-130's onboard equipment allows for simulating the operation of various combat aircraft during training, but there's a huge difference between simulating and actually flying. The Yak-130's key feature is its unique fly-by-wire control system, which allows the pilot to simulate the flight of virtually any other domestic aircraft, which is very useful for initial flight training.

The main drawback that stands between the Yak-130 and the title of a combat aircraft is the lack of a radar that would allow for full combat use.

After all, the Yak-130 was originally designed as a training aircraft for piloting fourth-generation aircraft. Its aerobatic capabilities were designed to closely approximate those of the Su-30 and Su-35 combat aircraft, albeit with a slight allowance for size. However, this was only in terms of aerobatic control and handling; combat use was not intended from the outset. It was a high-end training aircraft, after which pilots would transition to a real combat aircraft.

Apparently, after the successful use of the Yak-130, they began to think about moving forward, from a training aircraft to a combat training aircraft.


The rationale is clear: practicing combat use results in significant savings on the resources of real combat aircraft, which is truly beneficial.

So, what's the end result? It's quite interesting. Externally, the Yak-130M is virtually identical to its predecessor, but "modernization" isn't quite the right word. Looking at the abbreviation, the Yak-130/Yak-130M pairing is aptly compared to the Tu-22/Tu-22M pairing. The letters and numbers are almost identical, but the meaning is different, as the aircraft were completely different.

Yes, there are some smart alecks out there (mostly in the West) who insist that the Su-35 is a major upgrade of the Su-27. There's no point arguing with them, because these guys are like parrots – they just repeat what they remember. The Yak-130M differs from the Yak-130 in the same way that the Su-35 differs from the Su-27. There are similarities externally, but they're completely different internally.

What's inside?


The most important thing is the radar and radar system, the "eyes" of any combat aircraft. Given 20 years of service, the onboard systems have been radically upgraded, allowing, for example, not only radio communication with other aircraft and ground stations but also the exchange of tactical data, which is a much more significant feature.

A satellite communications module has been added. All of this significantly expands the weapons suite, because the OLS has been added—there are laser-guided bombs; the satellite communications module has been added—it can correct the trajectory of missiles or, again, bombs with the UMPK system. The radar—that means welcome to the suspension of any missiles.

New multi-lock beam racks (pylons) have been developed for the Yak-130M, each of which can carry four 100 kg bombs. The presence of the OLS allows for the suspension of four (!) cannon pods, turning the training aircraft into a very promising bomb hunter. drones.

Overall, the result is a very capable aircraft, capable of engaging air and ground targets day and night, in adverse weather, and with a fairly decent weapons suite. It's just a small plane, but otherwise, it's a serious performer.

Today, of course, we have the fight against on our agenda drones and missiles, which, let's admit, have already gotten on everyone's nerves.

In fact, as has been stated on our pages many times, virtually any aircraft, from the Yak-18 to the Su-34, can be used to combat drones. The only question is effectiveness.

If it's a propeller-driven drone, then at its speed, it's best to engage it with helicopters or small aircraft of comparable speed. A subsonic cruise missile or a jet-powered drone is beyond the capabilities of a helicopter, so a subsonic turbojet aircraft would be ideal. Preferably, it should be a two-seater, so the operator can safely engage enemy drones.

There are many possible uses for such an aircraft. And it's best to simply forget about the role of a light attack aircraft, polishing the front lines. That role has long since ceased to be suitable for attack aircraft.


In fact, the Yak-130M has quite promising prospects. Considering that the Yak-130 has been a popular purchase worldwide and is no worse than the Italian aircraft, the combat version has no worse prospects. Many countries around the world require such a light combat aircraft, as their air forces face missions that make using a heavy aircraft like the Su-30 or Su-35 impractical due to the sheer excess of capabilities of heavier aircraft.

The aircraft is frankly excellent: fast, maneuverable, undemanding of airfield conditions, and can take off and land anywhere. And it has a fairly decent combat load, only half that of the JAS.39E/F Gripen, for example. And, importantly, the cost is a quarter of that.

The main thing is the ability to retrofit various systems in external pods. Reconnaissance equipment, cannon and machine gun armament, electronic warfare—these are open and easily solvable. Or something else. And since the Yak-130 has found its customers, it's quite possible that many of them will want to purchase the new model. It has export potential, as do all Soviet/Russian aircraft, but such an aircraft is primarily needed in Russian skies.
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 11
    2 July 2026 05: 26
    Thank you for the interesting article, Roman. As always, it's written engagingly and in a very lively style. Let's hope this domestically produced aircraft enters our skies in large numbers.
    1. +9
      2 July 2026 07: 00
      There's another Yak-130 modification—the Chinese Hongdu L-15. The Chinese version's most noticeable difference is its afterburning engines, making it a supersonic trainer.
    2. -1
      2 July 2026 22: 23
      The article is good, though. Unlike the aircraft's outdated performance characteristics. Who are we kidding?
      1. 0
        3 July 2026 15: 55
        Quote: Foundling
        Unlike an aircraft with outdated performance characteristics.

        Compared to what cars?
        Air Tractor?
        1. +1
          4 July 2026 10: 22
          Elementary. With trainers FA-50 Fighting Eagle (South Korea), Boeing T-7A Red Hawk (USA), Hongdu JL-10 / L-15 (China)
          1. 0
            4 July 2026 19: 04
            Quote: Foundling
            Elementary. With training exercises...

            What are we going to compare?
            Cost per flight hour?
            Maintenance costs?
            Drone interception capability?
            Intercepting cruise missiles?
            1. 0
              5 July 2026 14: 42
              Well, probably, these are the target characteristics of a training desk))) The new Russian modernized combat-training aircraft Yak-130M is noticeably inferior to key foreign analogues (such as the supersonic KAI T-50 Golden Eagle and Hongdu L-15) in terms of maximum speed, rate of climb, and service ceiling.

