BAe Sea Hawk II

[MartG]

By 2010 it was becoming apparent to the Royal Navy that thanks to ongoing political wrangling over 'sensitive technology' it was in real danger of not getting its F-35B aircraft, and was likely to end up with two shiny new aircraft carriers with no aircraft to fly off them. Several options were considered, and it was eventually decided to follow up two proposals – one to refurbish a number of Sea Harrier FA.2s and embark them along with a number of GR.9 Harriers, and the second to alter the carriers to operate CTOL aircraft by installing catapults and an angled flight deck ( the ships were already designed with this modification in mind ). Due to limited space only relatively small aircraft could be accommodated, and it was agreed to procure a number of BAe Sea Hawk II aircraft, in two versions, for the new carrier squadrons.

The Sea Hawk II is based on the USN T-45 Goshawk in so far as its carrier compatibility is concerned ( tailhook, uprated landing gear, revised airbrakes etc. ), with the GR.1 utilising the forward fuselage and systems from the Hawk 100 family. Similarly the F.1 variant uses the forward fuselage of the Hawk 200 family.

Forward fuselages from an Italeri Hawk 100 and Matchbox Hawk 200, rear fuselages, wings, nosewheel bays etc. from a couple of Italeri T-45 Goshawks

[kitnut617]

I like !!!! 

[deathjester]

What a brilliant idea!  Do the Hawks carrying LGB's have designators too, or is there seperate equipment for that?
Also, is there a tanker aircraft in the offing, similar to the US Navy KA-6?

[MartG]

What a brilliant idea!  Do the Hawks carrying LGB's have designators too, or is there seperate equipment for that?
Also, is there a tanker aircraft in the offing, similar to the US Navy KA-6?

Nope - just a laser rangefinder/marked target seeker, though there's nothing to stop one carrying a TIALD or something similar

The Hawk's a bit small for a tanker though

[pyro-manic]

Very cool! I like the concept, and they certainly look the part.

The 200 is a bulky beast, isn't it? A very different look to the trainer versions.

What would need doing to increase the payload that the Hawk could carry? Upgraded engines, a bigger wing? You'd end up with a ScooterHawk.

[zebedee]

I like those...

Managed to blag 5 minutes in one of the prototypes up at Warton (ZH200 i think) a couple of years ago... The 200 might look a bulky beast buts its a tight squeeze in the cockpit...

Zeb

[fallenphoenix]

Always loved the concept of combat Goshawks, how practicalthey may be is debaitable but they sure look cool. Suppose Brazil may be interested to replace their AF-1's 

Craig

[Ed S]

Nice!  You did a good job blending the various kit parts together.  I like this whole concept.



Ed

[Rafael]

Great ones!!!
One really would want to see something like that in real life

Rafa

[ysi_maniac]

Nice!  You did a good job blending the various kit parts together.  I like this whole concept.



Ed

Ageed!

[BlackOps]

Very nice! 

[deathjester]

This may be daft, but how difficult would it be to re-engineer the Hawk to be low observable?  That way, the Navy could field a low cost alternative to the F-35, with most of it's capabilities.

[Hman]

I like

[gunfighter]

Well, this is certainly a nice build, but I don´t think that a Hawk could be a good alternative to the JSF as a combat aircraft, even more if you are planning to deploy it overseas, which is the reason of building an aircraft carrier. If the problem is having limited room in the ship, I´d go for Rafale Ms, which are relatively small but true combat fighters.

[deathjester]

Well, this is certainly a nice build, but I don´t think that a Hawk could be a good alternative to the JSF as a combat aircraft, even more if you are planning to deploy it overseas, which is the reason of building an aircraft carrier. If the problem is having limited room in the ship, I´d go for Rafale Ms, which are relatively small but true combat fighters.

Actually, it's quite a good idea from the viewpoint of ease of maintenance, ease of hangarage, simplicity,agility and robustness.
  It would be easier to keep a fleet of Hawks in action for an operational tour than other combat aircraft because they are robust and relatively simple aircraft, and since spares and specialist tools would take up less room, you can pack more into the stores.