Read the forum code of contact
By: - 11th January 2012 at 22:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apart form the airframe, M-346 and Yak-130 are totally different airplanes.
Designed in Russia, developed in Italy.
Put the two airframes side-by-side - and it would take a trained observer to tell them apart.
Ken
By: - 11th January 2012 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FA-50? I thought the KAI T-50 was being offered to Israel? Is this a mistake or are the Koreans offering the Israelis the fighter/attack variant of the T-50 rather than just the trainer now?
As per some Israeli sources, that sale is actually to India, not South Korea.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apart form the airframe, M-346 and Yak-130 are totally different airplanes.That's apretty weird claim, to be honest. IMHO, they are pretty much identical, identical airframe, similar landing gear, only their bowels are from different manufacturers.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 03:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So finally a good chance that Americans' will be having trainers of Russian origin and undoubtedly the best trainer. Probably generation+++ ahead of the Hawk series.
KAI T-50 is more advance than Yak 130, and it's actually a Lockheed design. So advance that some potential customers think it's too much for a trainer. So why they (the American) need to use Russian design, if they can use what actually Lockheed design ?
By: - 12th January 2012 at 04:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KAI T-50 is more advance than Yak 130, and it's actually a Lockheed design. So advance that some potential customers think it's too much for a trainer. So why they (the American) need to use Russian design, if they can use what actually Lockheed design ?
Because they don't need the capabilities of the T-50 in the training role?
More advanced=/= designed for different performance.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 04:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because they don't need the capabilities of the T-50 in the training role?
More advanced=/= designed for different performance.
Considering what T-38 capabilities in the 60's when they come. It's relatively similar on what T-50 represent today. Thus USAF will probably think TA-50 suitable as T-38 replacement. And again considering it's actually a Lockheed design and used extensive US parts, will be a considerable factor.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Designed in Russia, developed in Italy.Put the two airframes side-by-side - and it would take a trained observer to tell them apart.
Ken
I'd say. Designed in Russia and customized in Italy!
The overall & biggest looser in the deal was only Russia and Yakovlev OKB. After tasting success with Yak-130 customization, the Italians have set their sights on something parallel taking the Amur submarine as the base and promoting a customized variant, S1000, to the Indian Navy.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 06:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So the three main military powers may some day be operating 3 somewhat different trainer types based on a common design!
yes, if US decides in that direction. What is the case with NATO as a whole?
Italy already is one, who else from the Biggies?
By: - 12th January 2012 at 06:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KAI T-50 is more advance than Yak 130, and it's actually a Lockheed design. So advance that some potential customers think it's too much for a trainer. So why they (the American) need to use Russian design, if they can use what actually Lockheed design ?
KAI T-50 is a single engined supersonic trainer where as Yak-130 is a twin-engined sub-sonic trainer. T-50 can be theoretically compared to the Su-54 supersonic trainer concept.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 07:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KAI T-50 is a single engined supersonic trainer where as Yak-130 is a twin-engined sub-sonic trainer. T-50 can be theoretically compared to the Su-54 supersonic trainer concept.
Yes, and KAI T-50 is the only trainer in the market today that in my opinion can substitute what T-38 bring as trainer in the 60's relative to today's environment. After all when USAF already costumed for more than 40 years with advance supersonic trainers (well that's T-38 bring when they come at the 60's), they will be more in place to go with KAI T-50 rather then any other trainers in the market today.
By: - 12th January 2012 at 07:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Yak-130 might lack the supersonic speed regime.
But i fail to see why this alone is so important for any large AF:confused:
There are countless better reasons to operate Yak-130/M-346 over the T-50 trainer.
How well do the T-50 cover Weapon launch, how much W-weight, pylons and type of ordinance do it cover?
Pls respond in the thread below:
By: - 12th January 2012 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T-50, M-346 and Yak-130 advance trainers future prospect?
How about a new thread here.
The Yak-130 might lack the supersonic speed regime.
But i fail to see why this alone is so important for any large AF
There are countless better reasons to operate Yak-130/M-346 over the T-50 trainer.
How well do the T-50 cover Weapon launch, how much W-weight, pylons and type of ordinance do it cover?
By: - 12th January 2012 at 08:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re the T-38/T-50 supersonic capability.......
How much of the total training syllabus is carried out at supersonic speeds ???
Is it a training requirement ??
I would guess not - otherwise why would the USAF even consider a non-supersonic design ??
It's probably a 'nice to have' - but not a requirement.
