ah yes the words “double speed” in nice big letters on the missile fact sheet mean absolutely nothing.
The missile being a total propulsion and airframe overhaul, an upgrade in every way concerning speed and range, that means nothing too right?
I’m sure you also see no issue with it being slower than the missile it is a complete upgrade of.
If you can find a time when they use “speed” by itself to describe some average speed or terminal speed for a modern US weapon then maybe it isn’t much faster than base HARM
Possibly, though I just want to be able to do funi things with the Hawk and to help it stand out vs the generic fighter-bomber types in that BR zone for the UK.
Technically correct: the same as it missing outer pylons. The centreline hardpoint was only used to carry the gunpod, and the T.1A’s weapon selection console has a gun switch and 2 weapon pylon switches (port and stbd) to support this weapon layout.
Selector console is in the upper left of the cockpit, above the radio
oofies, well I guess I hope for some of the reported potential weapons kits gets accepted (I think theres a double mount for bombs bug report that got accepted?) to try and bump it up, or gaijin see my terrible poll begging for HEDP for it ha.
Also on another brighter note, the lack of the cope cage on the Scimi 2 has deffo bumped its mobility up in my view, can reach 60 and 70kmh way more easily and dont lose the momentum as badly any more either on a turn or small hill.
I guess we wait and see if they add a foldered one with 4 or 5 pylons for us under an export flag, should the Indonesians get their Hawk 53, Swiss get their Hawk 66, and Finns get their Hawk 51/51A or 66 (ex Swiss).
Or we just get the worst one for its BR (as with Hunter).
Gents, I hope you will support my bug report Late MC 500 bomb incorrect, where late-war MC bombs with historical Minol 2 and Torpex 2 fillers are suggested to replace the ahistorical 500 lb HE MC Mk II.
The TNT Equivalent of these bombs is 155.67 kg and 181.44 kg, respectively.
