The need for replacing the L-39 with a brand-new trainer was voiced by the Soviet Air Force's commander-in-chief, Air Marshal Yefimov, on 20 April 1990. In the summer 1990, the first official document was issued. It was the resolution by the State Military Industrial Commission, dated 25 June 1990 and tasking the Mikoyan design bureau with developing the future trainer.
Under the specifications requirements approved in October 1990, the advanced aircraft was to be powered by two engines as well as have a landing speed of within 170km/h (92kt), run and roll measuring 500m (1,640ft) at the most, unprepared airfield basing capability, a ferry range of 2,500km (l,350nm) and a thrust-to-weight ration of 0.6-0.7. In addition, the customer wanted the reprogrammable stability and controllability for the aircraft to be-fit for training pilots from all branches of the Air Force. The requirement for the trainer to be made of Russian parts only vas high on the customer's v-ish list. According to RusAF command's-estimates, at least 1,200 advanced trainers were necessary to oust the L-39 fleet. The first new trainers were to be received by users in 1994.
To reduce technical risk and obtain the best aircraft, the military called for a trainer aircraft competition among major Soviet aircraft developers. In January 1991, specifications requirements for a trainer for future tactical aircraft pilots were sent to MiG, Sukhoi, Yakovlev and Myasishchev. On 25 November 1991, Air Force CINC Col.-Gen. Pyotr Deynekin ordered a commission set up to review the conceptual designs submitted by the four bidders. The outcome of the tender was to be known on 15 January 1992.
Competition
Rather loose specifications requirements caused the bidders' different approaches to resolving the same problem. Each developer offered a concept of the complex as a whole and an aircraft in particular.
Prospective trainer specifications approved on March 1993
Flight performance Data
Normal take-off weight within 5,500 kg (12,000lb)
Thrust/weight ratio 0,6 - 0,7
Maximum speed at least 850 km/h (460kt)
Maximum Mach at least 0,8 - 0,85
Cervice ceiling over 10.000 m (32,00ft)
Minimum speed 210 - 220 km/h (113 - 119kt)
Range 1,200 km (650nm) ¥
Ferry range over 2,000 km (1,080nm)
Maximum angle of attack at least 25 degr.
Take-off speed, m 190 - 200 km/h (103 - 108kt)
Run within 500 m (1,640ft)
Roll within 700 m (2,300ft)
Sukhoi submitted the conceptual design of the S-54 aircraft - a single-engine derivative of the Su-27 fighter. It was to be powered by a single NPO Motor's R-195FS engine that was to be developed as an afterburning version of the production R-195 turbojet powering the Su-25 attack aircraft and producing supersonic speed of Mach 1.55. Unlike other contenders, the S-54 was intended for basic and advanced training. Sukhoi suggested the very concept of training on the 'common' aircraft be reconsidered. In the opinion of Sukhoi's design team, a combination of requirements for the initial, basic and advanced training capabilities in a single aircraft could be achieved at the expense of either safety or training quality.
Projects of alternative trainer aircraft for RuaAF tender, top to bottom - Sukhoi S-54, Myasishev M-200 and Mikoyan MIG-AT, 1992
A model of Yak-130 (then UTK-Yak), 1992
The Mikoyan design bureau strived to minimise the cost of the future trainer's development, which left its imprint on the style of its programme as a whole. Mikoyan submitted the conceptual design of the Aircraft 821 fitted with the straight wing and manual control system. The aircraft was designed 'around the engine': the Ivchenko-Progress AI-25TL was the only feasible option at the time. Special attention was paid to the plane's economic efficiency. Thus, while the annual training cycle on the L-39 called for 24.4t (53,7501b) of kerosene, Aircraft 821 could ensure a drop down to 20t (44,0001b) a year. The hope for developing the most efficient trainer was seen as a solid argument for Mikoyan's design dubbed later MiG-AT.
Myasishchev placed emphasis on technical training aids, offering its conceptual design of the UTK-200 trainer complex comprising the M-200 trainer aircraft and the complex's ground segment - NUTK-200. The latter included technical and flight crew training classrooms, simulators to train in general and special flight regimes, an integrated flight simulator with the moving cockpit and an air combat simulator with the fixed cockpit in a sphere. These were integrated through compatible software and the common supervision system. The M-200 trainer looked similar to the West European AlfaJet while featuring the reprogrammable control system. The M-200's powerplant was to include two future RD-35 engines had been under development at the Klimov plant.
The Yakovlev design bureau opted for an integrated development of the training complex designated as UTK-Yak. The complex comprised technical training aids (computer display classrooms, PC-based procedural simulators, functional simulators integrated through the use of common software) and the UTS-Yak aircraft later rechristened Yak-130. To enable the aircraft to fly at high angles of attack, it was to be fitted with a moderate-sweep wing featuring low aspect ratio and large leading-edge root extensions (LERX). Early in the development, the Yak-130 was to be powered by Ivchenko-Progress AI-25TL engines proven on the Yakovlev's Yak-40 passenger aircraft. Later, the AL-25TLs were to be replaced with a pair of Klimov RD-35s or Soyuz R120-300s. Close attention was paid to making the trainer's operation easier and self-sustained.
The Air Force commission faced the aggressive pressing of the contenders. Sukhoi's conceptual design earned the top aggregate points, but was rejected anyway. It failed to meet one of the specifications requirements as the single-engine design. Still, the commission's resolution submitted to the Air Force chief for approval stated, "The conceptual designs of the Sukhoi and Mikoyan design bureaux do not meet the specifications requirements", suggesting that "the development and mock-up manufacture of the UTK-Yak and UTK-2000 be continued". However, Mikoyan did not put up with the failure and insisted they should be allowed to carry on with their bidding.
In July 1992, the Air Force's scientific and technical committee summed up the outcome of the trainer conceptual design competition and took a decision worthy of Solomon: "The trainer's initial designing shall be conducted on the competitive basis by the Yakovlev design bureau in cooperation with the Myasishchev experimental plant and Mikoyan design bureau." However, the Air Force awarded only two contracts in late 1992 - one with Yakovlev and the other with Mikoyan. They were to submit their initial designs in the fourth quarter of 1993.