Hawk

[Stendec5]

Given the criminally expensive cost of the F35, wouldn't a more realistic option be to cancel this White Elephant, concentrate on greater numbers of Typhoons, and buy 100/150 Hawk-200 Series for the RAF? (or an improved version thereof)

[Spaghetti_Monster]

No, it wouldn't. Next.

[glad rag]

"Cut our losses"

Good one that.

[AtomKraft]

Considering the wars we've opted into recently, we ought to be buying Skyraiders.

[althenick]

Atomkraft
I wish there was a "Like" Button on this website.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Similarly, an "unlike" one. I love you chaps who have the correct Lat Long but for a different planet.

[thing]

I love you chaps who have the correct Lat Long but for a different planet.

May I use that for my own purposes?

[Bob Viking]

Stendec.
Speaking as someone with a fair amount of Hawk experience I will give you a sensible answer. The Hawk in its various guises is a bloody brilliant training aircraft but the 21st century RAF would not benefit from using it as a frontline strike platform.
Does that answer your question?
Let me guess. Is the next question going to be 'why not?!'
BV

[GreenKnight121]

The A-4E, which started coming off the Douglas Aircraft production lines in 1963, is a much better strike aircraft than the Hawk (twice the payload, for a start).

Especially when fitted with the modern multimode radars of the 1990s upgrades (APG-66 of New Zealand & Argentina), and the 2010s upgrade (Elta 2032 radar system and the 11,200lb thrust J52-P-408 of Brazil).

Yes, a 50-year-old "simple and basic" design is better than the Hawk.

[Linedog]

Why not just drag a few Hunters out? There are plenty still flying.

[kintyred]

Presumably the purpose of the F35 is to carry missiles to within striking range of the enemy. Could we not find a cheaper delivery vehicle given that dogfighting appears to have been consigned to the pages of history?

[Sun Who]

Presumably the purpose of the F35 is to carry missiles to within striking range of the enemy. Could we not find a cheaper delivery vehicle given that dogfighting appears to have been consigned to the pages of history?

Good grief. there are so many implicit, dreadful assumptions in that statement, that I don't know where to start. So I won't.

Sun.

[Stendec5]

I did say, "or a version thereof." Take the Hawk 200 Series, transform into a twin engined supersonic-capable machine, strengthened wings, improved avionics.
I imagine such a machine would retail for say...£50m per unit (as opposed to £120m per unit) Also built in British factories/British jobs/good for the economy/foreign sales, no longer a cringing subservient lap-dog of the White House.
There, does that sound so bad?

[orca]

Mate,

When you say 'transform' do you mean 'start again and build something fundamentally different'?

How does one imagine a price tag? In the same way as I imagine the jet's performance against double digit SAMs and Gen 4 fighters?

Against all the odds you have managed to make your proposition sound worse. Well done you.

[sharpend]

Now i'm showing my age.... But firstly, I have flown Canberra, F4, Hawk (yes) and Jaguar operationally, so have a little knowledge.

When the Bucc arrived, I thought Canberra was better.

When Tornado arrived I thought Canberra was better.

When Jaguar arrived I thought Canberra was better.

Get my drift?

Now I think the Mosquito would have been the best.

Why?

Cheap, can still carry a Nucc, and 1000 Mosquitos have a better chance of getting through than one Typhoon, which anyway will probably go u/s :)

[kintyred]

Sun

I was hoping someone would have an answer, but so far it seems that my assumptions are correct. Enlighten me please!

[ex-fast-jets]

GK121

I understand your comments. I flew the A-4M on exchange with the the USN 78-81. A great machine with amazing capabilities and potential. But the USN/USMC declared it to be obsolescent.

I have a whole lot fewer hours in the Hawk - but it also is a good aircraft with great potential, and seems to sell well in the modern environment.

Perhaps both are great aircraft - but no-one is selling the A-4 in the modern market.

So let's blame the arms marketeers, rather than pick between two different but great aircraft!!

