Talk:BAE Systems Hawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

How fast

The article says The Hawk 60 is the current export version...... and is capable of Mach 1.2 -- but the box on the right lists a max speed of 633mph. Which should be amended? Moriori 21:50, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK, no answer. I'll amend the box to Mach 1.2. Moriori 01:18, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be late but I added an external link to a BAE SYS page. And there is "Max.Level Speed 545kt/0.82M". Also, the engine Adour Mk 861 seems non-afterburning (see [1], please) and I thought an aircraft with non-afterburning turbofan engine can hardly achieve supersonic (I mean, F/A-22 can). I don't know why User:DJ Clayworth wrote that but I guess this aircraft can't achieve supersonic. --Marsian 02:58, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Hi Marsian. Because these figures can sometimes be confusing, I e-mailed BAE and asked for a definitive figure. They replied The maximum level speed of Hawk at altitude is 555 knots or Mach 0.84. However, the aircraft is capable of achieving a maximum of Mach 1.2.,so I have amended the article accordingly. Cheers. Moriori 22:22, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply but thanks for asking. - Marsian / talk 07:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Speed

The Hawk is NOT capable of supersonic speed in level flight. Mach 1.2 is the dive limit, the maximum never-exceed speed for the airframe. It IS capable of exceeding the speed of sound in a fairly shallow dive, so the airframe is Area ruled to minimize transonic drag. That's a plus for training, because it introduces pilots to transonic handling without the cost of operating a true supersonic trainer, and it's a useful capability in the light attack role as well. ArgentLA 11 Jan 2005

I see. That makes sense. Thanks. - Marsian / talk 07:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This article does not conform to Wikipedia standards. It sounds like an advertisement and suffers from hyperbole; the capability of the aircraft is a bit exaggerated.

The above comment does not conform to Wikipedia standards. It is unsigned, placed under the wrong topic, and it sounds like an advertisement for the Alpha Jet. -- BillCJ 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hawk 60 and 60A

What is the difference between the 60 and the 60As?

Initially I thought the 60As were the ones that are Sidewonder capable. However, I have come across photos of Zimbabwe's Hawks, dated 1982 with Sidewinders next (not mounted) to them. I also know that in 85 Zimbabwe scrambled 2 Hawks to chase what turned out to be a UFO. Back then Zimbabwe only had Hawk 60. It there suggests to me that the 60s were air defence capable.

Anybody with information?

Thanks.

World Air Power Journal Vol 22 says "In 1990 a follow-up order was placed for a further five Hawk T Mk 60As to the later export build standard". The design had probably had a lot of minor mods in the ten-years between deliveries.

T-45 origins

The article had unsourced statments of the T-45 being based on the Hawk Mk.50. I have changed this to Mk.60. I have three sources from two different publishers, plus [2], which state that it was developed from the Mk.60. I have added a tag for the time being. - BillCJ 18:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No contest. Removing tag. - BillCJ 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Crash

Pilot ejects as RAF jet crash-lands [solo flight then?] Press Association Friday April 20, 2007 2:18 PM

An RAF jet has crash-landed at an airfield in North Wales.

The Hawk plane came down at around 12.25pm at Mona airfield, in Valley, Anglesey.

A spokesman for the Welsh Ambulance Service said the pilot was airlifted to Gwynedd Hospital in Bangor after ejecting from the plane.

The spokesman said no details were available about his condition.

Dennis Morris, 68, who lives near the airfield, said he saw the pilot lying motionless in a field.

He said: "He looked quite badly injured and he wasn't moving. I heard the crash - it sounded like a horrendous car crash but I knew what it was straight away.

"I looked out of the window and saw a person lying, obviously injured, in the field. The plane was in two very badly damaged pieces, with bits scattered all around. The ejector seat was in a tree."

A spokesman for North Wales Fire and Rescue Service said four fire engines and two emergency tenders were called to the scene.

According to the Mona Flying Club website, RAF Mona acts as the relief landing ground for RAF Valley, and is used by student and instructor pilots to practise flying airfield circuits.

RAF Valley is a Royal Air Force station on the island of Anglesey which provides advanced pilot training using the BAE Hawks

Is there a relevance for this unsigned comment above, nothing new in the press statement and not the first Hawk to crash, not really a notable event.MilborneOne 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Design / avionics

Doesn't this article need a sub-section on design features including engines, avionics and cockpit? Currently the cockpit is not even mentioned. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Any aircraft article that doesn't have a Design section and you can add one, go for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, it looks like there's operational history in the design/development section (shouldn't the Red Arrows be under RAF operational history?) and there's also design/development info under variants. What's the general policy for variants - do they get their own sections with their own developments detailed there, or should there be sections in design/development for each variant? Looking at the example Messerschmitt Me 163 it looks like it should be the latter. I'm willing to have a go, if the COI doesn't worry people. (I'm proud of the a/c, but don't work there any more, so I can fairly NPOV) MadScot (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some articles have more info in the variants sections like that. Going too far that way makes it harder to follow, I think. The Boeing 747 article was like that, but we added a summary of the later variants to the development section about a year ago. I'll try to move some of that info. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fast Jet Training / Initial Jet Training

I have reverted the last revision, so that the second sentence of the Development section reads:

The SEPECAT Jaguar was originally intended for this role, but it was soon realised that it would be too complex an aircraft for fast jet training.

