Surprises me the most that the Yak-130 will be comparatively weaker to the M-346FA. Although it’s completely understandeable that an aircraft restricted to TV-guided bombs (KAB-500Kr) would have lower battle rating, but even A-4E Skyhawk has proper air-to-air weapons.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DdWVNQXj68sK
If the developers isn’t planning to add the aircraft with its full weapons (compared to the M-346FA which has most of it) hopefully we’ll see Yak-130M with 4x R-73 air-to-air missiles at least:
16 Likes
Isnt it BR balancing issue, as base Yak-130 doesnt have flares?
15 Likes
This would be like adding the Finnish Hawk MK.51A with 9M, it has no CMs so it’s just a balancing factor.
1 Like
BVV_d mentioned they didn’t give it R-73 because it doesn’t have flares. It would be a BR issue. We’ll have to wait for the Yak-130M which would be the definitive edition.
8 Likes
The Yak-130 should be able to carry countermeasures on the wingtip hardpoints (at the expense of two of the four R-73s)
10 Likes
Kinda soft ban on future F-8P
i dont know what they are doing but they have the choice to add CMS and give r60m.
or just r60m.
1 Like
Small note, those pictures are of the Yak/AEM-130D, not the Yak-130, the prototype that was built when Italy and Russia were still working together on the aircraft
3 Likes
That’s a shame. I was looking forward to using it at a higher rating for laughs.
From the demonstrator (Yak/AEM-130D) to the production model (Yakovlev Yak-130) and modernization proposal (Yakovlev Yak-130M) the platform doesn’t have built-in flares/chaff dispensers. All of them are reliant on wingtip-installed dispenser pods which could be a decent trade for protection and offensive capabilities if it had both dispenser pods and R-73 air-to-air missiles. Yakovlev Yak-130M can only be added on its full potential once proper electronic countermeasure becames a normal thing and not a exclusive asset of a specific aircraft.
1 Like
I really want to say how just blatantly stupid it is to add both the Yak-130 and M-346 yet give only the M-346 decent armament. Yes, I understand that the Yak-130 being added might not have countermeasures but is it actually fair to not give it any AAM too? The bare minimum should be the ability to carry R-60Ms, not wait maybe a year or two for the Yak-130M with R-73 and CMs, or even just a CM pod for this Yak-130.
Thank you devs for adding a really wanted aircraft and then making it a useless paperweight!
3 Likes
Rather have the 9.3 CAS than a flareless attacker with R-73’s at a higher BR
7 Likes
Gaijin artificially gimping Russian equipment as per usual :
Yes Russian Yak-130 are usually not equiped with flares ( because it is a choice of the MOD, not because of technical reasons ) but Yakovlev absolutely can and infact does equip flares ( UV-26M irrc ) on Yak-130 at the demand of the customer as shown by the above example Belarus Yak-130 are equipped with flares.
Since Gaijin themselves have stated that technical capability is the only thing that matters and set such precedent multiple times, there is nothing preventing Gaijin from implementing flares for the Russian Yak-130 , technical capability has been there from the getgo
5 Likes
I see. I don’t know much about the Yak-130 aside from the 130M
There is this
2 Likes
Yes this is what it should had gotten from the getgo. Goes to show that they know Yak-130 can equip flares but they decided to artificially gimp it .
4 Likes
Yak-130 can be a nice fighter jet just like M-346FA (which is the pinnacle of what the M-346AJT can be, Gaijin added its best version). Despite lacking proper search radar (if I’m not wrong since I don’t have specific sources for it now) do have helmet mounted display, which would have been a nice tool for a battle rating 11.3 or above fighter in air battles combining with R-73 air-to-air missiles. They’ll probably throw another reason that: “The Yak-130 represented in-game is a transition between the Yak/AEM-130D to the Yakovlev Yak-130 in the 2000s” given they’re using the mid-2000 RA-43130 01 livery, the same as I’ve attached in the original post above.
It can especially if it stays 9.0 . Personally i do absolutely understand the lack of R-73 since it would automatically increase the BR to 11.0 or 11.3 at which point the Yak-130 becomes redundant.
USSR tree has been lacking something below 10.0 BR with smart munition like for instance the Hunter F.58 for Germany or A-4E Early for the USA. So Yak-130 fills perfectly that role.
What i can’t understand is the artificial lack of flares .
6 Likes
its 9.0 in air what br u want with 4 r73 for this? much planes no have flare in this br max ad r60 and thanks for this need up in br… same in ground…
Featuring the vehicle in its best configuration is something I wanted but I’m powerless. And @Raldi92 gave a nice argument to keep the vehicle as it is now:
People said and are expecting Yakovlev Yak-130M to come in a better shape compared to the Yakovlev Yak-130. I’m aware that it has [ Yak-130M] SOLT-130K which can open possibilities for smart air-to-ground missiles like Kh-25 and Kh-29:
However, it’s a presumption, I don’t have sources that Yak-130M was ever issues with these weapons to justify a new battle rating 11.3+ airplane (which was my assumption before the Yak-130 without R-73 air-to-air missiles). In summary: Yak-130M won’t improve Yak-130 with new weapons at its current stage because there’s nothing new to notice except the targeting pod.
I believe this was the first example of the Yak-130M in 2017 which people confunded with a ‘Yak-131’ (which doesn’t exist) given the targeting designator-like equipment on the airplanes’ nose.
1 Like
Yak-130M brings BRLS-130R AESA radar, integration of newer armament such as R-77-1 , Kh-38 and likely most if not all modern air to air and air to ground arsenal ( within the weight limit ). Furthermore it will have better protection with Predisent-130 system which adds MAWS sensors.
