Hawk T.1A : A Shadow of Its Potential

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1

With the latest update, we’ve been met with the introduction of the BAe Hawk T and Hawk T FRP, respectively the fourth and fifth members of the Hawk family of aircraft. This was a long awaited aircraft which represents both the UK’s military aviation industry and the famous aerobatic display team, the Red Arrows.

The variant we received in-game is the Hawk T.1A, the armed variant of the Hawk T.1 introduced in 1983. This variant was capable of both mounting the 30mm ADEN cannon (which is present in-game) and the AIM-9L (which is not). From what you’ve read thus far, you’d expect this vehicle to come into the game with the AIM-9L, but Gaijin has wisely avoided doing so, as this vehicle completely lacks countermeasures.

But because of this, this vehicle sits at 7.7, whilst something like the Hawk 200 sits at 10.7. You’d usually think this is something positive, but in the case of the Hawk T.1A, it isn’t. Whilst the flight model of the Hawk T.1A is average at best, the firepower is quite mediocre to bad, with it having both limited damage and limited ammunition.

Because of this, the Hawk T.1A is quite unforgiving and unenjoyable to play, with the vehicle having no special attributes unlike its peers at this BR. The vehicle doesn’t accelerate particularly well, it climbs decently, but it doesn’t turn especially well, nor does it have exceptional speed to make up for its flaws.

This vehicle truly has the potential to be something of quality, but it simply sits at an awkward BR and doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, or even well in most regards. All of this is simply because Gaijin refuses to give the vehicle its historical armament, air to air missiles.

image
image1024×678 181 KB

I’m not suggesting that this vehicle should receive the AIM-9L, since it’d sit at far too high of a BR and would inevitably be overshadowed by the Hawk 200, but rather it receive the AIM-9D or AIM-9G, a missile it never operated in service but was entirely compatible with.

Britain is also home to vehicles equipped with the AIM-9G, including one without countermeasures, the Jaguar GR.1, so this shouldn’t be anything alien. The Hawk T.1A could easily sit at 9.0 or 9.3 with either the AIM-9D or AIM-9G, making it a more viable and interesting vehicle to play whilst also resolving its limited firepower.

Missing historical armaments or payload options:

Would you like to see the following historical armaments and payload options added to the Hawk T.1A, or would you prefer it to remain the same? Please vote below!

  • I’d rather the vehicle receive the listed historical armaments and payload options
  • I’d rather not the vehicle receive the listed historical armaments and payload options
0 voters

If you have other opinions which don’t match either the post or poll, please explain why in this topic instead.

2

AIM-9B would be interesting.

1 Like
3

Well at least it’s not the Yak-130 which does have countermeasures to go with its R-73s, both of which Gaijin has denied.
I think even without countermeasures the Hawk would do just fine with AIM-9L at say 10.0. High offense low defense. And much preferable to AIM-9Gs seeing aircraft from WW2.

Also, are there no countermeasure pods or anything that are options?

2 Likes
4

Im inclined to want a BR reduction over any form of IR missile for it, but everything else… 100% want

2 Likes
5

Before originally posting this topic, I was considering whether I should mention the AIM-9B as a suitable missile for this vehicle, but it doesn’t really make sense from a balancing perspective. The vehicle would suffer more at 8.3 than it would at 9.0 or 9.3, and there’s also the electrical limitation, as it only operated the LAU-7A and would require an adaptor to utilise the AIM-9B iirc.

If it could use the AIM-9B however, I’d take that over nothing tbf

From my understanding, when the RAF upgraded existing T.1s to T.1A standard, they decided it wasn’t necessary to outfit the aircraft with countermeasures due to costs or whatever, especially since it was never intended to be a frontline aircraft.

6

I’d honestly love to see everything else. The AIM-9 is a bit of a debatable topic for this vehicle, especially since we won’t know how the vehicle will truly perform until we receive the missile, but I see no reason why everything else needs to be constrained.

7

A single 7.7 will fully disable the ability to use weapons if it hits pilot controls. even when the second pilot has identical controls. It also only takes 2-3 .50 cal AP rounds to tear a wing off.

Its not super fast for the BR range, cant turn and is made of wet mouldy paper for its DM.

