Oh, also another option for it. 4x SRAAM. Would have the advantage of leaving pylons clear
1 Like
We do not need more French missiles in the Pommie tree. Not only will they not help the platform on account of how they function, other missiles would generally be more effective.
That particular frustration aside, the hawk feels completely fit for the rating as far as any subsonic ground attacker will. Not every aircraft needs to be the best at the role, and presently it feels like a more functional frogfoot in the air to air role once up to speed, provided the energy isn’t squandered. Coupled with the coming ASMs, it would be preferable to hold the current role at the current rating so it actually has a target to warrant their use. Otherwise ASMs will yet again be of little worth and we will see them less and less likely to implement exocet and equivalents.
Arguably it could be 10.3 in the current configuration. There is some twitchiness to the model that needs ironing out, and the limited acceleration causes some issues, but agility wise it’s up there for an attacker of the rating. I am struggling to lose energy once you get up to a reasonable speed, so it holds well in that regard as an attacker, as most would burn energy quite badly. Feels like it has the teeth and agility most subsonic attackers wish they had access to. Only point where it feels a bit unpleasant is getting up to speed with significant payload, but goes for most around the rating.
1 Like
Whelp, everyone probably saw my comments about having the best gear possible, however, that was only if it had a working radar to touch out and tickle the enemy from a safe range allowing it to not worry as much with its FM, even if it had EEGS and the 25mm ofc that would have helped a lot.
Sadly, I really dont think its going to do well at 10.7 with 9Ls. It will suffer and struggle bus like other jets which have better escape potentials anyway such as the Buccaneer S2B in either game mode currently.
As this model has no radar, I really dont see the point in making it suffer at a higher BR for either game mode simply due to its 9Ls when that can be fixed by reducing its weapons capacity slightly to put it at a BR where it might actually be useful. As said above, the SHAR will be a clearly superior pick for pretty much any reason outside of its lack of smart ground attack (but you can just toss bomb anyway), especially when they get their EEGS one day.
Frankly, anyone who is saying stay at 10.7 hasnt tried/seen its new flight model, its going to suffer and those using it will not have fun and the amount of RP required to grind it out will be excessive (especially if we get a second 1 with radar and SARH foldered in requiring us to get the reduced capacity version first).
9gs, 9.7. Same as the Harrier GR3, slower and less dog fight capable but has some smart weapons, 10.0 maybe in GRB due to mavs and sea eagle depending how good it is or not, who knows, gaijin might surprise us by having it be really good.
1 Like
Yeah, my thinking too.
Leave 9Ls with the one with all the possible bells and whistles (mostly SARH) and move this one specifically down via removal of all-aspect
It is an attacker, not a fighter. Why should it go down to a BR where it will be used as a fighter? Whilst invalidating the opportunity to use promised armament on account of it never seeing maritime targets at the low rating.
It also is a more comfortable aircraft air to air wise than the 10.0 frogfoot, agility wise. Arguably even the A10, at 10.3. You could argue it should move to 10.3, instead of 10.7, but removing armament for the sake of it is nonsensical. This assessment is post the change, prior to the change it could be argued it was at the upper bound of efficacy for a 10.7 attacker, now it is leaning more towards the upper bound of efficacy for a 10.3 attacker.
Not every aircraft needs to be turned into a fighter, or be given the most absolute favourable circumstance. Especially not when it would have a favourable position simply by encouraging a drop of .3 BR instead of removing armament to drop it to the absolute most favourable situation. The agility once up to speed is exceptional for an attacker of the rating, whilst not losing energy unless you’re particularly foolish. This exceeds much of the competition regarding subsonic attackers.
1 Like
The flipside though, the BR is dictated by having 4x Aim-9Ls. To run any meaningful attacker loadouts would massively impact that loadout, meaning you would almost never actually run it as an attacker because to do so would leave you massively over BRed.
