BAE Systems Hawk Replacement?
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,532
From: Near the coast
Shore Leave
BV
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 331
From: Royal Berkshire
I don't think anyone seriously expects it to be 'next year' until the year that photo's start to appear of an actual real prototype airframe is seen to be in assembly.....
Now which year that will be (if ever) and then maybe that year +1 will be the real 'next year'
Now which year that will be (if ever) and then maybe that year +1 will be the real 'next year'
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,143
Likes: 5,739
From: Falling off the end of the thread
if you couldn’t drink it, you could strip paint with it.
Joined: Jun 2006
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 957
Likes: 786
From: 350/3 Compton
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,429
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
Aeralis; having a design that never has a design freeze must be a draw card when there is no faith in the system knowing if they want silk purses or sows ears. Does seem to assure having twice the development costs for a design that was not optimal to any specific design point in the first place. If it at least standardised landing gear, actuators etc, then maybe it wouldn't seem to wishy-washy. Fabricating the wrapper for the systems is not the hard part, it is everything else, and designing multiple variants of that is not cheap.
The Hawk itself is not a bad aircraft, didn't need the triple jointed midget like most British designs used to require for maintenance, but RR needs to spend some more time on getting their blenders to be a bit more reliable.
The Hawk itself is not a bad aircraft, didn't need the triple jointed midget like most British designs used to require for maintenance, but RR needs to spend some more time on getting their blenders to be a bit more reliable.
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 804
Likes: 96
From: UK
Calm down, its another 6 weeks or so until April Fools day.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 536
Likes: 71
From: Overseas
Aeralis... please no. Untested, unproven concept design that won't work in practice. Buy something that's designed to do one thing well and can be used as an advanced trainer, not some corporate-boardroom "good idea".
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 49
From: The 24th & a Half Century
The more you scratch at the surface the more you wonder if it’s one giant Ponzi scheme…..Siemens have fallen for it as have Standard Aero 🙄
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 49
From: The 24th & a Half Century
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 3
From: Hunched over a keyboard
Maybe new-build Hawk T1s with updated avionics might be a good idea. You know, that radical concept of "buy something that actually works and has a proven track record"
Kind of like: The best replacement for a Hercules is a new Hercules
Kind of like: The best replacement for a Hercules is a new Hercules
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 253
From: London/Oxford/New York
Evertonian
Joined: May 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 13,470
Likes: 278
From: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Joined: Oct 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 800
Likes: 171
From: Land of Oz
BUSTER, you are being a bit harsh on the RAAF !!
The PC-21 is our basic and advanced trainer for pilot training.
But the image you have attached is in its other role, as a FAC.
Then for the LIF role, we use the Hawk 127 - but itself getting long in the tooth at 25 years.
The PC-21 is our basic and advanced trainer for pilot training.
But the image you have attached is in its other role, as a FAC.
Then for the LIF role, we use the Hawk 127 - but itself getting long in the tooth at 25 years.