[Al R]

.. and 1000 Mosquitos have a better chance of getting through than one Typhoon, which anyway will probably go u/s

Yes, but can you imagine the bean counters reacting to the 2000 extra notional pension contributions to be paid? :eek:

[Herod]

Sharpend, what you're saying is that we need an MRCA. Must Refurbish Canberras AGAIN.

[Rhino power]

Take the Hawk 200 Series, transform into a twin engined supersonic-capable machine, strengthened wings, improved avionics.
I imagine such a machine would retail for say...£50m

If you're gonna spend £50mil each on a pimped up Hawk, and all the limits such a small airframe has, (not to mention the development costs) why not just spend a few £'s more and buy more Tyhoons?


-RP

[Bob Viking]

I'm trying so hard not to come across as a git but please tell us your angle here? Are you military, a journalist looking for a quote from an 'expert', a student doing some easy research for an essay or just a curious bystander?
I like the Hawk as much as the next guy (I have 1600+ hours and counting on Hawk T1, T2 and 115) but it really is not the answer to your presumed problem. 'Simply' sticking another engine on and making it supersonic is not a realistic option I'm afraid. Development costs alone would make the treasury's eyes water. If it's supporting British industry and not being subservient to the White House that you advocate then additional Typhoon purchases would fit into that category pretty well.
All the talk of old jets making a heroic comeback are also a little deluded. I previously flew the Jaguar and if it was good value bang for your buck you were after it did a good job as well. However, a jet has to be able to do more nowadays than just carry a few bombs (quiet in the cheap seats!) to a target.
The F35 that you so easily lambast is a damn sight more than a purveyor of high speed boom sticks. It may be as ugly as sin and we may wish we were getting the C model but it is a bloody capable aircraft that will bring a lot more to the table than most people realise. I do agree that it is criminally expensive but that's the way of the world. British industry is also getting a bite of the cherry with regards to the construction.
Sorry if it's not the answer you were looking for and I respect the 'blue sky thinking' but on this occasion might I politely suggest you head back to the drawing board.
BV:8

[just another jocky]

BV...a well considered and respectful answer. Nice one m8. :D

[Heathrow Harry]

well the Yanks bought our (mistakenly scrapped) Harriers

maybe we should get in and take all their A-10's.............. probably cost the same as one F-35

[Courtney Mil]

Good points, BV. To complete the circle in your argument, "simply sticking another engine..." in a Hawk, with all the other changes that would entail, kind of does make your Jaguar again. At least we know that would work.

[orca]

The Jaguar was an aeroplane and a force that delivered again and again. The real lesson to take from the Jaguar story is how much you are able to develop an airframe, for very little, so long as you keep a certain bunch at arm's length.

I can't remember who exactly that was but I think they were from just west of Preston.

[Chris1012]

wait, I've got an idea, swap out the Ardour for a higher thrust Avon, put another one in as stendec says to get it supersonic, add a couple of missiles on the bottom, get rid of the second cockpit...




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Lightning.inflight.arp.750pix.jpg

[Treble one]

Always wondered what the Lightning would have been like with range, modern avionics and more missiles......

[Treble one]

But the T-50 I saw flown by the ROKAF 'Black Eagles' at RIAT a year or so ago, looks like a splendid platform for Advanced fast jet training.


Modern avionics (circa to a FJ cockpit)
Supersonic
'Closer feel' to a front line FJ?


And also the possibility of a 'front line' role to keep the bean counters happy.


Of course, the Hawk T2 has the modern avionics, but not the ability to go supersonic. I guess it depends on the added value of high speed handling training prior to conversion to type on an OCU (but you gentlemen who actually do that know far better than me).


TO

[mr fish]

or...GRIPEN NG.


not sure why, how or cost etc.


just such a pretty aircraft !!!!

