Hawk
Stendec
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
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I can't remember who exactly that was but I think they were from just west of Preston.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Although I am a complete ignoramus about such subjects...
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
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
Hawk
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk
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.
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.
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.
multi role, multi weapon delivery system. We actually had them coming into service until this short sighted government scrapped the Nimrod MRA4.
Bob Viking
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
Rgds
TO
Hawk
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
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
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Onceapilot,
Was it Sherman or Grant that said "Get there firstest, with the mostest"?
Just remind me. Did the Russians beat Germany with Quality or Quantity?