              The main reason for the lag is its strictly subsonic concept and the lack of afterburning engines.

              The main disadvantages of the Yak-130M compared to its competitors

              Speed ​​and acceleration dynamics. The Yak-130M's maximum speed is limited to 1050–1060 km/h (Mach 0,9). The South Korean T-50 accelerates to 1640 km/h (Mach 1,5), and the Chinese L-15 to 1480 km/h (Mach 1,4). This complicates cadets' adaptation to the G-forces and acceleration dynamics of fully-fledged 4th- and 5th-generation supersonic fighters.

              Altitude performance. The Yak-130M's service ceiling is 12,500 meters. Meanwhile, its Chinese counterpart, the L-15, can climb to 16,000 meters, while the European Eurofighter and American fighters train at much higher altitudes.

              Powerplant. The aircraft is equipped with non-afterburning AI-222-25 engines. They do not provide the same thrust-to-weight ratio as foreign competitors with afterburners (for example, the General Electric F404 engine on the T-50 or the AI-222-25F on export versions of the L-15).

              Limitations on approach speed (interception). Due to its subsonic airframe, the aircraft is ineffective at intercepting high-speed targets. It struggles to maintain the required energy retention rate during turns compared to supersonic "combat trainers." In my opinion, this is all obvious.
              1. 0
                5 July 2026 15: 53
                Quote: Foundling
                maximum speed, rate of climb and service ceiling.

                I studied the performance characteristics of all these vehicles.
                Is our Yak suitable for intercepting drones like Lyuty?

                You yourself know about the redundancy of some of the items on the list)
                1. 0
                  7 July 2026 13: 21
                  No. It's not suitable. Aviation is only marginally effective against drones. Once drones are detected, there's too little time left to scramble a Yak 130 from the airfield and reach the drone's location. By that time, they'll be far away. The Yak's subsonic speed, unfortunately,
                2. 0
                  7 July 2026 13: 32
                  It won't be until 27. A few of them are unlikely to have time to fly from their bases for interception. Perhaps in 2028. The main thing is that Ukrainians By that time, jet engines weren't attached to fierce ones. There are trends
                3. 0
                  7 July 2026 13: 34
                  There's no point in talking about redundancy. A modern training aircraft must be able to operate in the same modes as primary fighters. Otherwise, it won't be possible to acquire the required fighters for the mission. And, alas, this applies to the Yak-130M.
  2. +5
    2 July 2026 05: 57
    I saw this machine's first flight. A pair of them made a beautiful pass over the runway, just like in the second photo in this article.
  3. +4
    2 July 2026 06: 46
    And so they decided for themselves, since training aircraft for the Yakovlev company are historically “their own, their own original”,

    The history of Yakovlev training aircraft actually goes back eight decades.
    UTI-26 aka Yak-7UTI.
  4. -1
    2 July 2026 06: 53
    The author, as always, wrote a lot, but did not touch on the place of the Yak-130M in the entire line of the Russian Air Force.

    I will express the following thought: the Yak-130M is a conditional replacement for the MiG-29/35,
    due to the greater discrepancy between the Su-35 and the smaller fighter.

    The MiG-29/35 was closer in performance characteristics to the Su-27/30/35.
    And this has always confused decision-makers in the military-industrial complex.

    Now, if we consider the entire line of modern fighters: Su-57 - Su-30/35 - Yak-130M - the differences between the Su-30/35 and Yak in performance characteristics and capabilities are more clear, and therefore it is easier to justify the use/application of each of them.

    Moreover, the cost of the Yak is certainly lower than that of the MiG, especially considering the complexity of producing the latter at existing sites.
    1. +1
      2 July 2026 07: 03
      Quote: Feodor13
      Moreover, the cost of the Yak is certainly lower than that of the MiG, especially considering the complexity of producing the latter at existing sites.

      In short, "small but mighty." We need more like him.
    2. -4
      2 July 2026 07: 49
      It turned out to be a replacement for the Su 25.
      1. +1
        2 July 2026 08: 53
        I missed the attack aircraft. Thanks, you get a plus.
        It is possible that the Yak-130 M is a replacement for both the MiG-29/35 and the Su-25.
        Which confirms its even greater value.

        But there is already an opinion that the replacement for the Su-25 is a UAV unit (for intense conflicts).
        1. -1
          4 July 2026 17: 57
          If the Pantsir radar had been placed in the nose compartment, it would have resulted in a serial air defense system with a ready-made range of different types of missiles.
        2. 0
          5 July 2026 06: 07
          Not a UAV crew, but a battalion of such crews ;) Moreover, jamming those crews with electronic warfare or covering them with KABs is much easier than shooting down a Grach. However, the Rook's fantastic survivability is unlikely to be replicated in the Yak-130M.
    3. 0
      2 July 2026 09: 55
      The Yak-130M is a conditional replacement for the MiG-29/35.

      Very vague. The Yak-130M is an aircraft with an unclear purpose. It could be either a ground-attack aircraft with an air-to-air radar, or a subsonic fighter.
      1. +7
        2 July 2026 12: 15
        Quote from solar
        Yak-130M is an aircraft with an unclear purpose.
        A training desk for combat pilots where they can learn not only how to fly but also how to properly use weapons. It's cheaper than using a combat aircraft for the same purpose.
    4. SAG
      +1
      2 July 2026 16: 30
      Why wasn't there a place for the Su-75 in your lineup? Many on VO are shouting that Russia needed a single-engine fighter yesterday, and maybe 500 of them to begin with!
      1. +2
        2 July 2026 22: 40
        Quote: SAG
        Why wasn't there a place for the Su-75 in your lineup?