[Bob Viking]

Courtney.
So you're saying we could save on development costs after all? ;) I'm in, who's with me?!
Treble One.
I agree, the T50 is an excellent aircraft and, as much as I'd love them to buy Hawk, I would expect the USAF to sign up to it in due course. However, it does cause a few problems with regard to cost and capability. It's clearly a pricey but of kit which is always hard to swallow, especially when after spending all that money you only have a training jet (it could be used operationally but those countries that can afford it are unlikely to use it in that way).
It also begs the question of is it too good? With the fantastic performance it is quite a jump from your Basic Trainer and almost makes itself obsolete. You might as well get straight into a Viper! Just ask UAE.
With regards to training for high speed flight, speed is really just a green number in the HUD. What matters more is cadence or timeline if you will. Let's say your Typhoon takes two minutes from first radar contact through AMRAAM launch to missile autonomy (completely made up numbers and deliberate lack of actual terminology). You only need to copy the timeline to make your training jet an effective building block. The speed is secondary.
Just my two penn'th of course.
BV

[Chris1012]

I held off mentioning it, but Block 60/61 F-16's seem to be very capable aircraft. All the airframe support from the many partner nations in that programme, AESA, CFT's, HMD and a whole host of things to hang off it and drop on people (with the exception of the Israeli's if you develop the software for a particular shiny bomb, it must be made available to other nations...)
Plus, we could go the Turkish way and license build them ourselves.
allegedly go for about $80 million as well, so if you squint really really hard, it gets close to that £50million figure stendec mentioned...

[t43562]

BV, could all cadence be simulated? e.g. if you have a simulated radar anyhow and fake bogeys that are really other people flying simulators on the ground then couldn't you make them a bit faster than is real and make your sensors a bit worse than they might be so that the cadence matches another jet?

[Bob Viking]

In a nutshell, yes. The technology is already there with the T2. It just hasn't been fully exploited yet due to time and cash.
BV

[Stendec5]

I take the point about more Typhoons, especially as they are a European designed and built aircraft. My argument regarding the Hawk(GR.3??) "hawks" back to the original concept of the Folland Gnat, ie small, fast, agile, relatively simple, cheaper and more basic to operate. Such an aircraft would be ideal for many of the smaller wars that Lib-Lab-Con insist on dragging us into.
Such a machine would be an export success with many of the smaller air forces around the world (the catagory incidentally which the RAF now resides), again good for jobs/economy.
As for the Treasury complaining about development costs, surely the Treasury does as it's told, eg "Hand over £11,000,000,000 in Foreign Aid over the coming Fiscal Year." No problems there, apparently. So £2+Billion to bring the machine up to entry-to-service (built-in penalty clauses) and aiming at less than £50m per unit all seems eminently sensible to me.

[1771 DELETE]

Its not an MRCA thats needed, what we require is a long range,
multi role, multi weapon delivery system. We actually had them coming into service until this short sighted government scrapped the Nimrod MRA4.

[Treble one]

Many thanks for your insight, I can see what you say about the T-50 in terms of cost and performance, and thanks for the explanation about the value of high speed advanced flying training.


Rgds
TO

[Bob Viking]

Should I be the first to mention the phrase 'the war versus a war'?!
The light attack aircraft has proven pedigree in the Afghan adventure. It wouldn't work so well when the rounds start coming back the other way.
Also the very thing that makes the Hawk cheap and easy to maintain is its relative simplicity. Once you bring it up to war spec it becomes a lot more pricey.
I'm afraid the world has moved on. I know people loved the Gnat/Hunter/Lightning etc but they no longer have a place in a modern conflict.
Unless you know something I don't I would just accept that your idea is a bit of a non starter.
I do admire your tenacity though.
BV

[Onceapilot]

Just remind me. Did the Russians beat Germany with Quality or Quantity?

OAP

[Wander00]

Got to be the answer - modernised Canberra.........................hat, coat....................

[Herod]

Onceapilot, Just remind me. Did the Russians beat Germany with Quality or Quantity? Was it Sherman or Grant that said "Get there firstest, with the mostest"?

