Future of the Hawk...
Thread Starter
Future of the Hawk...
Attended interesting lecture last night by a senior airworthiness engineer from BAe Brough.
(1) After the current order of T2 Hawks for Qatar is complete, the production line will be closed.
(2) The Out Of Service Date for T1 is 2030, T2 2040
(3) BAe have had discussions with MOD about building 12 jets for RAFAT. No progress (or order) was ever made. His feeling is that RAFAT has 10 years and that's it...
(4) There are no plans for any replacement aircraft, they think by 2040 training will all be done on simulators, Typhoon will be winding down and Tempest will be umanned...
They will continue to make money by updating existing airframes with new avionics and new wing.
(1) After the current order of T2 Hawks for Qatar is complete, the production line will be closed.
(2) The Out Of Service Date for T1 is 2030, T2 2040
(3) BAe have had discussions with MOD about building 12 jets for RAFAT. No progress (or order) was ever made. His feeling is that RAFAT has 10 years and that's it...
(4) There are no plans for any replacement aircraft, they think by 2040 training will all be done on simulators, Typhoon will be winding down and Tempest will be umanned...
They will continue to make money by updating existing airframes with new avionics and new wing.
Last edited by Nige321; 17th Jan 2020 at 22:08.
Hmmmm, that sounds very much like talking ones industry out of existence. One thing is for sure, if they drop out of making a decent trainer product, there will be greater difficulty in getting back into it. I can foresee a situation where, 5 years after losing touch, they miss the next wave of demand! 
OAP
OAP
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a recognition, particularly after not getting the new US T-X contract, that the competition is significant now, and future sales less likely. M346 and T-X have a lot more future potential than the Hawk, though it's had a very good run now. Production volumes for T-X should keep unit prices low, which would make life for Hawk.
I would imagine they are hoping for orders on the Advanced Hawk (referred to internally at HAL as the Combat Hawk) the significant Hawk upgrade being offered by Hindustan/BAe, but I have my doubts they will get any even at the HAL price point.
As ever, on matters Hawk I will defer to Bob V.
As ever, on matters Hawk I will defer to Bob V.
Thread Starter
Some interesting film shown of the Advanced Hawk being flown solo from the back seat, as well as some in-flight clips of the front cockpit set up with F35 style wide-screen LCD panel...
Last edited by Nige321; 17th Jan 2020 at 22:21.
A new engine too, the Adour 951. RR have worked wonders developing the Adour over the last 50 years and I have always wondered if it was feasible to redesign the Hawk to take an AB version of the Adour such as the now retired Mk106. Fanciful perhaps but just imagine what a sprightly performer it would be with 50% more thrust combined with that new wing.
If nothing else the quality of the original design still shines through.
If nothing else the quality of the original design still shines through.
Thread Starter
Brilliant design and sold very well but I've always had the feeling that not enough was invested to keep improving it after about 1990
Reheated Hawks were common design studies on aerospace design courses in the 90s - they ended up as twice the size, three times the weight and looked like a single engined two seat low wing jag.
BA/BY
The smoke pod location has already been bagged.
The centerline tank is an excellent addition but it doesn’t add enough to fuel an afterburning engine. Even drop tanks wouldn’t give enough to help and the additional drag and weight would defeat the whole purpose of the AB.
BV
The centerline tank is an excellent addition but it doesn’t add enough to fuel an afterburning engine. Even drop tanks wouldn’t give enough to help and the additional drag and weight would defeat the whole purpose of the AB.
BV
Given all that information and mildly knowing how the RAF works (or doesn't!) that lecture has sealed the fate of both the Hawks and RAFAT in their current state right up to 2060 or longer.
The smoke pod location has already been bagged.
The centerline tank is an excellent addition but it doesn’t add enough to fuel an afterburning engine. Even drop tanks wouldn’t give enough to help and the additional drag and weight would defeat the whole purpose of the AB.
BV
The centerline tank is an excellent addition but it doesn’t add enough to fuel an afterburning engine. Even drop tanks wouldn’t give enough to help and the additional drag and weight would defeat the whole purpose of the AB.
BV
what are your thoughts on the new gen of trainers and their requirements (FBW, Leading edge slats, AB, performance etc) when compared to the flight performance of the T2. How much (if any) does it add?
FH
I’ll try to keep it short since I have probably discussed this before.
The Hawk is great at what it does. As a trainer it really is an excellent platform especially in the T2 spec. Good IP visibility from the back seat, great avionics, good endurance and good enough performance for what it needs to do.
The 346 is a beautiful and very agile jet but very fuel limited.
The T-X is also beautiful but obviously I have no first hand experience of it.
