I’d guess hawk 200 with 2-4x aim 9L and 2x Skyflash at about 11.0, based upon it being a subsonic. Having that BVR puts it slightly higher than FRS1, but subsonic lower than Phantoms or F3.
I can already see gaijin arguing that the down-sized F-16 radar puts it on the same level as the Spey Phantoms and the F.3 lmao
Maybe, but it would be tricky at that BR, but further proves how compressed that bracket is
It would really come down to what Skyflash it had I reckon.
1 Like
So are there any other aircraft I don’t know about that can carry the SuperTEMP?
None that come to mind. At least that actually saw service. Probably a few prototypes that were planned for it
BAE Hawk 200 (e) at 11.0 BR only ? Surprise
You guess BAE Hawk 100 Early could be 10.3 or 10.7 BR
Gripen C (SAAF) armed Air-to-Air Missile downgrade from gajin idea ? Not bad
You guess in the future gajin might consider Gripen C (HuAF) with downgraded Air-to-Air Missile like Gripen C Early from swedish ?
So just the Tornado, Hawk, and EAP then.
There can’t really be a early Hawk 100, as the Hawk 100 is one of multiple base models that were developed over time.
The Hawk has been in production for a long time and went through several iterations. A lot of the countries that ordered the Hawk had some kind of modification done to it.
I suggest you take a look at this wikipedia page to get an idea of just how many very slightly different variants there really are and what their different designations mean.
Only radar equipped aircraft with BVR in the RAF arsenal (as far as I am aware) are the Phantoms FGR2, FG1 and F3. (I don’t think any used SuperTEMP. Hawk (though it was mostly a trainer) and the Tornado F3.
Sea Harrier FA2 was AMRAAM only. Very early typhoons were trialled with Skyflash too
1 Like
But was there any tests on the Shar or did they just immediately focus only on the 120.
As far as I am aware. Blue Vixen was designed with AMRAAM in mind and lacks the ability to guide SARH. But I could be wrong about that. I don’t know if the FAA ever had a prototype, something half way between the FRS1 and FA2 with SARH, but it’s possible.
The biggest gripe I have with the Harrier is my only one: the lack of SARH. With a nation that pioneered the monopulse radar and was the 2nd nation with a monopulse radar homing missile I’m surprised they never decided to slap the Skyflash onto the Shar. I know it was a rush job but if they spent about 6 more months on the Blue Fox they could’ve done something great. The Shar replaced the Phantom for FLEET AIR DEFENCE, if they couldn’t provide adequate protection for the fleet then why did they just leave it with the sidewinders?
Knowing the government of the Era, probably a finacial decision, I think the FAA was always fighting for funding as it was always considered the secondary force to the RAF
1 Like
There was a lot of politics involved in that. IIRC the RAF basically didn’t want the Navy to have any of it’s own aircraft. They argued that Britain has enough friendly nations / random islands left over from the days of the empire that you could just station RAF aircraft near wherever the navy were operating, and they could do the air defence work. That approach was no doubt motivated by the thought of all the extra funding they would get if the Navy didn’t have to buy more aircraft carriers. As a result the Sea Harrier was basically agreed to on the basis that it would be a small light fighter so that the Navy had something to play with while they waited for the RAF to show up. The Falklands of course proved that plan wasn’t exactly sound.
2 Likes
If it wasnt for the Falklands, I reckon the Carriers could have been scrapped by the end of the 1980s (or at least a few of them)
1 Like
So, I’ve tried to dig up some info on why they didn’t bother with Skyflashes on the Sea Harrier and the only thing I could come up with is that they have apparently been designing the Blue Vixen radar specifically to have AMRAAM compatibility. However, when looking through the development dates of the Blue Vixen, the FA.2 and the AIM-120A there are quite large discrepancies.
It seems they have done quite a good job at keeping information about these developments from the public.
However, going by the introduction dates of the FA.2 (April 1993) and the AIM-120A (September 1991) it does make sense that they at least didn’t field the FA.2 with any Skyflashes, since they probably had the AIM-120A or even B readily available at that time.
1 Like
So what is the big difference between the A and B? I know that the C model had clipped wings to be carried by the Raptor but I don’t know what happened before that.
Edit: I did a smart thing and asked Google and I was told that the 120B has LOAL and data link compared to the A.
I don’t know jack about AMRAAMs, sorry mate