[Stendec5]

Given that Britain is now a de facto second-rate military power. Not in terms of individual personnel but in terms of overall size and full-spectrum capability. I think the idea has sound validity.
The development of a Hawk-type light-attack aircraft would give the RAF an
effective combat machine that would be ideal in the seemingly numerous small wars we now get into. Small, fast, tough, a good payload, and with the emphasis towards simplicity and economy. The aircraft being available in greater numbers instead of the puny numbers of hideously expensive F.35s.
I would extend this yet further. Why not also fund development of a medium-sized freighter? The key elements being simplicity, cheapness, maximum STOL/rough ground capability, and rugged toughness. Cutting our cloth according to our means yet retaining the ability to intervene (Afganistan style) with more affordable hardware. Leaving the Typhoons/A400s to bring up the rear if needed/economically justified.
Also, rediscover the advantages of aggressive salesmanship. Plugging the cheapness/simplicity angle of such machines, they would enjoy good sales to a whole raft of countries.

[glad rag]

Stendec5, you are describing an F-16. Against modern SAMs though it won't survive. Hence why the smart people are buying F-35.



Total dross.

[tartare]

Stendec (nice obscure jetstream related screen-name by the way;)) I suspect many of the changes to the Hawk that you're advocating essentially mean constructing a new aircraft.
A new powerplant or two?
At the most basic level what does that do to the datum?
You'd need to extensively modify the airframe, wing loadings would be changed, undercarriage strengthened etc. etc.
Cascading series of implications that mean your `Super-Hawk' is no longer a Hawk at all.
I remember reading somewhere that aircraft design is a series of trade-offs and compromises to achieve mission.
By the time the numerous modifications were made, it would have been easier to start from a clean sheet I suspect.

[gr4techie]

Stendec5, you are describing an F-16. Against modern SAMs though it won't survive. Hence why the smart people are buying F-35.

Do we go up against anyone with modern SAM sites?

[josephfeatherweight]

I am dumbstruck that this ridiculous first post has generated 3 pages of discussion. F&$king plane spotters and uneducated ones at that...
Why do people even respond? I'm almost ashamed that I have...

[tartare]

Errmm... well clearly people have responded, because it's a topic that interests them?
Stendec asks a question, and there's nothing wrong with that, even if it may have been naive.
Better a world of Stendecs or others who are intellectually curious, than one dismisser of `plane spotters' I would suggest.

[Rakshasa]

Better the ignorant ask questions than assume they are right. 'Specially if said person is a politician!

[Plastic Bonsai]

I'm glad BV at least agrees the Hawk is (still) reliable which was one of the original main design aims.

I was involved a bit in developing the initial Hawk 200 series aircraft avionics and we somehow managed (I can't imagine how we would have got away with it these days) to sneak in enhancements to the radar target information and weapon aiming calculations which made it a pretty accurate unguided store deliverer. First weapon delivery test was a 500lb Mk82 loft that fell short of the target by 600 yards which was subsequently accounted for by the bomb having the draggier mechanical fuse fitted. The results from the first air to air gunnery was a bit hampered by hitting the scoring microphone on the first pass.

We thought we had done a reasonable job from the few trials we could perform but the end users reported that the stores did go where the aiming solution said it would.

At the moment the 2 seat Hawk is a bit limited in that it doesn't have a radar - though something Grippen sized could fit and the wing/pylon/ground clearance does inhibit you hanging some of the larger stores. Even so it still has it's uses.

As for the real question is there a cheaper alternative to F-35 and Typhoon - possibly. If you can come up with a basic airframe/engine combination that has the range, speeds, manoeuvreablity and carrying capacity you require (the F-15 was very much specified with that in mind) then you very well may have a contender if you can avoid expensive FBW systems and also fit a sound capable sensor suite that you can maintain and upgrade.

These days I don't think these factors are at the forethought of aircraft designers.

