and as predicted. Sitll has the 30mm gun. Thats a shame.
3 Likes
Holy smokes THANK YOU SO MUCH!
1 Like
Aye, I noticed it was changed in a pic Gunjob posted a few days ago, and checked the asset viewer before closing the ticket I made.
Seems it’s the Swedish-type launcher. Personally I’d have liked CRL more, because it looks cooler. But at least it’s not some random F/A-18 pylon now.
5 Likes
Hmm… Am I right in thinking the Hawk 200 RDE is a “super-Vixen”? It has decent missiles on its BR, but is completely useless in close combat?
1 Like
Pretty much.
Its a shame 9Ls are so easy to flare
IIRC the flight performance is quite lacking but should be decent enough at mid tiers when we hopefully get like a T1 with some basic rockets the gunpod and some 9E’s.
Acceleration and roll feel more or less about right… pitch authority feels like someone installed a pregnant elephant in the nose.
The nonsense argument they made about the Devs trial fitting the gun on their model and it not fitting tells me one of two things… either the shape of their Hawk model is not accurate, or the model of their gun pod is not accurate.
Edit:
Three things… they could very well both be wrong.
3 Likes
Their excuse basically turns a very minor model issue into a huge balance issue. They could literally just edit the gunpod model by a miniscule amount and it would fit, but no, they completely deny the RDA a gun instead. Having no gun makes it miserable to fly in air rb and much less useful as a ground attacker…
They even gave it Skyflashes when theres no evidence they even worked with its RADAR or were fired, yet giving it the gun would be too much?? Come on gaijin.
10 Likes
Hawk 200 with 25mm would actually is better in every way 25mm has faster fire rate and higher Velocity show it will make it a gunship like other planes in its class a10 with 30mm and su25 with 30mm and can deal with ground target easier
7 Likes
Meanwhile
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WrDpvZB3JfKV
In general, I don’t understand what prevented the snail from giving him Magic 2 and Amraam and sending him to 12.7-13.0. Then we would have had a “mini-hawk” on 10.7 and a “super-hawk” on 12.7-13.0.
(The photo was taken on September 8, 1984, at the Farnborough Air Show.)
6 Likes
This might be an unpopular opinion to voice here, but I don’t think the airframe would hold up
9 Likes
I agree.
We already have the FA2 for that role and its better than the Hawk in pretty much every single respect and the FA2 struggles
1 Like
I really don’t see how the Hawk 200 is equal to a F-5 lmao
Something something its Britains equivalent to the A10 and Su25? Something something.
Small nation bias I guess,
agreed, once it gets AMRAAM it’s a hard 13.0, plus AMRAAM minimum BR is exactly there and it can’t get lower than that. Best chance is only give it AIM-9M (Hawk 208) or AIM-9P-5 (Hawk 209) so at least it’s BR could be around 12.0-12.3
Something about the flight model seems off to me. It has pretty good energy retention, considering how little acceleration it has as compared to the Alpha Jet TH.
I don’t have Hawk 200 flight manuals available to me, and I certainly don’t have Hawk T.1 or T.1A flight manuals either. But, I have a hunch, that this flight model may be a bad hybrid between T.1 and 200.
But, as I have posted many, many replies ago, there are comparative data to measure the improvements made to the Hawk 200.
So, if anyone could spare me a Hawk T.1 or T.1A flight manual if they have one…
Kind of predictable when the aircraft is missing nearly 25% of its Sustained Turn Rate.
1 Like