The T-50 likewise.
Of all the previous, in service types (T-38, Alphajet etc) I would take the Hawk every day of the week.
As I always say in conversations such as this, if it is a trainer you want then that should be your focus. If you want a light fighter then stick to that. When you try to blend the two you can end up spending more money than it would cost to buy some F16s!
For example, I personally don’t see why students need to learn things like BFM at 6G plus. Teach them the basics at lower G. High G for prolonged periods is very fatiguing and when students are first learning they will struggle to take anything on board if they are just trying to stay awake. You will also break your instructors if they have to do that twice a day every day. The students can do the high G stuff on their next jet once they have a better understanding of the mechanics of air combat.
Lets be honest, the USAF was never going to replace their twin engine after burning trainer (T-38) with a single engine dry power jet. In my cynical view I think the spec (the bit about sustained G at 10000’) was written so as to exclude Hawk.
I also know that the modern way is to use synthetics instead of live flying. There are some very good pieces of kit out there nowadays and, when used properly, they can teach some lessons way better that you ever could in a jet.
It can absolutely work. Up to a point. My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you that simulators can replace live training are either trying to sell one or they have swallowed the loyalty pill that means they have to pretend they believe it.
Simulators should supplement, not replace live flying.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. Others may vary.
BV
The Hawk is great at what it does. As a trainer it really is an excellent platform especially in the T2 spec. Good IP visibility from the back seat, great avionics, good endurance and good enough performance for what it needs to do.
The 346 is a beautiful and very agile jet but very fuel limited.
The T-X is also beautiful but obviously I have no first hand experience of it.
The T-50 likewise.
Of all the previous, in service types (T-38, Alphajet etc) I would take the Hawk every day of the week.
As I always say in conversations such as this, if it is a trainer you want then that should be your focus. If you want a light fighter then stick to that. When you try to blend the two you can end up spending more money than it would cost to buy some F16s!
For example, I personally don’t see why students need to learn things like BFM at 6G plus. Teach them the basics at lower G. High G for prolonged periods is very fatiguing and when students are first learning they will struggle to take anything on board if they are just trying to stay awake. You will also break your instructors if they have to do that twice a day every day. The students can do the high G stuff on their next jet once they have a better understanding of the mechanics of air combat.
Lets be honest, the USAF was never going to replace their twin engine after burning trainer (T-38) with a single engine dry power jet. In my cynical view I think the spec (the bit about sustained G at 10000’) was written so as to exclude Hawk.
I also know that the modern way is to use synthetics instead of live flying. There are some very good pieces of kit out there nowadays and, when used properly, they can teach some lessons way better that you ever could in a jet.
It can absolutely work. Up to a point. My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you that simulators can replace live training are either trying to sell one or they have swallowed the loyalty pill that means they have to pretend they believe it.
Simulators should supplement, not replace live flying.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. Others may vary.
BV
I’ll try to keep it short since I have probably discussed this before.
The Hawk is great at what it does. As a trainer it really is an excellent platform especially in the T2 spec. Good IP visibility from the back seat, great avionics, good endurance and good enough performance for what it needs to do.
The 346 is a beautiful and very agile jet but very fuel limited.
The T-X is also beautiful but obviously I have no first hand experience of it.
The T-50 likewise.
Of all the previous, in service types (T-38, Alphajet etc) I would take the Hawk every day of the week.
As I always say in conversations such as this, if it is a trainer you want then that should be your focus. If you want a light fighter then stick to that. When you try to blend the two you can end up spending more money than it would cost to buy some F16s!
For example, I personally don’t see why students need to learn things like BFM at 6G plus. Teach them the basics at lower G. High G for prolonged periods is very fatiguing and when students are first learning they will struggle to take anything on board if they are just trying to stay awake. You will also break your instructors if they have to do that twice a day every day. The students can do the high G stuff on their next jet once they have a better understanding of the mechanics of air combat.
Lets be honest, the USAF was never going to replace their twin engine after burning trainer (T-38) with a single engine dry power jet. In my cynical view I think the spec (the bit about sustained G at 10000’) was written so as to exclude Hawk.
I also know that the modern way is to use synthetics instead of live flying. There are some very good pieces of kit out there nowadays and, when used properly, they can teach some lessons way better that you ever could in a jet.
It can absolutely work. Up to a point. My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you that simulators can replace live training are either trying to sell one or they have swallowed the loyalty pill that means they have to pretend they believe it.
Simulators should supplement, not replace live flying.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. Others may vary.
BV
The Hawk is great at what it does. As a trainer it really is an excellent platform especially in the T2 spec. Good IP visibility from the back seat, great avionics, good endurance and good enough performance for what it needs to do.