I personally cant see myself really using it in ASB beyond a very very light attacker on a rare occasion, at most ditching 2x Aim-9L if we get some of the missing weapons (why use the Hawk 200 with 2x 9ls and currently 3x 1000lb bombs when at the same BR I could run Buc S2B with 2x 9Ls, more CMs and 12x 1000lb bombs, and radar and is faster)
and in ARB? not a chance.
GRB. Id probably run 4x AGM-65 and no AAM anyway
The Hawk 200 is a multi role light fighter. Also, plenty of attackers/strike planes in WT are useful still in a dogfight or are able to have an even chance at least. It isnt an argument that a plane should frankly, be a terrible experience just by being an attacker, thats silly and anti-gameplay for the user and their allies having to carry.
Plenty and I mean PLENTY of attackers have lower BRs to make them useful in air RB, the Harrier is literally right there… you have F4C multirole right there, alpha jets right there…
Really, more comfortable then the frogfoot so it should be 10.7? Kind of an oddie tbh of an argument but okay.
Prior the change it was a PLACEHOLDER, so it doesnt matter, it shouldnt be factored.
Frankly, I will say a harrier is likely way more viable, a jaguar, more viable, a buccaneer, more viable even in multiple situations.
When a Bucc will be a preferred option, something is a problem lol.
As @Morvran said, to even run as an attacker you need to kill its air to air loadout, which is the single reason its BR is so high. So it is being BRed as a fighter anyway, not as an attacker.
If it was only being placed BR wise as an attacker, for its attacker loadout and attacker speed, it would be more akin to a skyhawk or alpha jet without missiles for air RB, no?
2 Likes
2 x 9L is still better than the 10.0 frogfoot, whilst still being significantly more competitive kinematically for air to air. At 10.7, an argument can be made that it is overtiered on account of the limited AAMs (though simultaneously, there are higher rated platforms with worse agility and less AAMs), but there is very little in the way of sound argumentation against it being 10.3 with the current configuration.
Again, we will be getting ASMs with it, which will be significantly more useful at the higher rating for those of us with an interest in them, and finally give some credibility to the introduction of further ASMs. Reducing the rating to make them effectively useless on account of the nonexistence of maritime targets hinders the rest of us, whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that agility wise it exceeds most 10.0 attackers. At 10.3, it would be quite comfortable in air RB. It carries less than a frogfoot, sure, but it is a significantly more promising platform to reach any given target.
Great, why use the harrier when the Tornado exists? There’s very little value to the harrier air to ground wise, unless you abandon half of your a2a options. Except even then, it’s still worse air to ground than the Tornado, and has equivalent air to air capacity, whilst maintaining a fraction the speed. This argument that something does it better so why use it is incredibly nonsensical, as this should demonstrate.
Put the hawk at 9.0-9.3? Why would I use it, when I can use a buccaneer? Or a jaguar, or a harrier. Or literally any other attacker at the rating. Obviously this would mean it should go down to 8.7 to perform well, given there are direct competitors that do the attacker role better in the 9.0-10.0 bracket. But then we’re making it so why would you ever use the canberra when a strictly better platform exists?
It’s a nonsensical position to argue it should go down when it is directly comparable to the 10.0-10.3 subsonic attackers, purely because there’s something that does the same job better. It is directly better than the frogfoot in most means but payload, and directly comparable to the A10 as the A10 sacrifices agility and speed for a heavier payload of air to ground munitions, whilst carrying the same number of 9Ls for an air to ground loadout. Only at 10.7 do we see the A10 carrying more AAMs with an air to ground payload, except it is still significantly less agile and significantly slower.
You could make the argument that countermeasure count bridges the gap, but I would highlight that countermeasures don’t do jack if you lack the agility to avoid a cannon solution, in the case of a frogfoot, or the speed to do anything to a half competent threat in the case of the A10.
Highlighted you could make a case for 10.3, as it is directly comparable to the competition at the rating.
I agree, which is why I’m presenting information from experience post the change. Shocking, that.