        Because it doesn’t exist YET, it hasn’t even taken off yet, they are currently redesigning the airframe/making improvements and probably integrating a new, more powerful and economical engine.
        1. SAG
          +1
          3 July 2026 09: 01
          The Yak-130M doesn't exist yet. It's still undergoing testing. There's no firm contract or production run yet.
          This does not prevent its place from being determined and its application niche!
          1. +2
            3 July 2026 11: 14
            The Yak-130M is based on the production Yak-130 (new engines, avionics, radar), and it's already flown. Its production will begin immediately and without delay—the assembly line is in place, and cooperation is well-established. The Su-75 has none of this; they're currently redesigning its entire airframe. It was supposed to fly with the same airframe back in December, but plans have changed, and the design is being reworked—in terms of the empennage, likely for a new engine (the AL-51F-1 or Izdeliye-177), and there may be changes to the fairing and the radar housing. So its final appearance hasn't been determined yet. Once they've finished making the changes, they'll test the prototype on the ground, then do some test runs, and once the first one takes off... only then will the testing and refinement phase begin. It won't be any faster; it's a completely new aircraft, with a completely new airframe, so it will still be in the same state for several more years. Back when the advertising campaign started and the mockup was shown, I wrote that the aircraft definitely wouldn't be ready before 2030; it simply couldn't be any faster. In reality, the first production units will only be able to reach customers in the first half of the next decade. That's why you shouldn't get your hopes up and get caught up in the emotional rollercoaster of expectations. Accepting a crude and unfinished aircraft is like repeating the American experience with the F-35, which to this day can't be considered fully ready... and they've already churned out over 1000.
            1. SAG
              +1
              3 July 2026 13: 15
              It's all just trying to fit an owl onto a globe and reading tea leaves.
              Its serial production will start immediately and without delays.

              I'd like to believe it. I hope Manturov personally guaranteed this to you. The actual situation across the entire production and equipment supply chain may differ greatly from your perception of the situation. Facts are stubborn things – neither of these are in mass production, just being tested!
              1. +1
                3 July 2026 15: 17
                Quote: SAG
                I hope Manturov personally guaranteed this to you.

                Everyone here knows how much I don't like him.
                Quote: SAG
                neither of them is mass-produced

                Yak-130 production hasn't been halted; they're even exported. The Yak-130M isn't much different from it in terms of airframe. Therefore, production of the new modification can begin immediately and without any problems. But flight testing has only just begun.
                1. SAG
                  0
                  4 July 2026 19: 31
                  Therefore, the production of the new modification can start immediately and without any problems.

                  Once again, the actual situation across the entire production and equipment supply chain may differ greatly from your understanding. Only someone with complete information, like Manturov, can claim that everything will be done immediately and without problems. The rest is pure fantasy...
                  1. +1
                    5 July 2026 07: 38
                    Quote: SAG
                    Manturov

                    Ecologist by education?
                    Which promised 1100 civilian aircraft by 2030?
                    Don't confuse someone who's "family" (the first president of the Russian Federation) with a specialist or industry expert. Manturov headed the Ministry of Industry and Trade (which is everything and nothing at the same time)—a "generalist" who doesn't understand the specifics of anything.
                    The Yak-130M has just begun flight testing, which could last for years. Not only the avionics but also the engines have been updated. By the time testing is complete, all remaining supply chains (suppliers of new avionics components and engines) will be ready for delivery at the required pace and volumes. There are ample orders for this aircraft – both for the Aerospace Forces and for foreign customers. Serial production of the Yak-130 continues today, as does export of these aircraft.
                    Quote: SAG
                    Manturov. The rest is pure fantasy...

                    Only Manturov could lie so openly and make promises like that. But he's untouchable, hence his position as Deputy Prime Minister without portfolio. Things in the aircraft industry have improved since the canary was removed from the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
                    1. SAG
                      -1
                      8 July 2026 20: 08
                      By the time the tests are completed, all missing cooperation chains (suppliers of new avionics components and engines) will prepare production facilities for delivery at the required pace and volumes.

                      Who personally reports to you and provides guarantees at the ministry level? Please reveal the secret! I'm very curious!
                      Once again, the actual situation across the entire production chain and equipment suppliers may differ greatly from your understanding. Only someone with complete information, such as Manturov (an "ecologist" by training and Minister of Industry by position), can claim that everything will be done immediately and without problems. The rest is pure fantasy...
                      1. SAG
                        0
                        8 July 2026 20: 32
                        Manturov (an "ecologist" by education and a Minister of Industry by position)

                        I was mistaken. Manturov is the head of the government commission on industry, of course. That's not the point.
            2. SAG
              -1
              3 July 2026 13: 25
              probably for a new engine (AL-51F-1)

              What's there to redesign, if it was designed for this? The AL-41F1 has less thrust and weighs more, but is the same size (with one of those, the thrust-to-weight ratio would be less than 1).
              1. +1
                3 July 2026 15: 22
                Quote: SAG
                that's what they designed it for

                They were designing for it later, and the prototype was based on the AL-41F-1S. But they're not just redesigning the engine space and fuel system for the new one; they're also redesigning something with the tail assembly. But they've already shown mockups of all three versions—single-seat, two-seat, and unmanned. Full-size gliders, perhaps even ready-made gliders for dynamic testing.
                Quote: SAG
                What's there to redo?

                Sukhoi Design Bureau knows better.
    5. -3
      2 July 2026 18: 21
      I will express the following thought: the Yak-130M is a conditional replacement for the MiG-29/35,

      It's more likely a replacement for the Su-25. Army aviation needs a new bomb-carrying aircraft with a rocket booster (similar to the Hummer). Firing while pitched is a makeshift solution. Furthermore, army aviation can be tasked with protecting the rear from all sorts of UAVs and assisting air defenses in intercepting mass launches of cruise missiles. A jet can quickly maneuver within a patrol area, something even the most advanced ground-based air defense system cannot do.
    6. +1
      2 July 2026 22: 52
      The Yak can't possibly replace the MiG-29; its only full-fledged replacement could be the Su-75, or if ours manage to create an analogue of the J17, given that we have an engine for it.
      The Yak 130 is more of a ersatz than a combat vehicle; the closest thing is the grippen.
  5. + 12
    2 July 2026 07: 33
    I've already written this, but I'll repeat it...
    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 the very least, 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.