I've just been reading about the Yak-130 design requirements in a translated Russian magazine - and amongst them are....
. Unique manoeuvrability, with 5G turns at 4500 m and 700 km/hr with minimum radius of 200m
. Ability to simulate the handling charactersistics of different degree of static stability and variable dynamic stability
. Ability to operate from unpaved surfaces of 1000m minimum length
. Ability to use the aircraft as a ground simulator
. Ability to simulate the function of a variety of weapons and sighting systems..etc
. Ability to simulate the application of the weapons, without their actual use.
There's more - but I can't be bothered typing......
One of the Yak's main attributes is its variable stability.
Ken
By: - 13th January 2012 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about a new thread here.There are countless better reasons to operate Yak-130/M-346 over the T-50 trainer.
How well do the T-50 cover Weapon launch, how much W-weight, pylons and type of ordinance do it cover?
How much of the total training syllabus is carried out at supersonic speeds ???Is it a training requirement ??
I would guess not - otherwise why would the USAF even consider a non-supersonic design ??
Gent's, how relevant supersonic regime for a trainer, well in my opinion much depend on what that particular Air Force wants on their training regime.
T-38 is a supersonic trainer. Now on the market only KAI T-50 (or TA-50) that can provide what T-38 has given as trainer. I don't now whether present USAF policy still wants supersonic trainer, but I do believe since they're satisfied with T-38, they have tendency to keep supersonic capabilities on their future advance trainer. Yes they still looking for best possible option, and have to see what they will decide.
Now for T-50, Only ROKAF and now Indonesian AF that will use T-50 (or TA-50 for Ind AF) at the present. T-50 losing out to M-346 in Singapore and UAE (although seems it's not a done deal yet for UAE), but winning against Yak 130 in Indonesia. Still a contest with M-346 with Israel, and since Turkey also use T-38 and (like Indonesia) Turkey show increasing trend in defense cooperation with ROK, I believe the chances for T-50 to replace Turkey T-38 is good.
But the main price is the USAF contest. If you look on KAI sites for T-50 or TA-50, you can see the capabilities for weapons launch and carry is quite a punch for the aircraft on that size. It has fighter specs avionics and electronics. It's after all in my opinion being designed as 'small' F-16. This capabilities is the reason why being chose by Indonesia, but also is (I believe) the reason loosing out in Singapore or UAE.
It's the most advance trainer I believe in the market today, but because of this some AF will argue it's too much a trainer.
The main question is will USAF agree on foreign design, or choose a design which basically Lockheed design and use extensive US equipment and designed from the begining to be very compatable with F-16 (and according to Lockheed) also F-35.
Again do remember, USAF is the only air force in the world that for more than 40 years is having supersonic capabilities on their training regime.
By: - 13th January 2012 at 01:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now for T-50, Only ROKAF and now Indonesian AF that will use T-50 (or TA-50 for Ind AF) at the present. T-50 losing out to M-346 in Singapore and UAE (although seems it's not a done deal yet for UAE), but winning against Yak 130 in Indonesia. Still a contest with M-346 with Israel, and since Turkey also use T-38 and (like Indonesia) Turkey show increasing trend in defense cooperation with ROK, I believe the chances for T-50 to replace Turkey T-38 is good.
T-50 is single engine trainer that weighs 6500kg. Now it is good for small airforce that will buy at most 50 airplanes over period of 50 years.
But when you consider large airforce like USAF & Ruaf whose requirement may run into 400 to 500 planes over 50 year period. They have to look at reliability of twin engine, light weight efficiency as they have to spend money on so many other things.
T-38 was designed in different era. when labor, material and oil was cheap. Now every thing for next 50 years is going to be very different.
By: - 13th January 2012 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T-50 is single engine trainer that weighs 6500kg. Now it is good for small airforce that will buy at most 50 airplanes over period of 50 years.
But when you consider large airforce like USAF & Ruaf whose requirement may run into 400 to 500 planes over 50 year period. They have to look at reliability of twin engine, light weight efficiency as they have to spend money on so many other things.
T-38 was designed in different era. when labor, material and oil was cheap. Now every thing for next 50 years is going to be very different.
I agree with Ru-Af, since their training regime was based on light weight, relative economics to maintain trainer (L-29, L-39). Thus replacing those, Yak 130 is a considerable step-up.
However, again USAF already used with the training regime based to T-38. Will M-346 able to provide significant step-up from that, or have to be T-50/TA-50 ?
