The phantoms are faster and carry more payload, but in game I would say that the Hawk would perform better just for the better manoeuvrability and, as you said, guided A2G weapons.
I could see it going to 11.7, we will see what Gaijin will do.
you have to remember its sub sonic though, i think it would be more reasonable at 11.3 or 11.0 cause if its at 11.7 it wont be able to keep up with its counterparts, plus the early variant will only carry Aim-9s and Skytrashes, meaning unless it get Aim-9Ms it will struggle
i think aim-9Ls at 11.3 would work though
2 Likes
Thats the thing, the GR.7 is also subsonic at 11.7. The 200 has more missiles, better maneuvrabillity while being less capable of ground pounding. While the GR.7 is better at ground attack.
9Ls and Skyflashes would, without a doubt, make it more than 11.0, both 11.3 and 11.7 are possible.
2 Likes
BAE Hawk manoeuvrable at low speed better BAE Harrier II and McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II ?
I guess BAE Hawk 200 good CAS and ground attack because variety of guided ground ordnance but not sure larger or smaller Harrier GR.7 & Harrier GR.9A
also found this
No sauce unfortunately :(
4 Likes
No Skyflashes?
plus on one of the images shown above the Hawk clearly has Aim 9s mounted of a twin mount
not to mention this which shows the hawk carrying 7 Retarded bombs
5 Likes
I can understand no Skyflashes since only the demonstrator ever carried them or any type of BVR missiles. It might be capable of carrying paveways but without a targeting pod it will have to rely on buddy lasing.
1 Like
the thing is they could, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be part of the armament options if it was capable of carrying them, plus if skyflashes are compatible wouldn’t Aim-7s be as well?
It’s probably based on the malaysian or Indonesian variants, not on the aircraft in general.
aahh ok, ive enquired to BAE about its Aden Armament anyway seeing as there’s some debate on whether the internal Aden’s could be used alongside AMRAAMs so maybe that will shed some light on it as well
2 Likes
They are basically the same armament wise, the only difference is BVR missiles.
1 Like
Yeah, both hawks are designed for a ground strike role, the 200 just focuses more on air defence rather than training
2 Likes
Jut for proof on ASRAAM (and even Active Skyflash)
10 Likes
Additional Info on the Hawk, Credits to @Gunjob for buying this Info and thanks to @galaxygms for sifting through most of it for me
Hawk 200 with InfraRed Camera Nose
Spoiler
Hawk 200 Cockpit
Spoiler
HUD Info
Cross section of nose with both IR and Radar
Spoiler
3 Sea Eagle and 2 fuel tanks
Spoiler
Diagram of Airframe
Spoiler
Some Loadout Options ( wingtip Pylon excluded)
Spoiler
Aiming Modes
Spoiler
Details for Components used
Night Attack Config (IR Nose cone)
ALARM/ Sea Eagle
Wing Turn performance (my monkey brain cant comprehend this so massive thanks to Gunjob)
Additional Info
Spoiler
Stealth Hawk Gunjob found
13 Likes
Do we know if active skyflash actually was ever built?
I recall hearing much about it but never actually if it was built?
Same question about the P3I ASRAAM?
Afaik there were two active Skyflash developments, an early one using the Temp Skyflash and a later one using the Super temp. Flame posted in the AMRAAM topic a page of a document that compared the AMRAAM to the ASF, so I assume it was actually build and tested. Later on the development of the ASF became the S225X, and then the S225XR which became the Meteor.
4 Likes
I would really want to see the active SkyFlash TEMP on an aircraft. Imagine a ARH missile with a max range of 5 km.
3 Likes