    Comparing it to Grippen is ridiculous - it can carry a smaller Taurus - and that's exactly why they want it in Ukraine.
    1. +7
      2 July 2026 07: 36
      For clarity, I will supplement the message.
      1. +7
        2 July 2026 07: 44
        The Gripen's main advantage is its two Taurus minis, which can be launched from afar. And refueling. The Yak-130 is completely out of its league here—it's a different class.
        1. + 12
          2 July 2026 07: 56
          Quote: Totor5
          The Yak-130 has nothing to do with this at all.
          As a combat aircraft, the Yak-130M is not worth anything at all...
          1. +6
            2 July 2026 09: 44
            Only as an alternative to the Tucano for fighting cocaine dealers in the jungle, etc. And for shooting down Kukuruzniki with their goods.
        2. +3
          2 July 2026 22: 49
          Are you seriously comparing the Grippen and the Yak-130? A full-fledged LFMI and a subsonic UBS?
          Nevertheless, if the Yak-130M were equipped with a radar, a radar, and a missile defense system, it would be quite capable of handling the basic functions of a LFMI. And yes, in principle, with some additional equipment, it could also carry cruise missiles like the Kh-69. However, it definitely doesn't need that; there are lighter options available. The same "Banderol," "Kover," and the like. But the Yak-130M is best used as a light interceptor of attack UAVs and cruise missiles.
          1. +1
            3 July 2026 05: 42
            I?

            "The aircraft is frankly excellent: fast, maneuverable, undemanding of airfield conditions, and can take off and land anywhere. And it has a pretty decent combat load, only half that of the JAS.39E/F Gripen, for example. And the cost, which is also important, is a quarter of the price."
            1. 0
              3 July 2026 07: 33
              Quote: Totor5
              I?

              What difference does it make? The commentators are talking about an alternative for the poor.
              Where supersonic speed isn't a requirement and a serious adversary isn't expected, this is a combat aircraft, as is, which could become a "poor man's" fighter. And for our Aerospace Forces, it could also serve as an interceptor for UAVs and cruise missiles. It's easy to deploy, moderately priced, has low operating costs, and can be purchased in large quantities for air defense needs.
    2. +4
      2 July 2026 07: 53
      Quote: Totor5
      The Yak130 has only 2 hardpoints left for ground operations.
      And even then, only if portable anti-aircraft missiles or heavy machine guns allow him to do so... wink
      1. +3
        2 July 2026 09: 46
        Obviously, the bombs should be from UMPK or KAB systems, etc. MANPADS are rare among rebels and nomads. Dropping a bomb from 50 km away is safe and cheap.
  6. +5
    2 July 2026 07: 44
    I still don’t understand why it’s not used to catch the same drones, like a bunch of Mi8 and Mi24 (Mi35).
    1. +4
      2 July 2026 12: 51
      Quote: 501Legion
      Why isn't it used to catch drones?

      Because the radar-equipped version just appeared, and before that, drones would have had to be searched for visually (unlike, incidentally, some helicopters). Of course, there's an excellent option—receiving external target designation from an AWACS, but the situation with AWACS is so dire that it's best not to even think about it.

      Furthermore, the existing Yak-130s are actively used as trainers, which is a pressing need. Production of new ones is extremely difficult, as the only plant is overloaded with orders for the Su-30SM and MS-21, in addition to the Yak-130.

      So the Yak-130, especially after the upgrade, is excellent in every way, especially against drones, except for one thing. It's not available in sufficient quantities. sad
    2. +2
      2 July 2026 13: 10
      Because the Yak-130M is the only one in existence, and the others lack radar—they can only be guided by ground commands. But the main thing is that they don't belong to combat units, and as we know, other departments aren't at war right now; everything's business as usual—they're just a flying desk, that's all. request
  7. +5
    2 July 2026 07: 51
    Compared to dedicated light aircraft, Yak-130M It's essentially an upgraded trainer aircraft, lacking the armor typical of true multirole fighters, making it more vulnerable in combat zones. It's a cross between older trainers and a fully-fledged multirole fighter, and I can't even imagine its combat use, except perhaps against rebels or drug dealers...

