Hawk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
) 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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stendec5, you are describing an F-16. Against modern SAMs though it won't survive. Hence why the smart people are buying F-35.
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...
Why do people even respond? I'm almost ashamed that I have...
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Always wondered what the Lightning would have been like with range, modern avionics and more missiles......BAC Sea Lightning
Last edited by ORAC; 9th Mar 2014 at 11:24.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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...
Why do people even respond? I'm almost ashamed that I have...
-RP
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?
And Rhino's an old knucklehead who would know.
Edit to ask:
are USAF/Marine fast jet drivers also known as Knucks?
Last edited by tartare; 9th Mar 2014 at 10:53.
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?
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?
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
OAP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Did I Tell You I Was A Harrier Pilot
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk
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.
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.