Hawk 200 Technical Discussion The Fighting Hawk

To be honest. They’ve had a purpose for years.

We’ve had naval targets in ASB this entire time and they’ve added a few to ARB. Would be trivial to add some more.

What I find frustrating though, is that they dont seem to see airmodes as standalone gamemodes anymore. If it cant be of use in GRB. Then its not added, which is just infuriating

2 Likes

not to forget these :)


didn’t mentioned earlier about the 208 does sling AIM-9P too, though as the F-5E withdrawn from service later they subsequently transitioned to AIM-9L/M I assume



both 208 and 209 has FZ rockets, though 208 could also utilize CRV7s (I aware of that dummy BAT-120 but doubt that it does have in our inventory)

also as I said on the other topic, if gaijin could go crazy to give them IRCCM maybe 12.7 or 12.3 like the GR.7, though at cost of not having BOL amount of countermeasures and less A2G variety (yes, no AMRAAM, if it does that’s 13.0 territory)

Speaking as someone that could not possibly care any less about Tanks, yeah, I completely agree.
The game has been stale for years, any maps that had unique interesting quirks got removed in favour of CTRL C/V gameplay over a differing backdrop.

2 Likes

Yep. Ground mains complain about aircraft this and aircraft that. But if anything. Aircraft have been more neglected.

No new maps, no new gamemodes, worsening gameplay. lack of new mechanics, massively nerfed weapons, denied features.

Its beyond annoying now

1 Like

They added ASM-1 with the excuse of attacking carriers added to air rb. They denied exocet because “ASM can be used for multiple game modes” (It can’t, you can’t target ground targets). They add this, I ask them about exocet. “We are adding ASMs slowly because of limited gameplay use” in spite of the fact that the ASMs for Japan were added explicitly because of new naval targets in Air RB. Reading between the lines, it seems they don’t even want to proliferate Sea Eagle across compatible platforms from the spat I had with them earlier.

Even Russian weapons are kneecapped on account of this. Platforms missing ordnance because “It wouldn’t make sense for the rating in ground”. Which is an indictment given how they treat the rest. We could have so much cooler munitions if they just limited or restricted weapons from ground modes. Or y’know, make the SP cost for those weapons extortionate. The whole point of air payload SP costs.

1 Like

Honestly? I don’t think it’s able to run more than 4 AAMs, the wing is based on the Hawk 100 wing iirc which is limited to 4x AAMs. The whole point of the wing tip rails was to free up the inboard pylons for fuel tanks and ordnance

Would be nice if they’d start leaving 1 major update a year for the introduction of a few maps that actually had been worked on thoroughly for the rest of the year to create interesting gameplay. In current maps, not sure how the addition of the hawk will function given the state of it at the rating.

Though doesnt necessarily mean those hardpoints cant still be used for AAMs.

Like I said, Gaijin “Logic”, don’t even try to comprehend it, you’ll just give yourself a headache.

Give it’s a Hawk we’re dealing with I doubt it would have the fuel/endurance to actually make use of 6x missiles, even if it could technically carry them. Almost makes the Lightning look like a marathon runner.

1 Like

Honestly given that there’s the chance for two, I think the 209 at ~10.7 with 9Ls and the 208 at ~12.0 with 9Ms or something would be fair, give people both options. (In a folder of course)

1 Like

So first impressions are that the new Hawk FM seems fairly accurate. These reports have been fixed:

  • Hawk 200 - Mach limit too low
  • Hawk 200 - Maximum level speed too high
  • Hawk 200 - Empty mass 55% too high

And once you account for a 10% installation loss the sea level thrust curve matches the brochure to within 6% at all speeds.

Further FM testing will be needed for turn rate etc.

4 Likes

Weird how they care to be that accurate with the Hawk but not something like the Harriers

2 Likes

TBF the harriers are way more complicated to model

1 Like

The energy retention feels quite bad at the moment, is that accurate?

1 Like

Probably considering it’s obese rn

Empty weight is correct now

1 Like

Sea eagle has been added to the files

4 Likes

God I hope they dont gate keep it to a single airframe

1 Like

yea at least give it to GR.1 tonka (nvm it’s GR.1B actually, but as they added JH-7 that has anti ship role they could as well add GR.1B in?)

CpFehHSWIAAdJZY

Yeah… Especially as it already has the naval radar mode modeled but disabled (found on the MFG)

But would rather enjoy it on the Buc S2B and SHars as well.

1 Like