    In my opinion, in the market of aircraft of this class it has a rather serious and dangerous competitor - the South Korean FA-50, which has fully supersonic characteristics, which, unfortunately, the Yak-130MAnd somewhere else on the horizon, the Chinese one is looming. JF-17...
    1. +4
      2 July 2026 09: 56
      The KAI FA-50 Fighting Eagle is a completely different class, closer to the Gripen. It's larger and heavier, but most importantly, it's twice as fast and carries twice the payload. It also carries a Taurus-like payload.
    2. 0
      2 July 2026 10: 03
      The Chengdu FC-1 Xiaolong JF-17 Thunder is essentially a MiG-21 with a MiG-29 engine and new electronics—it's not exactly a combat trainer. It's actually a pretty good fighter. And it's a single-seat fighter by design.
      1. +2
        2 July 2026 18: 43
        Quote: Totor5
        The Chengdu FC-1 Xiaolong JF-17 Thunder is essentially a MiG-21 with a MiG-29 engine and new electronics – not a combat trainer at all.
        It has a modification for a training aircraft. This is precisely what is included in the related family with Yak-130M и FA-50...
        1. +1
          3 July 2026 05: 39
          Okay, so the Su-27 was a trainer, and so was the Su-25, but they're still in a different class—their speed, power, and versatility are fundamentally different. The Asians simply prioritized greater versatility, as they did it later. We tried to develop a single-seat combat version of the Yak-130M to replace the Su-25, but we couldn't achieve the desired performance.
          We could have done the same, but a competition in the late 1980s called for a dual-engine aircraft, so we resorted to clever design instead of using a single engine from, say, the MiG. And then it turned out that the Yak engines were still in Ukraine.
          The Yak-130 is still a small-bore aircraft, but in NATO it turned out to be more versatile.
          1. +2
            3 July 2026 07: 42
            Quote: Totor5
            Well, yes, the Su-27 was a training aircraft, and so was the Su-25, but it was still a different class.
            You are forgetting one little thing - the ones you mentioned Su-27 and and Su-25 were production aircraft, slightly modified for training and combat flights, for pilots who already had piloting skills. But Yak-130M - this is an airplane for those who are just starting to get behind the controls, something like the outdated Czechoslovakian A-39 (remember this one?)
            Quote: Totor5
            We tried to make a single-seat combat modification of the Yak-130M to replace the Su-25.
            This is just ridiculous... laughing
            1. -1
              3 July 2026 10: 31
              Personally, I think we should revive Su-25 production, but improve its guided weapons capabilities and install MiG-35 engines without afterburners. That way, it'll be able to both pummel with bombs and cannons and, in the old-fashioned style, attack caranans and other cocaine dealers on the southern borders.

              We also need a new Tu-22, and I think we should prioritize it over the Tu-160. It's more versatile across airfields and has wing-mounted outboards.

              The Yak-130 can certainly be beefed up, with a central mount for an additional fuel tank or bomb, a hump-shaped additional fuel tank like on the Jewish F-16s, and some KABs. It needs to be able to carry at least four FAB-500s, a central drop tank, and two air-to-air missiles. But the Yak-130's problem is that it lacks powerful engines, and so on. I think it's easier to modify the Su-25.
      2. +1
        3 July 2026 13: 06
        This is not a MiG-21 at all. Initially, the Packs planned to modernize the MiG-21 using the "Sabre 2" project, but nothing came of that. And the JF-17 is a separate project, albeit with the involvement of Mikoyan.
        1. -1
          3 July 2026 20: 09
          The base and airframe are from the MiG-21, it’s clear that it’s not a copy, but they started from this base.
          1. +1
            3 July 2026 23: 16
            Is this the base? Take a photo of a MiG and a JF-17; they're literally all different externally. The vertical stabilizer may have similar geometry, but that's it. The internals also have little in common with the J-7G, much less the MiG-21. In this regard, especially if you look at the later versions, it has more in common with the J-10.

            The J-7 was developed into the Sabre-2/Super-7, and it really does resemble a heavily modified MiG-21. But the JF-17 is a separate project.
            1. 0
              3 July 2026 23: 20
              You can argue about the percentages and whether it's a guess or not, but the fact that the MiG-21 was the basis of the project was not disputed, even by them. Everyone has their own understanding of what constitutes a new project. In the article, someone calls the Yak-130M something new compared to the Yak-130 without the M.
  8. -7
    2 July 2026 08: 02
    Why I love Roman's articles. They're always accurate, informative, and written in simple language! Even those unfamiliar with aviation find them interesting.
    5 for the article!
  9. + 12
    2 July 2026 08: 49
    It is incorrect to write about the Italians that they went out and grabbed the documentation - they paid money for it.
    The MiG-AT, the winner of the training aircraft competition, was left without funding and engines. The twin-engine training aircraft concept was flawed. The Yak-130, like its Italian cousin, proved expensive for training. The Yak-130M is likely about 10 years too late; it could find a use, but certainly not as an attack aircraft.
    1. -1
      2 July 2026 09: 58
      What other uses could be found for a subsonic aircraft in the 21st century?
      1. +1
        2 July 2026 10: 51
        Quote from solar
        What other uses could be found for a subsonic aircraft in the 21st century?

        Anti-drone air defense interceptor
        1. -2
          2 July 2026 11: 02
          A subsonic interceptor? The trend now is toward jet-powered drones. Not to mention the cost, interceptor drones are much cheaper.
          1. +1
            2 July 2026 11: 04
            Quote from solar
            Not to mention that it is expensive, interceptor drones are much cheaper.

            Quote from solar
            Subsonic interceptor?

            You reactive How will you guide the interceptor drone to its target? We don't recommend a radar on board the drone...
            1. +1
              2 July 2026 11: 18
              The Yak-130 isn't fast enough to intercept a jet-powered drone. And a jet-powered interceptor drone isn't needed to intercept propeller-driven drones. Unlike the Yak-130, interceptors can be positioned along the likely routes of attacking drones. The Yak-130, however, requires an airfield and maintenance.
              1. 0
                2 July 2026 11: 43
                Quote from solar
                And the Yak-130 needs an airfield and maintenance.

                All cities have airfields

                Quote from solar
                Interceptor drones can be positioned along the possible routes of attack drones
                And are the jet-powered interceptor drones launched by hand and don't require maintenance?

                Quote from solar
                And to intercept propeller-driven drones, a jet-powered interceptor drone is not needed.
                - I completely agree with this - the Mi-24 is optimal, in a pinch the Mi-8
                1. -1
                  2 July 2026 13: 32
                  And are the jet-powered interceptor drones launched by hand and don't require maintenance?

                  With a relatively simple starting device. Maintenance is minimal.
                  I completely agree with this - the Mi-24 is optimal, in a pinch the Mi-8

                  A regular cheap interceptor-tailsitter is optimal.
                  1. -2
                    2 July 2026 14: 54
                    Quote from solar
                    And are the jet-powered interceptor drones launched by hand and don't require maintenance?