1 Like
8

i mean… look at hawk 200, barely a 10.0 capable plane with 4 9L and 60 countermeasures. it could get 9M and still be comically poor for above 9.7

1 Like
9

I haven’t played the Hawk 200 yet and have just gotten around unlocking it, so I can’t really speak about the vehicle, but the videos I’ve seen don’t look particularly positive. The reason I believe the Hawk T might perform better at 9.0 or 9.3 than the Hawk 200 at 10.7 is simply because aircraft around that BR often lack countermeasures, unless you get a full uptier.

I’d personally prefer the vehicle to receive the AIM-9D and sit at 9.0 rather than receive the AIM-9G and sit at 9.3.

10

Just to clarify neither of these are “missing historical armaments or payload options”.

The T.1As didn’t have them and didn’t have the capacity to use them. The wiring is not there in the wings (confirmed by the manual) to use the extra pylons and in the cockpit, the weapon selector only has the two pylon switches. One port and one starboard.

image

Unfortunately its a case of a couple of non-standard modifications of the Hawk were modified to show off the extra pylons that were offered to export customers in the 50 and 60 series Hawks, but the RAF Hawk T.1As did not have the capacity of them. Hence why they have not been added. The maximum take-off weight of the T.1A also has further confirmatory information to show that some of the export weaponry simply wouldn’t be possible with the restrictions on T.1A and its load capacity. Without modifications to the wings to allow it.

Which is why these have not been implemented and not considered missing loadouts from the T.1A.

6 Likes
11

I’m ok if mid november update gajin add AIM-9 sidewinder (AIM-9G or AIM-9L), moving to rank VI and increase battle rating for Air battle mode (not higher 10.0)

But gajin should add another attack aircraft to 7.3 ~ 7.7 instead Hawk T Mk.1A move to rank VI (RAAF & RCAF) after current major update

1 Like
12

Thanks for the response, Smin. I primarily listed those under the same rationale as the YaK-41 and its IRST, and the F-5C and its countermeasures. I was under the impression that if it was trialled on the aircraft, even if minor electrical modifications were required, it would be something applicable in War Thunder.

Question as well, is this the same reason it didn’t receive the Sea Eagle anti-shipping missile in-game?

And one more thing, is the absence of the AIM-9 a hard-fixed balancing choice that won’t ever change?

1 Like
13

IIRC didnt gaijin put aim9Bs on some jet to limit its potential due to its IRL being too high? I want to say the Saab 105G/OE.

Given its massive lackluster ground carry capacity, I would rather not see the plane upped into a BR where it will be DoA.

Anyone know if it could take SORA/SNORA on the current pylons btw? Seen images suggesting the modified 4 pylon version could carry them on the outer.

Also ofc, another, imo better option would be to beg the snail for the HEDP rounds the Alpha Jet in French use has for the ADEN. Significant light tank busting boost.

It would be DoA in GRB with 9Gs though from the BR bump.

14

What we need is a Finnish Hawk Mk. 51 with the R-60. It would be fine at 9.7 without a RWR and flares.

1 Like
15

Similar, as the centerline pylon also doesnt have a drop control switch in the standard T.1, however primarily it was rejected due to its BR. We have no ASMs at that low of a BR.

3 Likes
16

Its impossible to really say “never”. But there are no current plans to change that no. As it would require a BR increase to levels where its flight performance would struggle even more.

4 Likes
17

I think its better if the SAAF hawk 120 or T2 filled the spot hydra wants the T1 moved tbh

1 Like
18

Giving it the AIM-9D or AIM-9G would affect its ground realistic BR, but it shouldn’t be affected too much. The FG.1 is 12.0 in air realistic but 10.3 in ground realistic. It would mean that it would technically be worse for ground pounding, but it would be better for combat air patrol.

The AIM-9B or AIM-9E could be an alternative missile, but that’d be straddling along the ahistorical route, unless the Hawk T.1A’s LAU-7A had the adaptors necessary to be fitted out with said missiles.

Not actually sure but there’s a real possibility it could be carried on the pylons already present in-game.

19

Even with the inclusion of separate BRs for air realistic and naval realistic battles? I thought the point of this would be so aircraft like this could sit at a lower BR in air realistic whilst being higher in ground realistic or naval realistic (or both), like the J-22M1A.

Thanks for the responses as well.

20

Including this factored in. As if we balance the aircraft soley around Sea Eagle, it means all of its other weaponary is redundant and the platform itself will be again increased above the range its currently at. Which makes little sense when there are far more capable Sea Eagle platforms already in game to use. Rather than boxing in the Hawk T.1A at higher BRs.

Even in air realistic, particularly with NE, Sea Eagle is also relevant.

1 Like