The procurement cost for T-50 yes is higher than Yak 130, but looking to Indonesian experience, in the end is not much so. Compared to what Indonesian has to pay for TA-50 then what Italian and Singapore has to pay for M-346 is relatively still fall in similar ball park.
Is back to the engine. Realistically the US will look to M-346 and not Yak 130 for consideration. That's mean Honeywell engine vs GE 404 or 414 on T/TA-50. With large fleet, I do believe the costs of maintaining GE 404/GE414 to Honeywell engine will not much be different.
In the end it will be back to 'oil' costs/running costs of GE 404 vs Honeywell. This that can be determining factor for USAF on deciding to keep having supersonic capabilities on their training regime or not.
That's I believe the only significant minus factor T/TA-50 has compared to M-346. But do remembered that Lockheed will be the driving force for T/TA-50 on this competition and not KAI. This after all Lockheed designed aircraft to begin with. In such Lockheed has said that they will bring T-50 as the most compatible trainer there is for USAF to F-16 latest block and to F-22 + F-35. Will M-346 can offer that to USAF ?
Will USAF put fuel costs concern as more significant factor than capabilities ? With majority of present and future USAF manned fighters come from Lockheed, who can bring more compatible advance trainer for USAF rather then Lockheed.
I just point out this last factor can be more determining factor for USAF consideration rather than just fuel cost factor.
And the last thing, will USAF drop supersonic capabilities from their advance training regime, based only to fuel cost consideration ?
Remembered we're talking about the Advance Training regime/module. Not the basic training regime. The advance training regime is for the last year students and for existing pilots (many from ANG) that need refreshment hour. Having something that most closely resembled what they will fly on real operational situation is big consideration in here.
By: - 13th January 2012 at 07:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fuel costs will be most significant part to play. T-50 is not very aerodynamic design as its roots are traced to 1970s F-16 and will barely maintain afterburner for few minutes on internal fuel. It has the same weight as F-16A with 50% less fuel. so i dont think there is that much training in afterburner involved.
Trainer need to be light weight and very long airframe life.
Yak-130 internal fuel range is 2000km with 10,000hr airframe life.
It can do negative 3g and upto 40 degree angle of attack.
By: - 13th January 2012 at 07:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As i said earlier, bar the supersonic speed regime, the Yak-130 is a far superior design as a platform vs TA-50.
I think we all can see that.
But who's go the best second seat view, something tells me its the Yak-130..again.;)
Oh, and the Yak-130 engines fuel consumption.. its is caompaird to western engines quite impressive.
Small, low weight and reliable. Perfectly suited for a small trainer.
By: - 13th January 2012 at 09:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T-50 can have G tolerance from -3 to +8. It's designed by Lockheed that like major US manufactures has design philosophy for long airframe life. It can' be said it has inferior airframe/design than Yak 130/M-346.
I'm not going to venture which Inferior and Superior as Trainer since T-50 and Yak 130/M-346 designed from beginning on different set of Philosophy. However due remembered that more and more for Advanced training current AF demand LIFT capabilities.
T-50 clearly not for everyone liking as Advance trainer, however since the biggest game for LIFT/Advance Trainer market is USAF T-X, then which one be more suitable to USAF need ?
T-50 have relative advance and fighter specs radar, electronics, and avionics. That make it already wired and compatible with most USAF weapons inventory and sensors. If M-346 (I omit YAK 130 since it's clearly close to impossible for that aircraft even be considered in USAF T-X), wants to match the T-50 avionics and radars, it will push up the M-346 prices than from present Euro 20 mio which is already in similar ball park with TA-50 (T-50 LIFT versions) of USD 25 mio. In short to match T-50 Avionics/Electronics, M-346 can become more costly to procured.
I agree that running cost (Fuel Cost) is perhaps the biggest factor for Basic Trainer considerations. But not for LIFT/Advance Trainers considerations, and certainly not if that AF is USAF. Better comparative performance with operational Fighters (F-16, F-22, and F-35 in case of USAF) can deemed more bigger factor then Fuel costs. Especially if fuel cost differences (on operational situation) is not really that big.
I can't say what USAF final criteria for T-X is, but I still do believe for USAF T-X considering what USAF has on their Advance Training regime so far, T/TA-50 has bigger advantage to meet and outpaced what T-38 already provide for USAF for more than 40 years.
By: - 13th January 2012 at 10:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KAI T-50 is more advance than Yak 130, and it's actually a Lockheed design. So advance that some potential customers think it's too much for a trainer. So why they (the American) need to use Russian design, if they can use what actually Lockheed design ?
