There is a report for superTEMP on FGR2, FG1 and F4J.
It’s listed in the manual
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qDKeGlF2bDex
So it can be fitted to others.
Though I’d rather keep the DFs at 11.3 than STs at a higher BR
1 Like
Hi guys. An update to the Hawk 200 and Hawk 200 RDA:
After further review we have concluded that the underside of the Hawk 200 and Hawk 200 RDA are sadly not compatible with the 30mm ADEN pod featured on later production variants. If any clear evidence is found that can show some additional clarification, we welcome this via a report for investigation
4 Likes
These are production model Hawk 200s, as we explained:
The devs have found the 200 / 200 RDA prototypes had a different underside belly to the later production variants (209 etc). There is sadly no evidence a pod was fitted or possible to fit to the 200 / 200 RDA. It doesn’t match up.
The pods only seem possible to fit on the 203/208/209. Perhaps explaining why there are no photos of the 200 / 200 RDA with a gunpod.
1 Like
rip the RDA then no gun and underwhelming armaments for 11.3
1 Like
Are you able to show us what differences they are referring to? I can’t find many great photos, but I cannot see any obvious changes which would preclude the use of a gun pod.
Out of pure curiosity, I’d like to ask a question in this thread: Does anyone have more detailed information about the tests conducted around 1997 involving the installation of Pilkington Optronics/Kentron HMS(Maybe Guardian) on Hawk 200?
https://web.archive.org/web/20220225154240/https://sistemasdearmas.com.br/ca/hmd5euro.html
I don’t have the model photos from the tests unfortunately to share. The pod was attempted to be fitted to the 200 and 200 RDA model and neither have a fit with the ADEN pod.
The comment was that the later production 200s have a “flatter” belly area where the pod specifically mounts.
Looking underneath the 200 and 200 RDA currently, there does seem to be a protrusion between the nose and belly.
are we at least getting 25 mm ADENs internal at some point?
Report is still under investigation. As source are currently conflicting 25 and 30mms.
This 100% feels like a “random bullshit go” type of situation this late into the dev server…
2 Likes
Many of the vehicles are not fully configured yet and we still have another week of dev server. So its not that late at all. Sadly everything was done to attempt to find a pod for the RDA, but there is no evidence one was ever made and the standard 30mm pod does not fit.
Just to clarify, can you please illustate what part of the lower fuselage prohibits the instillation of the 30mm gunpod?
Is this the bump in question?
Because if so I’m unsure of how it’s interfering with the gunpod fitting? The gunpod on other Hawks look to be fitted just behind where that bump would be and with enough vertical clearance for the barrel to not fire into said bump.
Also I know they are mockups for the Hawk 200 but they have been displayed with the gunpod as part of their armament options which atleast shows it was at some point planned.
Spoiler
Looking at photos that has to be it?
I can’t see anything on ZJ201’s belly but that?
Unless they mean the gear doors?
I can’t really see any other differences compared to Hawk 100s and production Hawk 200s
Cannon pods are fitted on the centerline underside, as can be seen on production examples:
There’s a ridge that runs along the bottom of both ZH200 and ZJ201 (RDA), between the front and gear landing gear bays. It’s not present on production planes, but still seems to be present on ZJ201 as late as 1998 when it was flying in this black and silver scheme. It was written off in a crash in 1999.
I think it probably extends just far back enough that it would clip in to the front of the 30mm gun pod
Production planes have the general bulge for the internal cannon bay, but not this ridge. And seems like it was never removed from the RDA even though it’s likely just a wiring conduit that could be moved inside the empty gun bulge once the 25mm guns were deleted
1 Like
Go into hawk thread.
See horrible news.
Cry.
7 Likes
This was likely as an advertisement for the later export / production models. As they all have it:
We are looking for ZH200 / ZJ201 pods specifically.
Is the Hawk 200s flight performance currently based off data from the T.1 or from the 200 series?
This source that @Left_Ventricle provided has some interesting comparisons
1 Like