Special Tail Navy Hawk

The issue was not Hawk > Goshawk
Rather it was Goshawk > Goshawk-100/200 versus AMX-ATA2 > Naval AMX

& the airbrake is split & relocated to the sides of the rear fuselage to make space for the aresstor hook, u/c legs are different, nose u/c is twin wheel with a catapult facility & engine is more powerful.

Call me old fashioned, but I’d prefer to see a Sea Harrier flying about with “100 years of naval aviation” on the side. Alas not, they were removed from frontline service and some were sold or scrapped, some stored and a few kept alive-ish for taxying type training at Culdrose.

Suffice to say, it was still in service RN fixed wing aviation would be in a far better state. As discussed at huge length on PPRuNe on/in the Sea Jet thread. I think the RN still owns the blue display aircraft with 899 NAS marking, it would have been nice to see that flying again.

Bah! But the Sea Harrier will be involved in Fly Navy 100 events, as reported by Navy News.

Although the carrier will not be open to the general public during her stay at Greenwich (due to the logistics of ferrying people back and forth from the riverbank), there will be an ‘aircraft park’ in the grounds of the Old Naval College with a Gazelle, Lynx Mk3, Sea Harrier and Sea King on display, plus a Merlin simulator, a Royal Navy display stand, and the RN’s hot air balloon. Admission is free.

On the topic of the T45 Goshawk, you might be surprised at the number of modifications needed for naval use. Even the Adour engine needed modifying, as did the associated ground support equipment.

Yet, the Hawk (T-45) is available in a Naval Version. The AMX is not and would require a far more extensive modifications. For Naval use………

Well, that all depends on how much modification is actually required….

Besides, don’t underestimate the work needed to turn the T-45 trainer into a T-45-100/200 either (e.g. wing strengthening to go from just 2 underwing hardpoints to 4 plus 2 wingtip rails – combat wing – as well as a fuselage centreline hardpoint, the nosejob, the taller tailfin, different cockpit/avionics…)

Wonder how much effort it would be to navalize the Aermacchi M346.
The original Yak-130 had some preparations for a possible future carrier version.

Which would in that case likely prefer a derivative of the local AMX-ATA, for obvious reasons.

Yet, the Hawk (T-45) is available in a Naval Version. The AMX is not and would require a far more extensive modifications. For Naval use………

Would be a perfect solution for the Brazilian Navy!:D

Which would in that case likely prefer a derivative of the local AMX-ATA, for obvious reasons.

I’ve long fancied the idea of mating the Hawk 200 nose/cockpit and weapon system with the T-45 fuselage to produce a lightweight low cost naval combat aircraft…;):diablo::D

Would be a perfect solution for the Brazilian Navy!:D

The T-45 wing (unique to the Goshawk) is designed for just 2 stations, total.

No weapons capability (just fuel) so you would need to build another new wing for your “Combat Goshawks”.

Yes, it’s a nice idea, but it’s running out of carriers to fly from. The A-4s of Argentina & Brazil should last long enough for Sao Paulo. Now, if someone was to fancy building small CTOL carriers, you could be onto something, but I don’t expect that to happen.

I’ve long fancied the idea of mating the Hawk 200 nose/cockpit and weapon system with the T-45 fuselage to produce a lightweight low cost naval combat aircraft…;):diablo::D

A Very interesting idea mate and one I too have thought about over the years- perhaps with the AF-1’s and Etendards running out of life down in South America, something of these could be useful as replacements- heck the two seaters are already flying so they only have to develop these right?

IF (note that is a BIG if) the RN get its big carriers….and by some miracle of common sense got to cats and arrestor gear, woulf the RN purchase a few T-45s?

doubt it, the new military flying training is going to be done mostly with simulators & at the moment 28 hawk 128’s [Hawk T2 in RAF terms]

Latest news [rumour] is that all Navy Hawks will receive this tail paint – watch this space.

.

the full news is only 7 have got this tail fin paint job, 🙂

I look after these FRADU Hawks & all 7 are now back in service after the piant shop visit, all the navy hawks are operated by us on FRADU & they are on long term loan from the RAF.

I’ve long fancied the idea of mating the Hawk 200 nose/cockpit and weapon system with the T-45 fuselage to produce a lightweight low cost naval combat aircraft…;):diablo::D

I recently read a comparison of Alpha Jets to Hawks (by a pilot and instructor who had flown in and instrcuted in both). His overall thoughts were that AlphaJet was a better aircraft to fly (payload, power, range) but that Hawk was a better trainer (for precisely those reasons it enforced flying disciplines much more effectively) so marinised Hawk 200 might not be the effective COMBAT aircraft that it looks at first sight.

I do like the idea of a STOVL version though. Maybe we could name it after some form of native raptor which hovers (merlin, kestrel, harrier, something like that 🙂 anyway)

Al

For training purposes possibly, though I think it more likley we would sign a contract with the US to put our pilots through their training program rather than duplicate their capabilities. The Americans used to train enough aircrew for 15 flat tops, now it’s only 11. Add the needs of two British carrier air groups and there would still be some slack in the system. Provided we paid the cost of training our crews over there I don’t think there would be a problem. The RN already operates some Hawks, so adding another sqns worth might not be a great hurdle. If we do go down the CTOL path for CVF, the the T-45 is the logical choice, however we end up using it.

As I said previously it would probably be cheaper to tap into American facilities, as you said they have the slack to support their own pilots as well as French, Brazillian, Indian (and Argentine?) as well.

Same would probably go for the LSO, the synthetic training aids America has to train LSO is amazing.

IF (note that is a BIG if) the RN get its big carriers….and by some miracle of common sense got to cats and arrestor gear, woulf the RN purchase a few T-45s?

For training purposes possibly, though I think it more likley we would sign a contract with the US to put our pilots through their training program rather than duplicate their capabilities. The Americans used to train enough aircrew for 15 flat tops, now it’s only 11. Add the needs of two British carrier air groups and there would still be some slack in the system. Provided we paid the cost of training our crews over there I don’t think there would be a problem. The RN already operates some Hawks, so adding another sqns worth might not be a great hurdle. If we do go down the CTOL path for CVF, the the T-45 is the logical choice, however we end up using it.

IF (note that is a BIG if) the RN get its big carriers….and by some miracle of common sense got to cats and arrestor gear, woulf the RN purchase a few T-45s?

Not really worth it logistically or financially, we would do what the French and Brazillians do and send our pilots to America.

IF (note that is a BIG if) the RN get its big carriers….and by some miracle of common sense got to cats and arrestor gear, woulf the RN purchase a few T-45s?

Any chance of a STOVL version?

Yes. It’s called a Harrier. Think there’s some ‘runners’ down in Kernow…;):D