Better than the Hunter F.6 at 9.7
1 Like
Capable isn’t really correct. The article is from June 1973: a year before the first Hawk prototype flew (21/08/1974). So it’s only prospective. The image is a rendering of a model.
SRAAM was cancelled as an operational missile program by December 1974 less than 4 months after Hawk first took to the air, and weapon trials didn’t start until spring of 1975. So it’s almost certain that no actual work was done to make Hawk capable of using SRAAM.
It’d be fun to have, but not at the cost of AIM-9L or something Hawk actually used.
I suppose it depends on the BR. Aim-9L would naturally force a BR of 10.3/10.7. SRAAM could allow the same Hawk to be 9.3/9.7
It would be nice to get a spread of Hawks at a few different BRs
1 Like
This article was written in December 1973. you probably confused Vol. 6 with June.
Also, while it is correct that SRAAM was cancelled from the UK government program in 1974, Hawker-Siddeley (BAe) continued to promote it until 1979.
Given that SRAAM and Hawk are products of the same Hawker-Siddeley, it’s safe to say that Hawk can use SRAAM.
3 Likes
To be honest. I dont think it should matter too much either way. Half of WTs appeal is seeing vehicles that have never fought each other, fight each other and by extension of that, see vehicles/equipment that either were never finished/never entered service to actually see “combat”. I really want SRAAMs to get added to more things like they were planned to be added. Would be a great addition to the Jaguars for example and might be the buff they need
Well, most unfortunate that SRAAM was not integrated into the F-4 Phantom, perhaps we should blame the Parliament for cancelling the funding.
and Jaguar International is advertised with SRAAM, you might like this image.
Gunjob previously shared this one as well
Whilst they’d be great on everything they were advertised for
I think currently its the Jaguars that are most in need of something… more. SRAAM could be perfect.
1 Like
I’m not going to say no to this.
My concern is just that if it ends up with only SRAAM instead of G or L Sidewinders in order to keep it relatively safe at a low BR and make the jet “more Bri’ish innit”. It offers little to distinguish it from our existing late 1960s/early 1970s jets when in reality, Hawk entered its primacy in the 1980s in terms of being a globally successful trainer and light combat aircraft.
When it inevitably pops up in the Finnish (Swede) tree it will probably have appropriate armament, while the British one could languish as a bit of a “what if” oddity.
And I mean it’s a flareless, RWR-less jet with a middling bomb/rocket payload, no CCRP/CCIP and only a single Aden with ~100 rounds of ammunition. Even with AIM-9Ls it’s not close to being comparable in terms of sensors or defensive aids to the Sea Harriers at 10.3/10.7 as a fighter, nor the lower BR all-aspect capable 10.0/10.3 attackers like Su-25, A-10A and A-6E; since it has a poorer destructive payload and no additional means of defending itself besides a good turn and roll rate. 10.3/10.7 wouldn’t be justifiable. However it’ll still be facing that kind of opposition at 9.7 or 10.0 regardless of its missiles.
By all means limit to the in-service 2x AIM-9Ls when it was shown it could could equip 4x (hopefully still 4x if they were AIM-9Gs though). But I’d hate to see it limited to a non-service missile just so it fits in with other British planes of a different era, at some target BR like 9.7. Harrier GR.1 and Hunter F.6 don’t exactly fare very well there nowadays with their SRAAMs because paying customers have saturated all-aspect missiles in the top half of that matchmaking bracket, and the Jaguar also struggles while being much faster to deliver a comparable bomb payload to Hawk. So to me, there’s no guarantee that Hawk will thrive there in any particular role without something to compensate for the limited firepower of a single Aden.
1 Like
I think it would be best to get multiple though.
An SRAAM carrier at 9.3
An 9L carrier at 10/10.3
An 9L and Skyflash carrier at 11.0
It would give us the broadest range of options. I’m just worried about having a high BR due to loadout and thus forcing the airframe to be basically DOA.
I love when weapons force frame to be DOA (just what UK did 60% of the time)
2 Likes
in game TNTeq = 8.8kg, right?
Warhead weight does not equal explosive weight unfortunately, I have been told this many times hah
Edit: Though in game Hellfires already have 8.02 TNTeq so maybe?
The Hellfire’s warhead is larger than Brimstone’s
This is at some point going to have to come to top tier. For aircraft with 90 flares or less it’s bonkers to run chaff and flares without being able to separate the two
Or alternatively give it no missiles at all, force it to run around like a headless chicken at 8.3/8.7 and give it good FP for that BR.
Definetly a 4th option
1 Like
Unarmed premium at 8.3
SRAAM armed at 9.3 (can be swapped around really)
9L 10.3
9L + SF 11.0