“You’ve made a case for it being directly better than competitors at 10.3, so obviously you want it to suffer”
The only honest way to present this argument would be to assume all other platforms would also be missing their AAMs. At which point, it would still be at a shockingly similar BR to the frogfoot, thanks to the myriad advantages the flight model affords. Hell, we wouldn’t even need to consider countermeasures for that example so it might end up at a 1:1 BR.
The short and long of it is that the platform is generally directly comparable to 10.0-10.3 subsonic attackers, whilst in most aspects being significantly more comfortable to fly. For that, you may give up some payload for air to ground, but everything has trade offs and 10.3 would be an appropriate rating for this without cutting out the AAMs for the sake of it. The only primary limitation presented is that you are punished for mismanagement of energy.
1 Like
Except this isnt the case.
Tornado Gr1 vs Harrier T-10. They have clear and dramatic difference in strengths and weaknesses.
With 1 being supersonic the other being quite a decent dogfighter. The T-10 able to carry more advanced A2G, more flares, more A2As, better gun, etc etc vs the GR1 which is much faster, but can only really do straight lines and probably only going to be used from dropping bombs on bases.
GR4 vs GR7 doesnt really change much here either.
The Hawk just… doesnt have much going for it currently at 10.7. Its a 4x Aim-9L slinger. Thats about it. A-10A Late at the same BR can do the same, whilst also having 8x the CM count and a load of A2G at the same time. Likewise Buc S2. 2x Aim-9L slinger with a massive bomb load on top.
To run even half the A-10s A2G loadout, it would have no AAMs and only be a 9.0? Platform at best.
See… I dont think either platform is entirely comprable. Im personally comparing the Hawk 200 (ZH200) to the Hunter FGA9 or Ayit. 9.3/9.7 ground attackers respectively.
Could this issue be solved with a (late) and (early) version?
Maybe give one the aim-9Ls and another a different missile at a lower BR?
Well. we know a radar equipped version is coming at some point, which would have both wing tip AAMs and SARH. So that could be the “late”. You could have this be the “early” at 9.7/10.0 depending on AAM and then a Hawk T1/T2 or Hawk 100 for around 9.3 ish
Though we could also have 2 variants of this hawk with different loadout, but I doubt theyd do it
The Hawk 200 has even worse flight performance than the Su-25T and Buccaneer.
If we do not account for agility, and defensive faculties (e.g. defensive flying facilitated by the fm), sure. Except by the logic, we’d also suggest the Su 34 be significantly lower in rating. Which I would be happy for, but I somehow doubt people would agree with that proposition.
Not to mention you still aren’t accounting for the ability to get ordnance from point A to point B successfully, which is significantly improved from the A10 to the hawk if we want to compare directly. Or from the Frogfoot to the Hawk. This is prior to considering the defensive aspect facilitated by a significantly more agile flight model than either attacker listed.
Gr4
Gr 7
I dunno, mate. One of these seems significantly more optimal for effective mud moving, and it sure as hell doesn’t seem to be the harrier. This is purely based on payload and versatility, not accounting for the y’know, actually reaching the target in a time that doesn’t verge on glacial. But if you argue that these differences don’t matter, I fail to see how you presume to make the argument that Hawk and Frogfoot/A10 are not directly comparable at the similar rating. Especially given these differences between Gr4 and Gr7 are indicative of very similar differences between the platforms outlined.
So we could comfortably suggest the Hawk exist at 10.3, as whilst it is a light attacker, it also facilitates far more effective air to air provisions. Shocking.
Highlighted why your dispute is generally nonsensical in either direction you take it, above.
Except it is more capable defensively than other directly comparable platforms, you could opt to carry 4 x 9L, at which point you’re better armed than the A10, and significantly better provisioned than the Frogfoot. Even opting for purely air to ground, you are still better apportioned for defensive flying than either the platforms I am using as a comparison.