                    With a relatively simple starting device. Maintenance is minimal.
                    I completely agree with this - the Mi-24 is optimal, in a pinch the Mi-8

                    A regular cheap interceptor-tailsitter is optimal.

                    You've convinced me. Destroy all 130 because they're unnecessary, in your opinion.
                    What do we need them for if you rejected them, if I understand correctly?
                    1. 0
                      2 July 2026 15: 00
                      This is a training aircraft, that's what it was created for.
                      1. -1
                        2 July 2026 15: 07
                        Quote from solar
                        This is a training aircraft, that's what it was created for.

                        Am I suggesting that we hang nuclear-armed cruise missiles on it? Or should we use it as-
                        Quote: your1970
                        Anti-drone air defense interceptor
                        ?
                        And you still haven't answered the most important question -
                        Quote: your1970
                        You reactive How will you guide the interceptor drone to its target? We don't recommend a radar on board the drone...
              2. +6
                2 July 2026 13: 14
                Unlike the Yak-130, interceptor drones can be positioned along the possible routes of attack drones.
                How many interceptor drones are you planning to deploy per 5 km? The enemy will send 500 of their drones to break through a single choke point, you'll shoot down even a hundred—and the rest will fly on because you've run out of drones. An aircraft is a highly mobile air defense system that, according to intelligence, moves where it's needed.
                1. -4
                  2 July 2026 13: 17
                  The enemy will send five hundred of his pepelats to break through one narrow section

                  And how many planes are you planning to keep there? Which still need to reach that section?
                  which, according to intelligence data, is being deployed where necessary

                  Can't cars with drones do this?
                  1. +3
                    2 July 2026 13: 37
                    And how many planes are you going to keep there?
                    from ten to a hundred kilometers, for example.
                    Can't cars with drones do this?
                    That's if we have rogue lines every 200 km. But according to observations, the interception groups in our rear areas don't travel very far.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. -3
                      2 July 2026 13: 40
                      Ten versus 500 drones?
                      That's if we have rogue lines every 200 km. But according to observations, the interception groups in our rear areas don't travel very far.

                      But they don’t need it far away, they just need to be placed wisely.
                      1. +2
                        2 July 2026 13: 51
                        Ten versus 500 drones?
                        But they don't fly in a swarm at the same time; others will join in later. How many tons of interceptor drones can a ton of enemy drones intercept? And you can cram a ton into S-8L containers. Well, of course, if anyone remembers it, Kalashnikov removed it from his website.
                        But they don’t need it far away, they just need to be placed wisely.
                        and the planes are placed wherever they want, they don't care about forests, they don't care about rivers and ravines
                      2. -2
                        2 July 2026 15: 17
                        Aircraft, especially jets, are located at airfields that require maintenance, servicing, support, etc.
                      3. +2
                        2 July 2026 15: 35
                        Well, we seem to have plenty of them now in the European theater; they're even saying they're building hangars. But a Yak needs less than a kilometer of runway. As far as I understand, seven drones reached the Moscow oil refinery, and if anyone had backed up the air defense over the city, zero would have made it. Of course, they could have raised some barrage balloons at the refinery, but that's apparently too high-tech. request
  10. -1
    2 July 2026 08: 51
    It's completely unclear why anyone would bother inventing all this when the MiG-35 has been around since 2017. It's a fully-fledged fourth-generation aircraft, completely familiar to our Air Force. It's clear that our air defense system lacks aircraft. That's why they needed to produce them, but instead they went after the most unique ones, wasting all their money on them. They could have built 100-150 MiGs in that time, and the drone problem wouldn't have been so pressing. And the Yak-130 is a light subsonic aircraft, suitable only for drones, while the MiG-35 is suitable for all purposes. It may be more expensive and have a longer operating life, but it's versatile.
    1. +2
      3 July 2026 04: 11
      It's all crystal clear: there are no MiG-35 assembly lines, the MiG-35 can't perform training missions, and it's not much cheaper than the Su-25s, which are far superior in performance. And the Yak-130M is essentially a response to the destruction of the Su-25 fleet.
      1. 0
        3 July 2026 12: 08
        And where did Production Complex No. 1 of JSC RSK MiG in Lukhovitsy go? If nothing is done, nothing will appear.
        The Su-2 and MiG have different niches. The Su-2 is heavy for air superiority, while the MiG is suited for other roles, particularly air defense. Furthermore, runways need to be shorter, and their airfield requirements are generally lower, making them cheaper to fly per hour.
        The Yak-130M isn't a replacement for the Su-25. The Su-25 is a ground-attack aircraft, and that niche has now been taken over by drones.
  11. +3
    2 July 2026 09: 26
    A slightly off-topic question. I haven't heard anything about the Su-75. How is the work progressing? Has it had its first flight?
    1. 0
      2 July 2026 13: 02
      Well, actually, you can hear it.
      https://topwar.ru/283809-legkij-istrebitel-su-75-checkmate-vyshel-na-jetap-sborki-opytnogo-obrazca.html
      In short, five years after its unveiling at MAKS-2021, assembly of the first prototype has only just begun this year, although I personally remember last year's news that assembly had already begun, meaning assembly was supposed to begin in 2025. Consequently, the first flight never took place.
      1. 0
        2 July 2026 16: 22
        Quote: Kravets Vyacheslav
        I remember last year's news that they had already started assembling it, meaning assembly was supposed to begin in 2025. Accordingly, there was no first flight.