Fast jet training is the correct term. Initial jet training could be understood to refer to the training conducted by the RAF on the Jet Provost, and so this term is incorrect - neither the Hawk nor the Gnat are the initial jet aircraft used for training. MadScot (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be properly referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the RAf Website the current terms used are "Basic Fast Jet Training" (which, incongruously, uses the Shorts Tucano Turboprop aircraft) and "Advanced Fast Jet Training" for the Hawk courses. However these are not the terms necessarily used in the late 1960s, and a reference which points to current training organisation is inappropriate for the development section. I'm pretty sure I have a print reference at home which will provide the precise terminology used at the time, and will add it when I get the chance.

To be honest, the statements about the Jaguar being considered "too complex" are far more in need of referencing than the terminology of the training courses; I'll see if that is covrered too.

Disclosure- I used to work for BAe on the Hawk. MadScot (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I did not doubt you. There are things in the article that are should be better referenced is all. You can use different, simpler wording as long as it conveys the same message. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a couple of print refs, and also the original name (Tercel) from Arthur Reed's book.MadScot (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good stuff. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the original Jaguar proposal included the trainer/light attack role, but as the design grew more complex, this requirement was dropped, whatever it was called. I'll try to find a source that details this. - BillCJ (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's my recollection too, and I think the French used it more as a trainer than the RAF did. But my Hawk refs didn't go into specifics for jaguar. MadScot (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing 'vanished'

I put here the editing deleted by Mr. BillCJ. As always he has no questions to pose, just delete and goes.

The main reason overall is the powerful turbofan engine, coupled with a moderate angled wing. Adour turbofan was similar to the ones in Jaguar (without A/B), and were preferred to the R.R. Viper in 1972. Trust and wing allowed to outperform the most of concorrence, apart from Alpha Jet (bi-engined). While Macchi MB.326 was the best of its generation, and the most european sold in this category, the next step, MB.339, wasn't awarded with the same success. The reason was the evolution of the training system: Macchi has a wide range of employ, from basic to advanced-operative training, but its turbo-jet engine has an high fuel consumption. The 'all jet-training', starting with the '70s, was less and less liked, so the right-wing and pure turbojet engine (less performances and endurance). RAF, instead, adopted Hawk and later, Tucano. This is another way to train: a powerful turbo-shaft and an advanced/operative trainer, to couver all the tasks, up to first line duties (as the 88 T Mk.1A adapted for AIM-9 Sidewinder). As light fighter, Hawk is capable to hold up to 3 t of stores and a 30 mm gunpod; it was even tested in a 1.454 kmh dive at 900 m (1,2 mach), and is capable to reach 9.100 m in mere 6 minutes. The turbo-fan engine allows to reach very long range. With 1.704 l internal fuel load, and two external tanks (455-864 l) Hawk Mk.1A is capable of a 3.150 km endurance (Mk.60 with 1.700 external fuel: over 4.000 km). The range with 4 1.000 lbs bombs and 130 30 mm rounds is 550-930 km (depending on the sources). MB.339A, as example, is capable of 370 km with 4 Mk 82 bombs. This explain how Hawk (and Alpha Jet) are a clear step forward as operational capabilities and its success in the '70-'90s.

So i stay to see IF there are problem with this. Seen as Hawk page is so miserable as tecnical details this should be added.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

---

It seems there is still a sort of resistence when someone not-anglosaxon author makes modiphics on aircraft pages like this.

But, that's time to put things clear.

Instead to blame my editing, it would be much more reasonable to call 'incomprensible' this article. Why?

• Because, basically, it is not said what kind of impact BAe Hawk had. There is not comparation with other trainers, nor training philosophy (turboprop+high performance trainer vs all-jet syllabus)
• It's totally unclear what kind of employ the Hawk had in service. Only bits of information about this aspect: what was and is the syllabus? How many hours are required to train a pilot with Hawks? I know how many were needed, and i know the syllabus, BUT who reads this page don't knows nothing
• The tecnical section, and the tecnical evolution are simply substandards, too much leaves to desire. Lack of almost all the stuff needed.

So it's ridicolous continuing to revert my edits, just because i am trying to evolve this article in something that have a reasonably explanaition of what it is talk about. How you can pretend that a reader could understand the differences between, let's say, MB.326 or 339 or L-39 or C-101 syllabus and Tucano+Hawk? This is not without impact. Hawk, and many more aircrafts, are explained, apparently, 'because they are and we must do it'. Not a real effort to let know to the reader anything apart very basic information, nothing that really explains and relativize this model in its times. And it wuold be worthing a very bigger effort than now. Since B-17s page has over 100 kb (and a lot, lot of other aircrafts are over 50 kb), it wuold be the space to grow very much this article. IF there is the will to do it.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As example, a good article is this: Bristol_Beaufort. In it's relatively small dimensions, has spoken almost is needed to know this aircraft. Just as example of what kind of service could be done by wikipedia when there is the will to do it better.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)