[ORAC]

Always wondered what the Lightning would have been like with range, modern avionics and more missiles......BAC Sea Lightning (http://www.gengriz.co.uk/sealightning2.htm)

http://www.gengriz.co.uk/sealightning2_files/P1260019.jpg

[Rhino power]

I am dumbstruck that this ridiculous first post has generated 3 pages of discussion. F&$king plane spotters and uneducated ones at that...
Why do people even respond? I'm almost ashamed that I have...

What a useful contribution to the thread...

-RP

[WAC]

Get their furstus with the mostest... Nathenial Bedford Forrest...

[tartare]

I could not agree more Rhino.
And Rhino's an old knucklehead who would know.
Edit to ask:
are USAF/Marine fast jet drivers also known as Knucks?

[Evalu8ter]

The reason we're having this debate is the dichotomy between the wars we plan to fight and the wars we have actually fought over the past 2 decades. The military, by nature, assume 'worst possible' as the target scenario - therefore, in FJ terms, we press for the best we can get to give us some semblance of capability in the 'near peer' arena. This is eye wateringly expensive, and means you cannot afford to replace your legacy platforms on a one-for-one basis. However, just because you can do high end doesn't mean these expensive, and increasingly rare, Gen 4.5+ platforms are best suited for the low end - either in capability terms or cost-effectiveness. Curtis LeMay once opined, about Vietnam, that 'if you have the power to stop a big war, certainly the same power ought to be capable of stopping a small war'. This sentiment stifled the development of tactical aircraft for a generation and led to a high loss rate over Vietnam as the 'high end' F105, F4 and B52 proved somewhat ineffective and vulnerable. The West attempted to fight recent wars using the same maxim (perhaps with the notable exception of multiple reprieves for the A10...until recently..) but we still have had usable reserves of legacy platforms. This (for the RAF at least) will not be the case in the future.

Therefore we are at something of a crossroads. Do we go all-out 'high end' and risk burning them out in a high-rate low-intensity conflict (eg AH64 / C130J over the past decade) or introduce a "Day 2+" fleet of combat air equipped to survive in more benign environments yet still capable of delivering weapons (and surviving the SA threat) when supporting TICs?

[orca]

With heavy heart I would proffer the drone nerds for the mission you name. Between them, AH and the RA they really have benign air environment TIC support sewn up.

[Onceapilot]

Amazing that we have this insight about the cost of Gen 4.5+ platforms and yet, few seem able to see the outrageous situation in widebody AT/AAR where, a mature and capable platform is literally being thrown away as the basis of an overpriced redundancy tool for VSO's retirement. Either that, or the upper echelons of our military are as gullible as a pensioner talking to a PPI salesman!


OAP

[Stendec5]

I think that some replies have, with the greatest respect to Forum contributors, perhaps been wandering a little off-track.
I am making a serious proposal based on the near-future air requirements an increasingly irrelevant country actually needs/can afford. (Mr Putin took the time to phone Merkel, Hollande and Obama viz the shenanigans in the Ukraine. He didn't bother with our own great statesman "call me Dave").
It's easy for some to be taken in with slick marketing/propaganda. It can be very persuasive.
Look at the Panavia Tornado. Plugged to the irons from about the early 70s until well into the 80s (originally as MRCA). This was to be the all singing and dancing panacea for Britain's air striking needs. A scourge-in-waiting for the Warsaw Pact hordes...
Yet Tornados took the heaviest losses of all Coalition aircraft in Gulf War 1. (No comment of course on the incredibly brave pilots/navigators for whom I have the greatest respect) Just the mission they were tasked to fly. (JP233)
But this was against IRAQ, remember? Not the Warsaw Pact. Not the most intense and effective air defences yet known. If Tornados took those kind of losses against a rather primitive power like Iraq. Then sending Tornados against the WP would have been akin to Fairey Battles against the Wermacht.
But that's not what we were told. Was it?
History repeats itself. F.35 is now marketed as the all singing and dancing panacea for Britain's air striking needs. Accept no substitute. But I'll wager that come the day it not deliver. Literally.
What I was suggesting was akin to a two-tier air force. Why do you need a £120m White Elephant to fire multi-million pound smart ordnance at caves or to strafe insurgents bowling along in Toyota 4x4s? You don't.
So, using Hawk 200 Series as a starting point. Instruct the Treasury to provide the requisite funding (see a previous post of mine) and upgrade the design to the end product of a cheap, rugged, fast, maneuverable, tough and simple to operate light-attack-aircraft taylor-made machine for the kind of conflicts we have ACTUALLY been involved in. NOT the operating environments some contributors seem to have envisaged.
Thus, you have a relatively cheap, ideal light-attack-aircraft that can operate in greater numbers against more primitive defences. Saving your Typhoons
for the more demanding missions.
You also keep all or most of the work and jobs here in the UK/Europe instead of exporting a precious skills-base to a foreign land.
F.35 is a criminally expensive triumph of marketing over actuality. It will have a crippling effect on an already hard-pressed defence budget (ongoing effect) and that can only be bad news for Britain.