        They said the first batch would be delivered to service in 2027. Well, that's pretty much it.
  12. +7
    2 July 2026 09: 29
    I remember the Yak-130M was highly praised 2 years ago.
    The photos showed a lot of weapons.
    According to the article, either it didn't fly then, or they lied, or it was some other Yak-130M...
  13. +3
    2 July 2026 09: 37
    There's a Kop'e radar in a container, isn't there? Why not mount that container and the OLS container under a regular Yak-130, a couple of drop tanks, and a couple of NURS pods with guided missiles based on the S-8? Does anyone have to do any legwork there? Can't they just think about it themselves?
    1. +3
      2 July 2026 13: 17
      We haven't managed to adapt our Su-25 for the UMPK or for shooting down drones; that would require a ton of approvals and commissions. Our enemies' MiG-29s can be adapted for French aerial bombs and British missiles with an iPad, a drill, wires, and some other gadgets, but we have to do everything correctly, according to protocol.
  14. +6
    2 July 2026 09: 37
    Yes, there are some smart alecks out there (mostly in the West) who insist that the Su-35 is a major upgrade of the Su-27. There's no point arguing with them, because these guys are like parrots – they just repeat what they remember. The Yak-130M differs from the Yak-130 in the same way that the Su-35 differs from the Su-27. There are similarities externally, but they're completely different internally.

    I wonder how we'll look at the modernization of the F-16 and F-15? They'd probably have about 20 new planes back then if they didn't put letters after the names, but rather sequential numbers. They'd probably have moved on to the F-67 and F-58 by now. laughing
  15. 0
    2 July 2026 09: 42
    A satellite communication module has appeared – it is possible to correct the flight trajectory of missiles or, again, bombs with the UMPK.
    It turns out that bombs with the UMPK can now be guided. Previously, they wrote that programming took place at the airfield, and under changed conditions, pilots couldn't adjust coordinates. If so, that's very good.
  16. +5
    2 July 2026 09: 58
    This is not the time to be trying to fit an owl onto a globe.
    The Russian Aerospace Forces only need this aircraft for training. Its ground combat potential is nonexistent. It's not a fighter/bomber or even a completely useless attack aircraft. There's no escape or evasion.
    As a drone hunter, it's clearly overkill, and surprisingly, it's slow. They won't be able to hover, blocking their movements. And it can't quickly move based on information from the ground.
    Conclusion: UTI is UTI. Excellent and very useful. But it's not needed for combat.
    Export is good. But who needs the more expensive PEREUTI? Not the regular one, but the more expensive one? It's clear who.
    The main thing is that export contracts are for cash and with prepayment, not for a promise to deliver tangerines and passion fruits by weight in five years.
  17. +2
    2 July 2026 10: 53
    Due to a lack of funding, the Yakovlev Design Bureau collaborated with the Italian company Aermacchi, but the partners later parted ways. Each side received documentation for the basic version of the aircraft, after which Aermacchi developed its own variant, the M-346, while the Yakovlev Design Bureau completed development of the Yak-130.
  18. +3
    2 July 2026 11: 46
    As a drone and cruise missile hunter, it's certainly relevant. Their speed, 500-850 km/h at ground level, is well within our hero's capabilities. The question, of course, is the cost of use. A combat sortie probably costs half a million to a million, plus the cost of the weapons used. It seems possible to use a 23mm cannon and short-range missiles like the R-73. That's about the same price, or even more (R-73). It's useful for patrolling areas with little air defense coverage. Otherwise, there's no alternative to scaling up the Pantsir. While it's more expensive than the Yak-130M, the weapons used, especially if they perfect the new small missile, are cheaper and more effective.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. -2
    2 July 2026 13: 45
    But there was also the MiG-AT. What's stopping the MiG Aircraft Corporation from trying to revive that project, now that the idiots at the Ministry of Defense have already buried the MiG-35? After all, the number of missiles flying toward Russia will only increase. Or does 2030 not bother our government in any way?
    1. +3
      3 July 2026 01: 31
      What's stopping RSC MiG from trying to revive this project?

      The need for RSK MiG to revive itself first is a hindrance. Is anyone still alive there? crying
      1. 0
        3 July 2026 01: 46
        I hope so. Someone is repairing and upgrading the MiG-31...
      2. +2
        5 July 2026 10: 43
        Factories and design bureaus have handled the new developments very differently. Sukhoi, for example, is doing well, the Yak is alive, but the MiG, not so much. I don't know what will happen next, but the outlook isn't great...
  21. +4
    2 July 2026 14: 16
    The article personally raises some questions for me.
    First, the author makes some very strange comparisons. First, he compares the Yak-130/130M to the Tu-22/22M, implying that the Yak-130M is essentially a new aircraft. Although, for some reason, I'm sure if you show photos of the Tu-22 and Tu-22M to someone unfamiliar with this aircraft, they'll think they're different, which is basically true, but which is unlikely to happen with the Yak-130 and Yak-130M. My point is that the extent of changes in these two aircraft is incomparable. Then he writes that the Yak-130's combat load is only half that of the JAS 39E/F Gripen. It's not entirely clear what he means, given that the Gripen is already a light fighter, meaning it's not a record-breaker in combat load. It would be worth noting that the Yak-130 is inferior to this aircraft in other respects as well. But again, why is this comparison given?

    Secondly, the author omits the existence of the Yak-131 (and the Yak-133, but that was apparently a variant of the 131). It was a light attack aircraft project based on the Yak-130. Naturally, the new Yak-130M is superior to the older Yak-131 in performance, but the difference between them is, what, 20 years? The question is, will the new 130M suffer the same fate and remain just a prototype?