The 346 is a beautiful and very agile jet but very fuel limited.
The T-X is also beautiful but obviously I have no first hand experience of it.
The T-50 likewise.
Of all the previous, in service types (T-38, Alphajet etc) I would take the Hawk every day of the week.
As I always say in conversations such as this, if it is a trainer you want then that should be your focus. If you want a light fighter then stick to that. When you try to blend the two you can end up spending more money than it would cost to buy some F16s!
For example, I personally don’t see why students need to learn things like BFM at 6G plus. Teach them the basics at lower G. High G for prolonged periods is very fatiguing and when students are first learning they will struggle to take anything on board if they are just trying to stay awake. You will also break your instructors if they have to do that twice a day every day. The students can do the high G stuff on their next jet once they have a better understanding of the mechanics of air combat.
Lets be honest, the USAF was never going to replace their twin engine after burning trainer (T-38) with a single engine dry power jet. In my cynical view I think the spec (the bit about sustained G at 10000’) was written so as to exclude Hawk.
I also know that the modern way is to use synthetics instead of live flying. There are some very good pieces of kit out there nowadays and, when used properly, they can teach some lessons way better that you ever could in a jet.
It can absolutely work. Up to a point. My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you that simulators can replace live training are either trying to sell one or they have swallowed the loyalty pill that means they have to pretend they believe it.
Simulators should supplement, not replace live flying.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. Others may vary.
BV
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I don't know, perhaps celebrating getting close to 50 years sterling service from what was a great design in 1974, and then delivering a state of the art next gen trainer might be a more successful strategy for staying in the defence aircraft business? Just a thought...
ASRAAM
I am saying Hawk BFM is a perfect intro. It can achieve 6G obviously (and higher) but it doesn’t sustain it.
The T1 used to merge at 420+ kts and could happily sustain 8G for the first 180/360 degrees depending on height below.
The T2 has combat flap and merges below 350 knots which means less G but a better instantaneous and sustained rate of G with a smaller radius.
The G at the merge is not a problem. Both types of Hawk, once the first turn is done, will settle down at 3-4G sustained (depending on base height) and this is where a lot of the learning takes place. When a fight drags on for several minutes, fatigue will set in if the whole thing is done at 6G+.
Once a student has progressed to an OCU they will understand the rigours of air combat and will be better prepared for the G.
Of course, they will also have better G protection and therefore won’t be working as hard.
If a training jet that sustains high G also has full body G protection then maybe I’d change my tune a little.
I think we are actually in agreement.
BV
The T1 used to merge at 420+ kts and could happily sustain 8G for the first 180/360 degrees depending on height below.
The T2 has combat flap and merges below 350 knots which means less G but a better instantaneous and sustained rate of G with a smaller radius.
The G at the merge is not a problem. Both types of Hawk, once the first turn is done, will settle down at 3-4G sustained (depending on base height) and this is where a lot of the learning takes place. When a fight drags on for several minutes, fatigue will set in if the whole thing is done at 6G+.
Once a student has progressed to an OCU they will understand the rigours of air combat and will be better prepared for the G.
Of course, they will also have better G protection and therefore won’t be working as hard.
If a training jet that sustains high G also has full body G protection then maybe I’d change my tune a little.
I think we are actually in agreement.
BV
After my flying “career” was over I spent a few years in the simulator world, instructing in a state of the art device and I agree with Bob. We never claimed that we could replace flying but we could make each flying hour much more valuable. We could also do things in the sim that simply were not possible in live flying. The choice was often not “shall we do this in the sim or the aircraft” but “shall we do it in the sim or not at all”.
The other problem with the synthetic only route is the physical demands of FJ flying. 5 years or so after my last flight in the jet I was lucky enough to get a pax ride. “This” I thought “will be no problem at all, I instruct in the sim every day, and I’m in the sim cockpit pretty often, I’m all over this” . What a shock! By the time I had all the winter gear on and had clambered into the cockpit I was already suffering. After a fairly benign hour long trip I was wrecked. Traditional simulators cannot reproduce that and even the new centrifuge/ sim at Cranwell only goes some of the way.
The other problem with the synthetic only route is the physical demands of FJ flying. 5 years or so after my last flight in the jet I was lucky enough to get a pax ride. “This” I thought “will be no problem at all, I instruct in the sim every day, and I’m in the sim cockpit pretty often, I’m all over this” . What a shock! By the time I had all the winter gear on and had clambered into the cockpit I was already suffering. After a fairly benign hour long trip I was wrecked. Traditional simulators cannot reproduce that and even the new centrifuge/ sim at Cranwell only goes some of the way.