BAE Hawk and T-45 Goshawk

[AeroplaneDriver]

I think everyone knows I love the Hawk and would be the last to rain on its parade, but there is a thread on Pprune.com right now discussing the Hawk, and a chap who seems to be accepted as someone who worked on the Hawk for BAES is saying that a lot of the stuff fitted and flown in the 80s was just for publicity shots, and would in no way work as a real weapon.  He specifically mentions that when carrying the Sea Eagle the Hawk was not capable of the minimum lauch speed for the Sea Eagle (required for the missile's engine to light off).   

But if helos can carry Sea Skua.... 

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Thanks for the pictures with the Sea Eagle!!

I think everyone knows I love the Hawk and would be the last to rain on its parade, but there is a thread on Pprune.com right now discussing the Hawk, and a chap who seems to be accepted as someone who worked on the Hawk for BAES is saying that a lot of the stuff fitted and flown in the 80s was just for publicity shots, and would in no way work as a real weapon.  He specifically mentions that when carrying the Sea Eagle the Hawk was not capable of the minimum lauch speed for the Sea Eagle (required for the missile's engine to light off).   Sad

But if helos can carry Sea Skua....

Interesting information.

But as you said, the Sea Skua is available, as it could be fired from an helo. Idem for the Exocet and the Penguin.
So, the anti-ship Hawk is not dead!! Not for our whiff-minded brains, at least!

[dy031101]

He specifically mentions that when carrying the Sea Eagle the Hawk was not capable of the minimum lauch speed for the Sea Eagle (required for the missile's engine to light off).

Not even in a shallow dive?

[elmayerle]

He specifically mentions that when carrying the Sea Eagle the Hawk was not capable of the minimum lauch speed for the Sea Eagle (required for the missile's engine to light off).   

Well, it sounds like either a booster would be needed for Sea Eagle or they'd have to go with an upgraded Martel variant (keep tHE Sea Eagle systems and replace the jet engine with an improved rocket MOTOR?) or go with other missiles.  I could see the version of the Penguin carried by Norwegian F-16s as viable and it occurs to me to wonder how the Harpoon compares with the Sea Eagle in weight and launch requirements.

[madmike]

I have a RAAF COIN Hawk200 planned. The sacrificial kits are ready as well and there is even a operational hsitory outline organised.

Cheers

Mike

[Howard of Effingham]

i recently added a hawk 100 to my collection with the intention of an RAF what-if.

would adapting one of the 1980's or 1990's schemes that 4 FTS used be strecthing it too far?

answers please.

trevor

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Sorry Howard, I can't answer your question (don't know a thing about RAF squadrons) but your post reminds me something.

I recently read an article talking about the possiblity of a new T-45 Goshawk purchase by the US Navy, probably in a new standard T-45D. If I remember well, some of them will just be old T-45 refited, but others could be new airframe, with new equipments, cockpit and maybe even an internal radar. The main is to use them as training aircrafts not only to learn how to fly and land on a carrier, but also to train back seaters WISO for the ELINT/SEAD missions (that's for the EA-6, EA-18, and alos P-8 operators).

Could be a whif potential here, what do you think?

[Mossie]

i recently added a hawk 100 to my collection with the intention of an RAF what-if.

would adapting one of the 1980's or 1990's schemes that 4 FTS used be strecthing it too far?

answers please.

trevor

I think it's possible Trev.  Abu Dhabi & Oman started taking them in 1993, the black RAF trainer scheme was introduced 1994/95 I think, so you could get away with it if the RAF took some of the first 100 series airframes.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Sorry Howard, I can't answer your question (don't know a thing about RAF squadrons) but your post reminds me something.

I recently read an article talking about the possiblity of a new T-45 Goshawk purchase by the US Navy, probably in a new standard T-45D. If I remember well, some of them will just be old T-45 refited, but others could be new airframe, with new equipments, cockpit and maybe even an internal radar. The main is to use them as training aircrafts not only to learn how to fly and land on a carrier, but also to train back seaters WISO for the ELINT/SEAD missions (that's for the EA-6, EA-18, and alos P-8 operators).

Could be a whif potential here, what do you think?

I also read an aticle about the possible T-45D purchase.  The one I read mentioned the weapons capability, but that it would be through simulated sensors, in the same way the RAF's Hawk T.2s will be able to simulate the Typhoon's combat capability.

Coming back to an ongoing theme with the Hawk, it seems that with proper development the Goshawk could evolve into a light/cheap carrier aircraft for nations looking for a capability comparable to the A-4.  Mention of an updated T-45D just reinforces this.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Exactly what I thought!!