[josephfeatherweight]

If a "current" knuck can suggest that suggesting a Hawk or "modified" Hawk, and lots of them, can be a viable alternative to an F35, even given the current strategic environment, I will humbly withdraw my admittedly blunt assessment of the original question. Until then, my thoughts remain the same, though I'll apologise for my harshness and explicit language.

[DITYIWAHP]

This is hilarious.

The Hawk was designed on a napkin about 40 years ago. It has so many aerodynamic crutches to make it flyable with no fly by wire that you would be hard pressed to change its shape without serious problems.

If you want to press on regardless and still wish to 'modify' it so it can carry modern weapons and systems then you'd better be sure you know exactly what you want in terms of capability.

That big fat Hawk wing is no good above 0.8M and, coupled with poor high altitude turn performance, any air to air game plan would have to be binned unless you're going to give it a new wing (no air to air requirement, buy an A-10 or just resign yourself to using Reaper). And if you're going to give it a new wing, why not give it a bigger engine bay (and engine), internal fuel tanks and avionics bays as well? With all that new stuff being designed, you'd be wise to throw in an AESA radar while you're at it.

Sounds like you're well on your way to trying to create a block 60 F-16 from a refurbished fast jet trainer. Only it would end up costing more...

[Plastic Bonsai]

The aerodynamic crutches on the Hawk are no worse than any of its contemporaries and possibly slightly superior. It has relatively vice-less handling and considering it was about 2 years from napkin to first flight with very little tunnel testing it turned out quite well.

Apart for the initial fixes to the wing - fences and vortex generators and the dorsal side plates, fin filet and a cure for the pitch down due to airbrake it has acquired a modified wing section from the 60 srs onwards, SMURFS to counter the phantom stall that a full span flap vane introduced and has also have had tip missiles fitted, extended nose section, ability to use combat flap as well as a single seater version developed with no major adjustments which would suggest a fairly good basic design.

We hear very little of the airframes in new designs, much more is made of the systems they carry which could be made to work in any airframe. I wonder how they measure up to the low weight of the A4, the low drag of the Buccaneer and simplicity of the Hawk?

[Stendec5]

Fine. By your own suggestion we are once again designing aircraft, thinking about design problems, striving for solutions. Lets keep going to the point where we are cutting metal, building factories, creating a skilled work-force once again. You can only polish Uncle Sam's boots for so long.
I must admit to being rather surprised at the venom a seemingly innocuous suggestion seems to have engendered, disappointed at the standard of debate on what is after all a discussion forum. But it never-the-less convinces me of the absolute validity of my ideas, perhaps because of the response ("methinks they protest too much.")
However, I suppose the only real way to achieve anything worthwhile is through political power. All else is a dead end. Toodle pip.

[DITYIWAHP]

Standec5,

I feel your pain regarding our diminishing aerospace industry, but I'm afraid that reality is going to prevent a modernized Hawk from being any sort of substitute for the F35 (it would have to be a completely new aircraft) . If your point is that we don't, as a country, actually need any of that F35 5th gen nonsense then that would be an interesting but different discussion. Without 5th gen you could carry out ground attack by Reaper and Typhoon and air to air using Typhoon - all of this would have to be against an enemy with no high order SAM cover (which could be ok if that's where we want to go with uk defence policy, but it would be a big change from current political outlook, no need for nukes either etc). If we went that route, why would we still need these new Hawks anyway?

