Register here

Author Topic: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer  (Read 7053 times)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« on: September 23, 2006, 10:09:13 am »
BAC studied two projects for the RAF basic trainer requirement, P.59 and P.62. P.59 was designed around a single Viper 600 turbofan. Speed Mach 0.9, 5,000lb warload. P.62 was designed around a reheated Adour turbofan. BAC were "soft-pedalling" P.62, as it was higher cost.

Source:
Air Enthusiast August 1971
« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 10:12:56 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2006, 02:03:36 am »
Minor correction, Viper 600 is a turbojet, same engine as used in late-model MB.326s & all MB.339s and Super Galebs among other aircraft.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2006, 04:22:10 am »
My typo.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2007, 04:04:15 am »
Has anyone got a 3-view of the BAC P59?  I ahve hunted through various mags from the 70s to no avail. There must be a brochure out there somewhere.

UK 75

Online Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2007, 07:43:26 am »
Braybrook's 1984 Hawk book and Peter R March's 1995 Hawk Comes of Age book both have GAs, IIRC. Both boxed somewhere, but I can dig out if needs be in a day or two.
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2007, 12:56:33 pm »
"Only stupid man are tidy, the genius rules the chaos !"

I've found it at once ...     :D

(from Roy Braybrook "Hawk" )
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Online hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22578

Online hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22578
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2014, 05:48:21 am »
Hi,


I heard also the Scottish Aviation submitted a proposal to this tender,but I am not sure
about that.


Here is the Hawker HS.1182 Model.

Offline c460

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 395
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2015, 10:14:32 am »
Another view of the BAC P.59 model, exhibited at Le Bourget 1971, from Aviation Magazine 565.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 10:16:17 am by c460 »

Offline alertken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 510
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2015, 02:15:40 am »
This procurement was important far beyond the Gnat T.1 replacement Requirement. Until early-1970 that had already been determined as Jaguar 'B'. But in late-69 NATO had settled upon a battlefield nuclear policy of scattering bangs <200kt over FRG: UK elected to offer a UK weapon for that (to be WE.177C) and to fit it to not-F-4M in order to display commitment to Europe as a "second centre" of nuclear decision-making (this was all to do with France-not-in NATO nuclear councils, UK wanting to be in EEC...) Just as Labour was about to lose 5/70 Election, Def.Minister Healey chose to recast UK's 200 Jaguars as 165 'S', only 35 'B' (and those not as the standard trainer); to hang WE.177C on them; so to procure something simple as the advanced trainer.

HSAL+RRTM had very little business or possibly less. They offered an all-up fixed price. The new Minister was stunned. This was the UK Aero industry. It could not spell "incentive". Selected 10/70 it took the Procurers until 21/3/72 to agree a contract, because Treasury had no means of demonstrating the "fairness" of one package price (£6,567,500!*) for all R&D+supply of 175 flying machines, with things in most holes. That's not how we do it round here. BAC took no part in any of this (could not spell "incentive") so Hawk was not chosen as being in any way "better" than ANOther, but because its bidder put his money where his mouth was.

And did a fine job. That led directly to today's Procurement Process, where we no longer buy products (say training helicopters), but capability (say, quantity x hours of serviceable platforms per week).

(* corrected 25/1/15: this No. is plain wrong; don't now know where it came from. aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/The Journal of Aeronautical History/2013-01_HawkStory-Fraser-Mitchell.pdf has 2013 assessment).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 12:42:39 am by alertken »

Online Harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2015, 02:55:30 am »
Def.Minister Healey chose to recast UK's 200 Jaguars as 165 'S', only 35 'B' (and those not as the standard trainer); to hang WE.177C on them; so to procure something simple as the advanced trainer.

HSAL+RRTM had very little business or possibly less. They offered an all-up fixed price. The new Minister was stunned. This was the UK Aero industry. It could not spell "incentive".



It was also the case that the Jaguar was not suitable for training. "a test pilotís delight - everything was wrong with it" - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter038nvu/luckyaviator.html

HS had done the Nimrod fixed price, and Harrier too, (both developments of earlier types, so lower risk). The novelty on Hawk was the addition of incentives for reliability and maintainability, which HS achieved and got well paid for, to treasury/MoD surprise/chagrin.

See also: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,22175.msg223177.html
« Last Edit: January 23, 2015, 02:58:15 am by Harrier »
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2016, 05:40:13 am »
Some details for the original competitors to what became Hawk.

The HS.1182, BAC P.59 and P.60 were actually submitted before the ASR was raised and based on the requirements of a draft Staff Target and export studies. The P.59 was developed from the P.54 and designed to be the cheapest to meet the requirements and retain export value.

HS.1182: Span 32ft, length 38.5ft, wing area 190sq ft, AUW 9,780lb, wing loading 51.5lb/sq ft  1x 5,000lb Adour (unreheated), max speed M0.83, max cruise speed 490kts, 7.0 mins to 30,000ft.
HSA also briefly considered versions with twin Larzac-01 or JT-15D. With Larzac engines the AUW was 9,880lb, max speed M.082, max cruise speed 490kts, 10 mins to 30,000ft.

P.54-3: AUW 8,500lb, max speed M0.83, 6.0 mins to 30,000ft.

P.54-6: AUW 8,476lb, max speed M0.83, 6.5 mins to 30,000ft.

P.55: a variant of the Jet Provost with a Viper 600 and required avionics. No strike version as no substantial improvement over Strikemaster possible.

P.59: Span 29.6ft, length 35.8ft, wing area 145sq ft, AUW 9,800lb, wing loading 67.7lb/sq ft  1x 4,000lb Viper 600, max speed M0.82, max cruise speed 500kts, 7.7 mins to 30,000ft.

P.60F1: P.59: Span 28.2ft, length 41.5ft, wing area 160sq ft, AUW 10,957lb, wing loading 68.5lb/sq ft  1x 5,000lb Adour (unreheated), max speed M0.96, max cruise speed 500kts, 7.8 mins to 30,000ft, endurance 1.75 hours at sea level.
Other members of the P.60 included the P.60F2 with reheated Ardour for close air support roles. The F2 was to reach M1.2 at altitude.

The P.61F with a RB.199 for close air support and air superiority roles was also closely related to the P.60 family. The P.61F would be a scaled down MRCA with an empty weight of 15,000lb, max speed 0.9M at low level. Avionics would consist of a radar with a dish of AI.23 or Cyrano II size and day-attack avionics. 6x Taildog AAMs. Studies included single and twin-seaters with fixed and VG wings. Only wanted by RAF is a CAS platform.
The P.61F2/F3 was a further development of the P.60F2 with an RB.199-34R reheated fanje for a max speed of Mach 2.0.

Source: AIR 2/18602
« Last Edit: June 05, 2016, 05:54:56 am by Hood »

Online hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22578
Re: Alternatives to the BAe Hawk trainer
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2016, 05:49:12 am »
Amazing Info my dear Hood,

but there is something weird,in my list,BAC P.55 was a lift body spacecraft ?.