The T-45D coult be a good base for an hypothetic A/T-45E (a kind of Hawk 100 carrier based) or even a A-45F (a real single-seater Hawk 200 carrier based).
For the Brazil, it could be a perfect choice to replace or support the A-4 in an alternate history (a one with a Sao Paulo that actually can sail!  )

[Howard of Effingham]

cheers all!

mossie! the hard part is deciding which 4 FTS scheme to use. there are several. i was thinking that if
4 FTS had had some hawk 100's in the mid 1990's then they probably would not have had wingtip AIM-9's
[these parts can go on a hawk 200 i have] and probably just drop tanks for a bit more range.

the T-45D idea sounds good and i think a few extra lumps and bumps would do the trick. i have also wondered
why the goshawk has never [to my knowledge] been used as an aggressor in the same manner as 100 sqn has.
btw i see that the last USN T-2's are being replaced by T-45's later on this year.  will they perform the fast jet
portion of the NFO training syllabus as the T-2's have been? [with VT-86 cosmic cats iirc.]

trevor

[Mossie]

cheers all!

mossie! the hard part is deciding which 4 FTS scheme to use. there are several. i was thinking that if 4 FTS had
had some hawk 100's in the mid 1990's then they probably would not have had wingtip AIM-9's [these parts can go
on a hawk 200 i have] and probably just drop tanks for a bit more range.

the T-45D idea sounds good and i think a few extra lumps and bumps would do the trick. i have also wondered why the
goshwak has never [to my knowledge] been used as an aggressor in the same manner as 100 sqn has. btw i see that
the last USN T-2's are being replaced by T-45's later on this year.  will they perform the fast jet portion of the NFO
training syllabus as the T-2's have been? [with VT-86 cosmic cats iirc.]

trevor

Trev, the red/white/blue scheme would fit that time scheme, the earlier red/white scheme would be too early I think.  You could go with air defence greys for a weapons trainer.  Overall gloss black would be fine of course, but the RAF's Hawk 100's will probably recieve this scheme.

[Shasper]

I'm not quite sure why the USN hasnt assigned T-45s to Adversary units (they are NOT Aggressors, thats the zoomies in blues ), back in the day VF-43 had a few T-2 Buckeyes on hand for spin training n what not, and they word the "yuck" camo.

I think if the T-45D proposal goes thru then maybe a few will get out to Fallon or Key West.


Shas

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

I imagined several other variants of the aircraft this afternoon, most of them for US use.

USAF T-45B Goshawk
The US Navy refused the T-45B (land based Goshhawk) because the T-2 and TA-4 were prefered, but what if the USAF did buy some of them for advanced training, maybe as a replacement for part of the T-38 fleet?

USAF OA-45A Kestrel
In the mid-1980's, it appears that the planned replacement of the OA-37 by the single-seater OA-10 was not a good solution in every case. In some combat situations (particulary in South America, as Panama's events will later prove), a two seater aircraft is a best shot. Moreover, a lighter aircraft could operate from small airfield, needs less maintain, is cheaper and more manoeuvrable at low altitude.
A new modernization of the OA-37 was desired by the USAF, but surprizingly, the single-engine Hawk won the competition. The new variant was to be build jointly with British industry (the British name of the program was Hawk 100/200).

-The OA-45A first flight occured in early 1985. It was equiped with a 15% more powerfull engine, twin adaptaters on the wing pylons (for 8 Mk82 bombs or 8 rocket pods, or 4 bombs/pods and 2 fuel tanks) and for the first time two Sidewinders on the wing tips. It had some FLIR and laser range-finder internally.
It also had a 30mm gun pod on centerline, the same that on the UK Hawk. A USAF style refueling systems was initially planned, but due to some risks for the tail (very close to the refueling receptacle), a Probe & Drogue system was finally adopted.
This plane served during the Panama Invasion in 1989.

-The OA-45B variant appeared in 1989, too late for the Panama crisis, but in time for a Gulf War deployment for the first operationnal squadron, alongside the A-10 and OA-10 aircrafts. It integrated a new centerline gear that include a 20mm gun and a semi-recessed laser designator (the combined system wasn't fully operational until 1993, due to the heavy vibrations problems on the pod when the gun fired)


US Army A/T-45B??
Why not? If we imagine that they keep a fixed wing combat capability, the Hawk 100 and Hawk 200 could be good replacement or complement for the G.91 Gina, the A-4 and the OV-10 Bronco, what do you think?





And I also thought about a twin engined variant of the Hawk. The Italian did it with the G.91, so why not on the Hawk? It wil probably needs new larger intakes, and we have to check for an available engine (light and smaller than the ADOUR, but with more than half the ADOUR thrust, of course!)

[Jeffry Fontaine]

US Army A/T-45B?? Why not? If we imagine that they keep a fixed wing combat capability, the Hawk 100 and Hawk 200 could be good replacement or complement for the G.91 Gina, the A-4 and the OV-10 Bronco, what do you think?

The Army would be better off using a slower propeller driven aircraft for a combat support aircraft.  Giving the Army something that can loiter and actually spot targets on the ground instead of zipping around at speeds that preclude that ability.  It would also calm the super-egos in the USAF since the slower aircraft would not be considered as a serious threat to their own domain. 

And I also thought about a twin engined variant of the Hawk. The Italian did it with the G.91, so why not on the Hawk? It wil probably needs new larger intakes, and we have to check for an available engine (light and smaller than the ADOUR, but with more than half the ADOUR thrust, of course!)

A twin engine Hawk?  Sounds like a potential kit-bashing between a smaller scale F-4 Phantom and a larger scale Hawk to get the right physical features incorporated into the aircraft.