What is your need for us to buy new Hawks - because they would be British? To avoid foreign nation boot polishing? I understand that British industry will make more money for its part in F35 production than the UK government will spend in buying our lot of F35s. That is arguably a very good deal for our factories, work force and government.

No venom intended, but if an F35 substitute Hawk will not be carrying an AESA, AMRAAM, ASRAAM, Meteor and some of our smarter bombs then all it will be good for is parking up at air shows.

[orca]

This might just boil down to whether you think that something is always better than nothing. In the vast majority of cases you would probably be correct. When we are talking about war then you probably aren't.

[t43562]

To make this more interesting: in theory the UK has the choice of the F-35 but if it didn't, and if it had no more Typhoons than it has now, and no friends to buy from what would it do?

Imagine you're the SAAF, facing Mig 23s with Mirages: do you throw up your hands?

[Wander00]

I knew that the Victor was sketched on the back of an envelope (went to a talk once by one of the designers) but never knew of the Hawk's genesis on a napkin. Anyone know, or can tell, more

[Treble one]

ORAC, I had read about and seen plans for the Sea Lightning, but never a model or mock up so thanks for that.

You may be able to remind me (its been a while since I read about this) but were the wings meant to be 'variable geometry' ? I guess the sweep of a Lightning wing doesn't really help to generate lift on launch from a ship! :-) In fact the whole wing looks very different from the F versions?

And as for the over-wing tanks, well they don't half ruin those lovely lines..... What were the proposed wing mounted missiles by the way? Looks like something anti-ship (Martel?)

And it appears to have 2 seats as well?

Lovely model though!

[vascodegama]

And another thing Sten -the GR1 losses in GW1 were due in the main to poor tactics thanks to a threat that had changed. Those Iraqi airfields were some of the most heavily defended targets , much more so than the potential WP airfield targets. Also if I recall none of them went down on a JP233 delivery.

[diginagain]

Lovely model though!

More can be found at:

BAC Sea Lightning (http://www.gengriz.co.uk/sealightning2.htm)

[Treble one]

Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff.

They were Martels-all that reading is paying off.

It would have been some sight seeing that blasting off a catapult from Ark Royal.....

[GreenKnight121]

One change the modeler didn't mention, that seems to have been part of the plan, was replacement of the Avons with "less thirsty, more powerful engines".

To me this means the same Speys as went in the RN's Phantoms - which would bring around a 30% decrease in fuel consumption, as well as commonality of the main engine with the Speys in the Buccaneers.

[typerated]

If the original poster had replaced 'Hawk' with 'Gripen' this thread might have been much more interesting.

[Tashengurt]

Looks like the bastard offspring of a Lightning and Fitter.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[walbut]

Green Knight,

There was not much commonality between the Buccaneer and Phantom Speys. The Phantom had a large turbine variant which was more closely related to the Nimrod engine. The Buccaneer Spey was a small turbine engine. Unfortunately it meant that whenever we wanted more thrust for the Buccaneer the engine diameter jumped up and it would no longer fit through the engine rings.

However, back to the main issue in the thread. All the Hawk fans may be interested to know the RAF are now considering running the T Mk 1 aircraft on till 2025 which will make the earliest aircraft about 50 years old.

Walbut

[GreenKnight121]

Thanks for that - I wonder what was the critical dimension and how much it differed?

Every source I've seen lists the same max diameter for the mk101 in the Bucc, the mk250 in the Nimrod, and the mk201/202/203s in the Phantoms (more for the afterburners of the Phantom engines, of course).

The Nimrod engine is listed as 2.9" longer than the Bucc engine, though.
I've never seen a number for the Phantom engine without the afterburner & tailpipe, only with.