On both Hawk 208 and the Hawk RDA the bulge ends almost exactly in line with the wing root, it is identical in shape.
On the Hawk 200 RDA, ingame and in real life, it ends in the same spot just at the wing root.
Therefore there is no reason for the gunpod not to fit, both aircraft have the exact same shape so fitting the gunpod should be entirely possible on both.
Yeah the bump is there on production ones, and the front fairing for the pod on Hawk 200 is reprofiled to slant downwards where it meets the bump (can see the panel lines and screws for the slanted front if you look closely below)
The panelling is obviously different to the standard Hawk gun pod that sits on a flat Hawk 60/100 underside. Indeed the modified assembly is visibly a separate unpainted piece of metal on the particular Malaysian Hawk 208 shown (though usually it’s painted).
Problem is, both ZH200 and ZJ201 had this additional ridge on top of the bump, that means it is again differently profiled where the gun pod touches the bump on production Hawk 200s
Realistically, you could probably fix it with some tin snips and a set of files to make another front fairing for the pod.
None the less, Gaijin are mistaken if they think the standard (Hawk/Hawk 100) gunpod with a totally flat top, fits Hawk 200 without some modification
That “ridge” looks much bigger ingame that it actually is, its barely raised at all
The ridge also extends either not at all or very little into the space where the gunpod is mounted.
from a side view, the ridge may as well not be there.
Sadly its been extensively tested, and so far efforts to find a gunpod for ZH200/ZJ201 exhausted. It fits on the production style belly, but not on the prototypes. They do indeed appear to have a different structure.
The devs are open to any new information or evidence for a gunpod for ZH200/ZJ201. But the Hawk 203/8/9 gunpod simply does not fit them.
Fair enough, I would have thought it was close enough that gaijin could have accomodated the very minor change, but I understand their reasoning.
This, we see Gaijin making compromises on similar issues for the sake of balance all the time. The issue of slight clipping seems insignificant to some of the atrocities we have seen them commit (cough cough F-5C flares, cough cough Stinger looks like Igla so no it can’t be buffed cough cough.)
Yeah, I mean the Swift F.7 never had guns irl yet has them ingame, neither did the Sea Meteor. That is a much larger change than this.
It seems like a no brainer to just slightly alter the model by a few cm so it can fit.
The F-5C flares are a technical possibility, which is something we have always been quite open that we would always explore. Here we have:
Both of these had the space and capacity to do so. So this was done. The space was there in the Swift F.7 bays and technical drawings also confirmed this. The Sea Meteor was much the same case. Though that is very much a legacy aircraft that probably would not have been introduced in todays roster.
The cannon pod was ready to be given despite the lack of photos. That was never the key issue. But the pod physically cannot fit on the prototypes. So its clear there is now a reason why there isn’t a single photo with a cannon pod fitted.
Its not sadly just a question of balance. Physically this does not work according to the devs. There was no objection on any gameplay balance side of things.
I just hope gaijin give us more than just a couple of aim 9s to spade the jet with at this point and make it easier to unlock the skyflash because well, yeah.
Though really stock skyflash would be optimal for spading with its other weaknesses, speed, lack of CMs, lack of gun.
That is fair enough, I’m glad we are at least getting a variant with internal cannons.
It would also be nice if the RDA could get some improved AGM-65 variants as its a notably higher BR than the ZH200.
That along with having wing tip 9Ls would give Britain a tech tree CAS aircraft with modern AGM-65s for their 11.7 ground lineup.
Would this not apply to the RDA as well, though? Multiple primary sources show the internal guns being able to be fitted to the aircraft, so surely the internal 25 mm’s could be given to the RDA as well as the first prototype?
There is sadly no sources past the initial proposal drawings showing cannons + radar. ZJ201 never had cannons. We don’t have any evidence any of this was possible beyond paper at the moment. These diagrams are not reflective of either of the two actual prototypes or even the production aircraft. The “Night Attack” configuration with the FLIR was nothing more than a mock-up.
Additionally there is only one primary source among the ones you have posted here, and thats the one of the two unrealised configurations from the promotional brochure:
The rest are 3rd party publications and Janes, which is not valid at all.
The Swift F.7 was verified in person with a surviving example airframe before it was decided on the documentations too.
too bad was before the HAWK 200 even took its first flight in
Are we able to see the concrete evidence the devs have used to come to the conclusion that ZJ201 couldn’t mount a gunpod since its belly is nearly identical to the production aircraft
Its a phsyical model matter. Not source / evidence based (though it does also explain why there is no photos of ZH200/JZ201 with a pod). As explained yesterday, if any information can be located showing ZH200 / ZJ201 can/did mount a particular pod then they will review it.
But the pod found on production 203/8/9 Hawks does not fit the underside of the prototype hawks. This was tested and attempted with both current 3D models in game.
The promotional diagram is consistent with how the radar is installed on production aircraft though. The processing set is installed entirely in the upper half of the nose, on top of the nose gear well. All radar equipment forward of the nose gear shows no wiring or further equipment routing to the sides of the nose gear well in such a way that it would lead to the radar installation intruding into the spaces that were established the internal guns
The front landing gear well more or less creates a physical barrier between the two spaces, and is a bigger limiting factor on the size and location of the radar set, than the guns would be - as the feed system and receivers are located within the purpose-built gondola below the cockpit and the barrels straddle the nose gear well with the muzzles emerging mid-way along the gear well.
None of the production models have the bulges for guns, since this was changed between ZH200 / ZJ201. So sadly, the drawings dont reflect prototype or production aircraft in eventuality. The radar instalation itself hasn’t been called into question or its arrangement.
Again, the devs welcome new evidence of gun carrage on ZJ201 or gunpods for ZH200/ZJ201. But sadly these drawings have been reviewed by the devs multiple times. Changes wont be made from them.
There are images of other Hawks with the bulge + gunpod though, like this one.
Is there a difference with the bulge? Or maybe a different variant of the gun? Because it looks the same to whats in-game to me.
Its the underside buldge. To quote the devs:
“Production models are compatible with then pod. it has compatible belly. More flat in the center.”
