Talk:BAE Systems Hawk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Finnish Hawks

Finnish Air Forces use AIM-9M missiles in their Hawks instead of russian R-60 missiles mentioned in the text. The R-60 missiles were last seen in service back in the 90´s if I remember correct. --88.148.183.3 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that states that? We can't work with original research or rumours! - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Finnish Air Force was forbidden by the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 to possess more than 60 first-line fighter aircraft... No, it was Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. 91.157.130.220 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The FI cite in the article largely covers this, but discusses Finland buying East German MiG-29s, not missiles. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename to: British Aerospace Hawk?

Seeing as BAE Sea Harrier was moved to British Aerospace Sea Harrier some time ago, it appears that normally the dominant historical manufacturer's name takes precidence over the current one if it has been around for a shorter time period, or is less historically attatched to the aircraft. As such, I propose that the more appropriate name for this article is British Aerospace Hawk. Thoughts on this idea? Kyteto (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since one redirects to the other and both are historically correct, I don't see that it matters much. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Shar was finished production when BAE Systems came to be, but that's not the case with the Hawk. We've kept it here so far as as "BAE" covers both "British Aerospace" and "BAE Systems" quite well. But either full company name is OK too - it's really just editorial preference as to which one to list, per the WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that in the last year, someone has shunted this article over to the BAE Systems Hawk name without any discussion. Perhaps this might be worth reexamining as to what name should take precidence. Kyteto (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. I don't see any argument at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming to support BAE Systems over BAE. - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would lean towards keeping it as is as the aircraft is still in production. That said I dont have a major problem if it was moved to British Aerospace Hawk MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the Hawk was the first British military aeroplane designed using metric units rather than imperial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

"Due to the embargo, Zimbabwe has purchased six Chinese Hongdu K-8s, reportedly a 'copy' of the Hawk,..." While the copy statement is from the Guardian, it is just showing the journalist's ignorance - the K8 cannot in the slightest be considered a copy of the Hawk - the basic K-8 is more comparable to a CASA 101, with the Hawk much more powerful, with a significantly higher performance and about twice the maximum take-off weight. The copy statement should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is agreeable; it shall be removed. Kyteto (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

T1A conversions - how many?

The Polmar reference in the text says 89 T1 were converted to T1A, Valley's website says the contract covered 88 aircraft. I guess the discrepancy is a prototype that didn't get delivered to the RAF, but does anyone know for sure? 86.31.193.195 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead

It's primary role is as a trainer, but it is a multirole fighter aircraft. It's role is not what it is. The lead currently doesn't make clear whether the aircraft is a fighter aircraft, attack aircraft, bomber aircraft, multirole fighter aircraft, or any kind of jet aircraft for that matter. It just says "jet-powered advanced trainer", Additionally, it is used for combat roles by some airforces, hence "often employed as an advanced trainer aircraft". Rob984 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hawk is primarily a jet-powered trainer aircraft. The other things are secondary. I'd like to see a source that states it is a multirole fighter. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Jet-powered trainer aircraft" could refer to any kind of jet-powered aircraft, used primarily for training. It's a multirole fighter trainer aircraft. Not simply a jet-powered trainer aircraft. The Hawk 200 was specifically designed as a combat aircraft, as oppose to a trainer.

International Warbirds: An Illustrated Guide to World Military Aircraft by John C. Fredriksen states "In 1986 BAe subsequently designed the Hawk 200, which is a single seat dedicated strike fighter for the Third World".

The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems by Norman Friedman states "APG-66H equips the British Hawk 200 ground-attack aircraft."

Indian Defence Review by Bharat Verma (1997) states "The Hawk is actually part of a family of aircraft which includes the Hawk 200 light fighter, which has the F16's APG-66 radar".

Oman Under Qaboos: From Coup to Constitution, 1970-1996 by Calvin H. Allenstates states "The RAFO's principal combat aircraft consist of Jaguar and Hawk 203 fighter planes".

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. states "Malaysia has a contract with the United States to buy maritime patrol aircraft. Ten Hawk 100 and 18 Hawk 200 fighter/ground attack aircraft have already been delivered".

You can't get much more general then "jet-powered trainer aircraft"...

Rob984 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's "jet-powered advanced trainer aircraft", which is a specific type of trainer,and explained in the added link. Also, the Hawk 200 is a but small fraction of the total sold, roughly 60 of over 1000 total, which is less than 0.6% of the total. Calling the aircraft a "multirole combat fighter, often employed as an advanced trainer aircraft" is highly misleading. That makes seem like a fighter sometimes used as a trainer, instead of what it is, a trainer used occasionally as a combat aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

-Thanks. None of those actually state "multi-role fighter", but two do state that with approximate terms for the Hawk 200 series only. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawk 200 split off

The Hawk 200 text was split off to BAE Hawk 200 today without prior discussion here. Do you think this is fair split? Is there enough content to justify a separate article for this variant? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, the Hawk 200 is just a minor variant that didn't really sell well at all. There's a fair amount of content there, but most of the sources cited aren't reliable sources, and some may be copies of other sites that aren't reliable. It might be salvageable if someone wants to do the work, but if not, it should be redirected back here. - BilCat (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing in the Hawk 200 article is a real problem - I note that the specifications are cited to a website that doesn't actually list specifications for the Hawk 200, and appears to be an unacknowledged copy of Greg Goebels page on the Hawk - compare [1] with [2], and some of the quoted specification are clearly wrong - it is claimed that when fitted with a refuelling probe, that it is longer than without, despite the fact that the Hawk's probe does not extend beyond the nose. The article claims that the Hawk 200 is still in production despite the fact that none have been completed since 2002 at the latest. I don't really see the need for a separate article for the Hawk 200, just as there isn't a need for a separate article for the single seat version of the Aermacchi MB-326.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Even citing Goebels directly isn't much better, as his sites aren't reliable sources either. Reliable sources do exist, so that can be fixed if so desired. However, having an article for a variant that amounted to less than 0.6% of the total of Hawks produced is probably unnecessary. It seems as if the article was created solely to inflate the variants importance and/ or the importance of the users, primarily the RMAF. Neither the aircraft nor the air forces are all that significant, and Malaysia uses more-capable aircraft anyway. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it would be better if it was merged back into the main article - while there may be quite a bit more to be written about the 200 than was in the pre-split article, it needs to be sourced properly, while remerging will allow the aircraft to be seen in its proper context - i.e. as a variant of the Hawk, closely related to the Hawk 100 series.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Incident with a Hawk, the article should be updated

https://www.rt.com/uk/421826-red-arrows-jet-crashes/ (I don't have the know how to update the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.208.163.57 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, to me it seems odd that there's no section on safety record and accidents, whereas most commercial aircraft do seem to have such sections.

Is it a Wikipedia convention (and a wise one - or not?!) to omit those sections for 'military' aircraft? No doubt those who know how can look up the WP guidelines and relevant Portal.

The BBC reported an RAF Hawk T1 crashed today at RNAS Culdrose (HMS Seahawk). Trafford09 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Most Hawk crashes are not particularly noteworthy for inclusion including the one today. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at WP:AIRCRASH. BilCat (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Australia operation

Not sure if it was missed whoever wrote the article, but Australia does use this aircraft. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And it is in the article in several places. Did you read it? BilCat (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Where is it made?

The aircraft used to be made at BAE Brough, but that has mostly closed. Where is it / would it be made in future? FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)