And again, the aircraft is to receive payload for specific targets which exist far more frequently at and above 10.0 than below it. Unless, of course, you want to hinder the addition of further examples of the munition type by creating a situation where it simply is not worth bringing them and thereby statistics bear out that they are not used even in minute examples. Every aspect of the platform’s current iteration is comfortable at a 10.3 rating, 10.0 if you must, with minimal adjustment. The arguments opposing it are generally only sensible if you’re inclined to degrade everything into “We must have the absolute best no matter the cost even if we could propose a significantly more reasonable approach that would still treat us favourably” which is what I would expect of the Americans, and generally leads me to hold you in less esteem on account of it.
It genuinely seems a bit absurd to want to degrade an addition purely because it won’t be the absolute best, but will be amongst the better options for the class. Provided energy is managed sensibly, it feels quite comfortable against the competition it would see at a 10.3 rating.
I actually disagree.
Top speed, sure.
All other aspects? To be honest. Probably not. Especially if you wanted to deliver any payload of meaningful size in the Hawk, your only form of self defence would be 2x 30mm Guns (Currently) vs 4x Aim-9Ls and the GAU on the A-10A late.
In terms of versatility. The Gr7 has the GR4 massively beat. In terms of raw maximum payload. Sure the Tornado Gr4 is higher.
In practice… Im not touching half of the A2G on the GR4 because its not worth it. Why spend 20 minutes firing 1x Brimstone at a time into a SB battlefield? When I could instead of 3x PGMs and be out of there in seconds or GPS weapon. On the flip side. I can fire off 4x AGM-65 and deliver 2x Paveways in the Gr7 rapidly.
2 different platforms. 2 different roles, but both complimentary.
The Hawk is just a worse version of the Buc S2B currently in every respect and for what it can deliver and if I want to perform its type of CAS in say ASB. Id probably just run Harrier Gr3 instead.
The likelyhood of anything with 4x 9Ls being 10.3 is next to nill. The only way it would mvoe down is loosing 2x 9Ls like the A-10A is.
In terms of self defence for a light attacker… I still dont see why you’d necessarily use the Hawk 200 in its current state for that and why it switching from 9Ls to 9Gs or SRAAMs and going to 9.7/10.0 would somehow be bad for it?
You have not?
As far as I can tell, your argument is “it can use 9Ls therefore it should”
Then Jaguar GR1A to 11.0 with 2x Aim-9Ls?
Tonka Gr1 to 12.0 with 2x Aim-9Ms?
Tonka GR4 to 13.7 with 2x ASRAAM?
Would these platforms actually be better off or worse off with better AAMs?
If you run 4x Aim-9Ls you are at best a side grade, if not a downgrade to the A-10A Late. With worse low speed handling, worse guns (currently) and way less CMs.
If you opt for Pure A2G, then you are a 9.0 at 10.7. Genuinely, Guns only. Im not entirely sure the Hawk 200 would win vs a Hunter F1, Let alone a French Hunter F6.
With CMs, it would probably be 9.0/9.3 though.
Have you actually played it recently (after todays update)? I feel like you are judging it entirely based upon its placeholder FM It had over the weekend which was entirely and completely cracked.
I dont see why “it needs to be 10.7 in ARB so that it can use 4x Sea Eagles” is a good argument. Especially when the better solution is jsut to add naval targets down to 9.7.
Hu? Seriously, have you used the hawk 200 since the update?
Also. Im specifically asking for it to be nerfed…
The US mains would be asking for Magic IIs for it and expecting it to be 10.7 still. Im asking for the 9Ls to be replaced with an appropriate rear-aspect IR missile such as the AIm-9G or SRAAM specifically to reduce its BR so that it becomes more effective as a light mutlirole fighter and thats both in ground attack and a2a.
