yes the Yak-130 would have a weaker engine but its also a mutch smaller and lighter aircraft,so the acual Thrust to weight ratio would acualy slightly exceed the SU25’s (0.7-0.71) since its more aerodynamic profile with mutch Smaller RCS, allthought if withought a combat lodout ,fully combat loaded it probably would fall behind. im refering to the new Yak-130M version that was made on the trainer profile but made so it can acualy preform combat missions.
According to RuAviation, in this article UEC presented the Yak-130M in the Army Forum 2023 with a improved SM-100 engine, stated that its expect a thrust increase of 20% in comparison to the older AI-222-25 engines. This is around 3 000 kgf/engine if I don’t made the math wrong:
Specific attention is being given to modernising the powerplant. Building on the baseline AI-222-25 engine, the United Engine Corporation is developing a new SM-100 engine with a 20 per cent increase in thrust and a doubling of service life. Improved performance has been achieved through modernisation of the low-pressure compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine. At the ‘Army’ forum in 2023, a UEC representative reported that the compressor and turbine were undergoing rig testing, while the combustion chamber was being tested in flight.
Armament, radar, avionics, acceleration, maneuvrability. Look up what it is, Yak-130 is not even a russian plane, it has no russian design, cheap copycat of other doctrine. Just how we did with our modular IFVs, copying.
Su-25 is an outdated, fat strike aircraft. Yak-130 is a NATO standard LCA with decent everything.
If you looked up the Yak-130, you’d realize that it is a russian design, as well as an italian one, since Yak-130 was a joint program before Aeromacchi branched off to make M346.
Also calling Yak-130 “NATO standard” is absolutely hilarious.
“Decent everything” Ignoring the lack of RWR, a radar, and an armament selection so drab it’d make a Mirage 2000C blush.
1 Like
If we’re comparing Yak-130 to Su-25T, it’s simple.
Yak-130 is better for dogfighting/A2A from the probable inclusion of HMD and R-73s (ignoring that you’d only get 2, maybe 3 if you want to sacrifice countermeasures.)
Su-25BM/T/TM are all going to be superior for CAS though, and I know it’s not 11.7 but Su-25SM3 beats it in spades as well obviously.
2 Likes
That’s what I was thinking as well
Yup, two UV-26 CM dispensers (same one’s as Mi-28A/N/NM’s) on the wingtip pods.
Yeah… You don’t get more bleak than 4 KAB-500Krs as your only guided ordinance lol.
1 Like
And you don’t get more bleak than two R-73s and a gun as your only a2a armament at these tiers, so won’t be higher than 12.0 for sure
At least the Gsh-23 gun pod is center mounted, surely that’ll help… :clueless:
1 Like
Tbh a centerline gun is always nice, I enjoy that of the Alphajet. But of course it won’t save you
Depends on the modification you grab. “Lacks rwr”, “lacks radar” as if gaijin would add it like that, Su-25 doesn’t have radar as well.
CAS wise even the oldest 130 would be on par with Su-39, Vikhrs and 25MLs with decent targeting equipment.
Aermacchi did M-345 before Russia even thought about Yak-130.
as i said the ordinance shown isnt the only thing it can carry (yak-130M version),
since we dont have the exact info about ordinance it can we can still safely assume it can carry modern guided munitions,brobably vichor pods like on the su-25T, and sepecialy the Kh-25ML’s, since the MODERNISED (M) version gets the Laser and optical Pod, the trainer version also gets 3 internal Disoplays and you’ll most likley have to chose between the Gunpod or the targeting system like shown in most images.
Don’t prove anything and this discussion can lead to pointless beef. Most advanced trainers follows a formula for their design: Compat, dual-seat aircraft in a slim frame; this defines the earliest to the latest designs and just because someone did early than the other doesn’t credit them for reinventing the wheel. Also Yakovlev developed Yak-UTS in early 90s as I mentioned in the Background session:
As I mentioned that this dual-seat design is somewhat a formula, there are other examples that follows this idea:
Chinese JL-15
Czech L-39ZA
Franco-german Alpha Jet
Even considering these similarty there are clear differences from the Yak-130 from western designs despite the application being almost the same. Regarding M-345, it was born from reutilizing a design from another italian company, speaking about ‘copying’. M-345 as we know today is a improvement from the M-311 which it was developed on the S-211 frame if I’m not wrong early 2000s.
There’s a good reading in this suggestion post about the M-311 as well:
This is part of the Yak-130M countermeasure complex President-S130 that includes RWR, MAWS, electronic jammer, chaffs and flare chargers dispensers. The little I can understand of this new aircraft is that the upper cylinder is a electronic jammer and the lower as the countermeasure or support system for this complex but sources may vary stating that it’s all-in-one.
1 Like
Yak-130M offers little more when it comes to munitions, the only thing it adds officially is KAB-250LG, UPAB-500 and R-74M weapons wise.
What you was a loadout chart from a Yak-130 brochure.
And no, APU-8 mounts like on Su-25T are no longer in service or production, likewise with Kh-25MLs as they’re being phased out for Kh-38Ms, which are the most likely thing to be incorporated onto the Yak-130M program in the future.
And yes, it’s either a gunpod or a targeting pod, not both.
The original Yak-130, like this forum thread is about.
CAS wise even the oldest 130 would be on par with Su-39, Vikhrs and 25MLs with decent targeting equipment.
Just… No… As I’ve and others have said before, the “”“oldest”“” Yak-130 only has KAB-500Krs for guided weaponry, Yak-130M makes it a little bit better with KAB-250LG, UPAB-500 and SOLT-130K.
APU-8 and Kh-25MLs are not available options as of now. (likely never due to the fact one has been dead since the Su-25T/TM program died in the early 2000s and because Kh-25Ms are being phased out of service)