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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
I think its better if the SAAF hawk 120 or T2 filled the spot hydra wants the T1 moved tbh
1 Like
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.
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.
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
Why would a single Seagle have any impact on BR in any airmode. Given it replaces the gunpod.
It would obviously go higher in NRB, and that would be it.
1 Like
We have no ASMs at that low of a BR for any aircraft in game. The naval map targets in ARB are not set up at that BR appropriately for such targets. So its current BR is not compatible with that option.
Plus the T.1A itself as it stands cant use it anyway. The centreline pylon is not wired for it and there is only port / starboard weapon selectors on board.
The aircraft that tested it was a specifically modified one.
There is also already 2 other Hawks in the British tree with appropriate BRs to use them with:
I’ve spoken to a bunch of players who’ve researched or bought the Hawk T, and from the looks of it, it’s unanimously agreed upon to be an abhorrent vehicle. This is down to both its BR placement and what it faces. It performs well against vehicles at 7.3 or below, struggles against vehicles at 7.7, and gets annihilated by vehicles above 7.7 (and emphasise on annihilate, I’m not even exaggerating).
This is a by product of attempting to place a vehicle at a BR it has no business being at. It would be equivalent to stripping the F-15E of its air to air ordnances and then placing it at a BR of around 11.3.
This vehicle should’ve effectively came into the game as a lower BR alternative to the Hawk 200, equipped with two AIM-9Ds or AIM-9Gs, the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile, and dual racks for its bombs and rockets.
2 Likes
Be cool if one day we got the Hawk Mk.50 demonstrator ZA101 with flares, 5 pylons, and AIM-9+Magic capability.
2 Likes
