# Russian YAK-130 Trainer/Multirole Fighter



## tomahawk6 (10 Jun 2015)

Seems to be a very cost effective aircraft that might be ideal for low intensity operations.

http://theweek.com/articles/559441/tiny-russian-plane-ridiculous-numberof-weapons

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK13vfEFHbU


----------



## Eland2 (10 Jun 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Seems to be a very cost effective aircraft that might be ideal for low intensity operations.
> 
> http://theweek.com/articles/559441/tiny-russian-plane-ridiculous-numberof-weapons
> 
> ...



Interesting, looks a bit like the BAe Hawk trainers the CF are using. Something like this might be a good purchase for the CF - a trainer and light-strike aircraft all in one. A squadron or two of these could prove useful in the sense that they could carry out ground strike missions while leaving the task of interdiction to the CF18's.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jun 2015)

Not my part ship, but looks nice to this outsider.  I don't think, however, with the present state of leg pissing that is going on between us and them, that any chance of future purchases would happen anytime soon.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2015)

Sounds a bit like the TEXTRON Scorpion, but it looks nicer.


----------



## GR66 (11 Jun 2015)

To my (completely non-expert) mind if you're going to go for a "low intensity" aircraft it might make more sense to use an armed version of what you're already training with to minimize the training delta for your pilots (and maintainers?).

Question...is it likely that the RCAF will eventually shift it's advanced jet training aircraft for our F-35 pilots from the Hawk to the winner of the USAF's Next-Gen T-X Trainer program?

If the Lockheed Martin / Kai T-50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle) ends up winning that competition then the FA-50 version (which is already in use in South Korea) might make sense.  It's supersonic, can extend it's range with external fuel tanks, supports AESA radars, Sniper targeting pods, and can be equipped with a variety of advanced Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground guided weapons.  

On the lower end of the price/capability scale you could go for the armed version of the Harvard II...the AT-6 (https://www.beechcraft.com/defense/at-6/).  This could allow pilots that don't/haven't made it (yet) to the limited F-35 slots to possibly train and learn some of the skill sets earlier that will be eventually required when they move up to the F-35.  Would this kind of aircraft maybe even be something that would be possible for Reserve pilots/techs to use and support in or around one or two major urban centres?

As for the YAK-130, I can't imagine any situation where Canada would purchase Russian military aircraft in the current political climate.  Just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## medicineman (11 Jun 2015)

Thing reminds me of a cross between the AlphaJet and the Hawk - both of which are multirole capable as trainers and FGA...the old Tutor incidentally had a potential weapons package for it as well if needed, IIRC.  Can't see us buying stuff from Comrade Vlad anytime soon though...

MM


----------



## Danjanou (11 Jun 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Interesting, looks a bit like the BAe Hawk trainers the CF are using. Something like this might be a good purchase for the CF - a trainer and light-strike aircraft all in one. A squadron or two of these could prove useful in the sense that they could carry out ground strike missions while leaving the task of interdiction to the CF18's.



Or just go with a few operational squadrons of BAe Hawks. You know already having them in our inventory, know how they work, know where to get spares, instead of buying a somethign differnt from a once, and potential future, enemy. 

Ooops what was I thinking. Knowing our Government and the high priced cubicle dwellers at Disneyland on the Rideau.... Yaks it is then.  8)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jun 2015)

Just so you know- we don't own the Hawks.  They are owned/maintained by a contractor. They are not in our inventory. We do not have any spares or maintenance people trained in fixing them.

I am also by some fighter pilots, they are not a particularly good jet.  But, I am no expert to judge.


----------



## Loachman (11 Jun 2015)

There is no benefit in buying a less-capable machine. This has been hashed out elsewhere.


----------



## Danjanou (11 Jun 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Just so you know- we don't own the Hawks.  They are owned/maintained by a contractor. They are not in our inventory. We do not have any spares or maintenance people trained in fixing them.
> 
> I am also by some fighter pilots, they are not a particularly good jet.  But, I am no expert to judge.



True but not too much of a step from in country civy contractors to RCAF types and easier that buying/suporting Soviet Bloc stuff I would think. Mind as an old cold Warrior I'm probably biased. If they are not  a good jet then no of course. I'm not an expert by any means either and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn last night.  8)


----------