So… Im actually asking for the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of
Its about making it viable, like how the Jag doesnt have 9Ls, the Tonak doesnt have 9Ms and ASRAAMs, etc etc. Sometime a limit on loadout and a lower resultant BR is healthier for a ground attacker than having better weapons for the sake of having said weapons
Do you think I would be making the argument if I hadn’t? Do I strike you as your compatriots who do not bother testing then cry foul? Perhaps to a soul not used to using aircraft similar to it the current performance is abysmal, but the performance is entirely adequate. Frankly, I can understand the presence at 10.7, as a middling but adequate subsonic.
The presence of sea eagles, coupled with it being a completely competent subsonic attacker for the rating opens up the opportunity for it to engage targets that other attackers in the rating do not (thereby reducing the detriment of the limited payload). I did not say it should be 10.7, but frankly, it reasonably could stay 10.7 and perform good enough.
“I have significantly higher top speed and energy retention at those speeds, so I’m going to complain about low speed performance which any testing would lead me to appreciate is only caused through mismanagement”
Really struggling to be charitable. Fly the frogfoot, this thing is significantly better, even with the current changes, provided you manage it properly.
Except it is a strictly competent platform at the rating. Have you flown it post update? Have you used the competitors I’ve outlined? Have you bothered to configure any payload other than the extra 5 tons of dead weight? Are you aware of the jettison payload button?
It would be one of the better subsonic attackers at the rating. Significantly more viable than much of the competition. Including the competitors I have been using as examples.
Regardless, this will be my last response in order to avoid being incredibly harsh to someone I otherwise respect. You’re clearly invested in the outcome you desire, with very little interest in having honest discussion on the topic. I cannot convince you as you either lack experience with the platforms that behave similarly, or do not even care to consider that you may be incorrect. You’ve made arguments boiling down to similar asymmetric equivalencies between platforms in other discussions, but apparently highlighting the presence of them between these platforms doesn’t apply, as you’ve set your sights on where you want it and what you believe it directly equates to with nary a thought to being open.
The way you are describing it. Makes it sound like you are comparing it to the Hawk FM we had over the weekend and not what its currently like.
At the moment. Im not entirely sure the Hawk would actually beat a Buc in a dogfight and the Buc doesnt even have guns.
Again though… Is it?
Replace the Aim-9Ls with Aim-9Ds and its an Ayit. Replace them with 9Gs and its more like a Hunter F58.
Top speed. Sure. But still slower than the Harrier Gr3 or Hunter F6 at 9.7. Still slower than the Buc S2 or Hunter FGA9 at 9.3. Should those be 10.7 because they are faster than the A-10A Late?
Which one?
The 10.3 one with 2x All-aspect whilst also carrying double the Hawks entire A2G payload with a little over 4x the CM count or the 11.0 one with 2x IRCCM and 1.5x the Hawks entire A2G loadout a little over 4x the CM count.
Again. The aircraft im using to compare the Hawk 200 to in an A2A role to be honest is the Ayit and at a push the Hunter.
I have, and its sling 9Ls or run away. Seriously, this thing cannot dogfight at 10.7. Like at all. Ive run min feul and only 4x 9Ls and stil barely been able to gunfight in it. So unless I need to ditch Aim-9Ls to have a chance at winning a gunfight… Im not sure what you are saying here?
Hu?
TLDR my argument?
Why play the Hawk 200 at 10.7 when the Sea Harrier FRS1e and Buc S2B exist and are better at pretty much everything. In its current state its a AGM-65 slinger for GRB and that is literally it.
which it doesnt have. You got like, 1 or 2 ok turns before you have lost energy completely.
Also, I think peeps are forgetting gaijin literally said on stream a 2nd Hawk tua(hundred) is going to hit the server too.
So its weird as hell people are trying to push hard to keep the current 200 in a poor place with 9Ls when the 2nd hawk 200 will have a radar and likely at least SARH weapons and would be at the 11.0/3 region anyway.
Do we really need 2 hawk 200s within a stones throw of each other where 1 is objectively going to be superior and throw the other into the shadow realm after it serves its purpose of making the grind harder?
2 Likes