    And finally, the third and most important thing. These are competitors. It's clear that the Russian Aerospace Forces won't have any. As for exports, just as the standard Yak-130 competes with the M-346, for obvious reasons, the Yak-130M will compete with the M-346FA. Moreover, the Italian aircraft flew earlier and already has export orders. And there's no risk of sanctions for purchasing it. There's also the Chinese L-15, which has only been exported to two countries so far, but that may change in the future. And these are only the most similar aircraft, as the Yakovlev Design Bureau participated in their development. There are also other trainers and combat aircraft based on them. One of the best currently is probably the South Korean T-50, which already has a combat-trainer version, the FA-50. Moreover, a single-seat combat aircraft based on it, the F-50, is being developed. It's clear that not all countries will be able to afford it, or other combat aircraft based on the training aircraft, and they may choose the Yak-130M if the price difference between them and the Yak-130M is in favor of the 130th.
  22. +1
    2 July 2026 15: 30
    Quote: Totor5
    I've already written this, but I'll repeat it...
    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 the very least, 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.

    Comparing it to Grippen is ridiculous - it can carry a smaller Taurus - and that's exactly why they want it in Ukraine.

    So.
    The Zelensky regime, a Chabadite, needs the flu to terrorize us with cruise missiles.
    It is strange that domestic media, as if on cue, trumpet about the Grippens’ one purpose – to combat our UAVs.
    Don't want to scare people?
    This is so bad.
    It's better to be prepared for dozens of cruise missiles rushing towards Moscow than to heroically write later about cruise missile debris causing something to burn there.
    Even now, the Ukrainian Luftwaffe can carry out a "Star Raid" by launching more than 60 cruise missiles in one "salvo".
    1. +2
      3 July 2026 05: 57
      Their problem is that the Americans don't give long-range missiles for the F16, and they can't mount the StormShadow on it - because the F16 simply doesn't have the weight, and they don't give you a mini Taurus.

      The Su-24 is becoming less and less common, it is already a rare commodity, since they were not supplied abroad and only those that Ukraine had are used.

      To compensate for the loss of the Su-24, the French began issuing Mirages, which carry the Scalp. But the Mirages are old and not all can carry the Scalp, and no one wants to undertake a large-scale modernization. Likewise, no one wants to give up the newest Mirages, because firstly, they contain secrets, and secondly, they need to be replaced proportionally with Rafales, which takes time and money.

      It is clear that no one will give us the Rafale and Eurofighter - they are the backbone of NATO aviation in Europe.

      Of course, Europe still has Typhoon aircraft. They're being phased out, and there are quite a few of them, but the problem is that they're difficult to maintain and expensive to repair. In principle, they could be given away, but they're not. Although they could cause a stir with Tauruses and the like. Germany has the most of them, plus Italy has some. Germany could sell them.

      Therefore, the Grippen seems the most logical and cost-effective option—an inexpensive single-engine fighter that doesn't require airfield quality, yet can carry a smaller version of the Taurus. Its specifications are classified, but it's likely either a 300-km range or a warhead that's half the size. It's certainly not a Tornado, but the Swedes are willing to arrange factory supply.
  23. +2
    2 July 2026 19: 19
    Let me digress a bit... to South Korea. Remember back in the old days, when South Korean cars were just starting to appear, and people were screaming, "Who needs/would buy this South Korean crap?" The Japanese, the Germans—they were everything to us! It hasn't been that many years, and South Korean cars are now at the top of our "snorter" list. The same goes for airplanes. Well, South Korea wasn't an aircraft manufacturer. It wasn't... But it became one. It's already selling its fighter jets for export, and people are buying them. What's the point? There's a saying, "Russians take a long time to harness, but they drive fast." It seems they've forgotten how to harness, and there's nothing much to harness anyway. It's sad.
  24. -1
    2 July 2026 21: 02
    Perhaps the 130M is destined to repeat the history of its ancestor, the Yak-7, which went from being a training aircraft to a fighter.
  25. +3
    2 July 2026 22: 32
    Again, the presence of an OLS allows for the suspension of four (!) containers with guns and turning the training aircraft into a very promising drone hunter.


    How much does an hour of flight on a Yak-130M jet cost?

    I suspect tens of thousands of dollars.

    How many of these Yak-130Ms will they make per year?

    About 12 pieces.

    How long does it take to train a pilot?

    5 years.

    This is not very effective in the fight against drones, which need to be shot down now.

    Drones are supposed to destroy other drones. Each air defense unit should be assigned a PPV-Air Defense unit with Yolka-type UAVs, and these inexpensive drones are supposed to shoot down long- and medium-range enemy UAVs. A small aircraft with radar and radar is needed to provide experienced pilots with flight hours.

    As for the Yak-130M, in my opinion, we need first and foremost a cheap analogue of the L-39 Albatross, just to teach cadets to fly first.
    1. 0
      5 July 2026 10: 59
      We need to think not only about the present, but also about the future. Yak-130 production can be increased to 20 units per year—the factory can handle it. Pilot retraining for the type takes six months, a year. Regarding the future. The risk of clashing with the Euro-scum is high. Also, if we draw in the SVO now, it could happen again in a while, only the Ukrainian Reich will be so pumped up with weapons that it could wipe out all of NATO in Europe if it wanted. We need to prepare for a future war. Besides cruise missiles and jet-powered UAVs, conventional drones are also here to stay, and we need to prepare the UTS-800 against them, or even better, the Yak-152. UZGA is promoting the UTS, but it's dangerous; they have zero aviation expertise, yet they're wasting money, producing dumb prototypes priced like spaceships. Let's call it the Yak-152B—what will it handle? We need an OLS, 2x12,7 or at least 2x7,62 mm under the wing, maybe consider a single-seat version. And anyway: scale up the Pantsir! That's the first priority.
  26. 0
    3 July 2026 22: 38
    When, where and how much???
  27. +1
    5 July 2026 08: 20
    Why do you think the Yak-130M is so slow? Because it doesn't have avionics. Russia doesn't make its own microprocessors. They'll be using French copies from 2015. The Chinese don't share theirs. Why isn't the Su-57 needed? Because it doesn't have the electronics either. The Su-57 is an Su-35 with a new airframe. And without stealth, by the way—look closely at its fuselage!