It's not more advanced, it's bigger, heavier & faster. They're not the same thing. In a trainer, "advanced" is to do with the avionics & aerodynamics, not the size & speed.
T-50 is probably more expensive to operate than Yak-130 or M-346, because it's bigger, has an afterburners, etc. For some potential customers (including some of the world's leading air forces), the supersonic speed is not needed in a trainer, & the higher operating costs associated with it are a waste of money.
Yes, and KAI T-50 is the only trainer in the market today that in my opinion can substitute what T-38 bring as trainer in the 60's relative to today's environment. After all when USAF already costumed for more than 40 years with advance supersonic trainers (well that's T-38 bring when they come at the 60's), they will be more in place to go with KAI T-50 rather then any other trainers in the market today.
As I understand it (but if there's anyone who knows better I'd welcome their input) the USAF rarely uses the supersonic capability of T-38 in training. It's certainly not considered essential. It's not specified supersonic speed as a requirement for the next jet trainer. The MAKO floundered, largely because there was almost no interest in a supersonic trainer.
T-50 was always intended to be the basis for a light fighter as well as being a trainer, & its performance is tailored for the light fighter role. The competitors have supersonic airframes (they can exceed the speed of sound in a dive), but without the thrust needed to push them through transonic drag in level flight. That means that T-50 doesn't have the edge over them that T-38 had over the completely subsonic trainers of its era, such as T-33. Advanced trainees can explore the transonic zone in M-346 or Yak-130, if it's thought necessary.
T-50 have relative advance and fighter specs radar, electronics, and avionics. That make it already wired and compatible with most USAF weapons inventory and sensors. If M-346 (I omit YAK 130 since it's clearly close to impossible for that aircraft even be considered in USAF T-X), wants to match the T-50 avionics and radars, it will push up the M-346 prices than from present Euro 20 mio which is already in similar ball park with TA-50 (T-50 LIFT versions) of USD 25 mio. In short to match T-50 Avionics/Electronics, M-346 can become more costly to procured.
Trainers no longer need combat avionics to give combat training. That's an old-fashioned approach. Nowadays, a digital cockpit can give the trainee all the inputs that a radar etc. can provide, without needing to fit an expensive, maintenance-hungry & heavy radar. In this respect, a trainer fitted with combat sensors looks less advanced - as a trainer. It's returning to the old days of using two-seat fighters as trainers, when everyone is moving over to using them just for type conversion, or even abandoning them altogether.
I agree with Ru-Af, since their training regime was based on light weight, relative economics to maintain trainer (L-29, L-39). Thus replacing those, Yak 130 is a considerable step-up....Remembered we're talking about the Advance Training regime/module. Not the basic training regime. The advance training regime is for the last year students and for existing pilots (many from ANG) that need refreshment hour. Having something that most closely resembled what they will fly on real operational situation is big consideration in here.
The USSR used L-29/L-39 etc, followed by two-seat fighter trainers. Like Western air forces, they're moving over to replacing most or all of the role of two-seat fighter trainers with an advanced fighter which can simulate the handling of a fighter. That's what Yak-130 - and M-346, & current Hawks - can do. You need to look at aerodynamics, controls, cockpits, & software, & stop thinking of speed. An M-346 can simulate the behaviour of multiple fighters. The FBW system can be re-programmed to match different fighters. This is vastly more advanced than just bunging an afterburner on & saying "Now it behaves like a fighter". Think of it a modern advanced trainer as a very, very sophisticated simulator, which also flies at up to M1.
High Thrust-to-weight ratio, advanced aerodynamics and a re-programmable full authority fly-by-wire control system, allow the M-346 aircraft to be representative of the behaviour of modern fighters in the transonic flight envelope, including high angles of attack (over 40°), at a small fraction of their cost. In-flight simulation of sensors and tactical scenarios, state-of-the-art man-machine interface, capability of using simulated and/or real weapons provide the trainee pilot with a realistic environment in which to hone his skills, allowing to reduce the training burden in Operational Conversion Units and Fighter Squadrons.
You see? All of that also applies to Yak-130, and it isn't just marketing blurb. Independent test pilots who've flown them agree that the philosophy works.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 11th January 2012 at 20:28
***
I moved some posts from the News thread to here, as it is more relevant
Frank
Moderator
***
Makes it a fairly similar airplane in my book then ;) .