no missiles for balancing reasons though. still happy to see it.
+1 for trainer aircraft there the best!
Twin Seat Aircraft Bring Friends With You Right Until The End!
Tuah in one (A)aaah suggestion
1 Like
i wanna know when i can pick the prem one up.
BAE Hawks are some of my most loved planes and that black skin is pretty, (its gonna blow in live servers but i like them)
Might need to be careful with some of your reference images, since a bunch of them are Mk.60 series Hawks (can tell by the additional wing fences to improve stall characteristics) which has a reinforced wing for carrying heavier fuel and munitions loads.
Currently it seems Gaijin don’t even believe the T.1/Mk.50 wing could support 4 weapon pylons
Even then Darth, I have enough to disprove their claims
Including a diagram on the T.1A from 1972
3 Likes
Also Darth, got any more info on the Hawk having PGM500 integration? Hawk pictured is XX246
Yeah there’s loads of photos of T.1s with 4 pylons really. Many at airshows so could be dismissed as mocking up. But there’s plenty of T.1s in flight as well
It’s just that the RAF themselves didn’t operate them with more than 2, and the T.1’s flight manuals only refer to 2, so they probably think it couldn’t fit 4 - in fact if Gaijin were being strict the T.1A wouldn’t have its centreline bomb pylon either since the hardpoint was only used to fit the gunpod by the RAF.
But really it’s due to the role the Hawk had in the RAF, not a limitation of the airframe. BAE used to “borrow” RAF jets to demonstrate fitting 4 pylons to export customers all the time.
Will most likely just be for captive aero/drag test flights, to demonstrate it for UAE and see if they wanted to develop the capability for their Hawks.
T.1A didn’t have any video display in the cockpit or a GPS system to allow the aircrew to target anything with something like PGM.
Probably aimed more for UAE’s Hawk Mk.102s rather than their old Hawk Mk.61 & Mk.63s. But this would have been before the RAF bought 100/120-series airframes (Hawk T.2), so T.1s were an available stand-in in the UK, with the right certifications for carrying external stores.
1 Like
Yeah just RAF using for requirements, No.1 TWU show the T.1A using all its hardpoints and once again there are plenty of RAF images of them using all 4 hardpoints. I do have a metric ton of Hawk ZA101 (“Legacy” standard) being loaded up to its max and flown around but that’s if Gaijin believes it. I have scored gold with the Hawk 209 over the past few months with successful bug reports even with their stupid stance with Hawk 200. I am hoping they show some love to the T.1A. i do have some flight data on the T.1A like turn time and rate of climb written by an ex-BAE employee but I doubt they will let that hold up for a report.
I have also come across “variants” of the 30mm gunpod but they might just be artistic liberties within the diagrams themselves.
Hawk Mk.50 series with 30mm gunpod:
Hawk 60 series with 30mm gunpod:
It looks like a more austere version of the regular gun pod that eliminates some of the flashy design parts like the smoothened and rounded parts for what looks like ease of construction? If this is true we could argue for the 200 series gunpod again…
1 Like
I think there’s also a misconception with RAF Hawk that only the T.1A supported weapons, so were specially built with hardpoints for pylons and the gunpod and that means they only support 2 pylons by design.
But that’s not the case: all Hawks built, have 5 hardpoints. The difference between T.1 and T.1A is that the T.1As were modified in the middle of the 1980s with a proper weapon selector for the two pylons, a tone system to support AIM-9, and an intervalometer for ripple settings. The weapon selector and wiring fitted is the only limit on the number of pylons: not the plane’s structure.
Prior to Sidewinder integration, the TWU Hawks were just T.1s with camo paint and the pylons provided - sometimes denoted as Hawk T.1(W). The red and white Hawk flight trainer fleet could be fitted with gunpods and pylons just the same.
The one in the TT could probably be named T.1 rather than T.1A given it’s painted as a late-70s/early-80s TWU jet and doesn’t use Sidewinders. But not entirely sure when that particular serial was updated to T.1A.
I have just had a lengthy talk with Smin, Gaijin are using the Hawk T.1A crew manual verbatim to justify the Hawk only being able to use the inner pilons, even though max takeoff weight for the T.1A/Mk.50 leaves ~1500 kg for weapons on all underwing hardpoints meaning it is possible for heavier loads (i.e dual rack B.R.P and Mk.M2 bombs), Its now my job to try and convince them that Hawk T.1A can take dual racks because T.1A/Mk.50 (Base) are for all intents and purposes, basically 1-1 airframes. I am going to try and use the T.1A crew manual and a Hawk research paper to aid in this, since it has a 1981 infrographic showing the base Mk.50 can use underwing double stores.
4 Likes
Yeah the manual is hard to overcome because it shows the weapon selection panel fitted on the T.1A in service only had switches for the gun, and single pylons for each wing.
T.1As fitted out with Sidewinders on the extra outboard pylons don’t necessarily contradict that either because AFAIK Sidewinder selection was done with a different controller. So it would be possible to re-wire the Sidewinders to outer pylons independently of bomb/rocket pylon controls.
Strictly looking at outboard bombs/rockets, XX156’s trials with 4x SNEBs for Hawk’s weapons development are among the few examples proving T.1s could historically be fitted out for that as well.
We win today it seems
3 Likes
Bought the Hawk T.1A FRP not too long ago and have been playing it quite a bit, and it’s somewhat disappointing. The FM is nothing impressive, the guns feel anemic, and the speed of the vehicle is nothing to write home about.
The biggest thing holding this vehicle down is obviously the firepower. Not being able to effectively dogfight is one thing, but never being able to make use of your advantageous position is another. It’s quite frustrating being behind an enemy who is rolling around, and because you lack both the damage and ammunition count, you inevitably have to conserve ammunition more than you would in any other jet at its BR.
I’d rather this be a flareless AIM-9G slinger at 9.3 or 9.7 than have it remain at 7.7 in its current state. It’s quite tiring when Gaijin forces a vehicle at a BR it has no business being at (this being more negative for the vehicle itself rather than the BR range this time).
I could imagine this performing significantly better at 9.3 with AIM-9Gs
Additionally, I’m also not sure why the Sea Eagle bug report was rejected on the grounds of ‘balancing’. Are bug report managers not aware of the fact that we’ve got separate BRs for different game modes? Just look at the J-22M1A for example, and how much its BR varies from game mode to game mode…
1 Like
As the Hawk T Mk. 1A was implemented as part of update 2.59 Sky Odyssey,
Moved to Implemented Suggestions. o7