Hawk 2000

[Hood]

Whilst searching Flightglobal for more on the Harrier III I came across a reference to the Hawk 2000. It was mentioned in the ASTOVL article in the 20-26 Feb 1991 magazine. Here is the

"We're looking at something we call the Hawk 2000 for the potential market in the USA for the BFTS [bomber fighter training system programme.

The article hints at engine upgrades and avionic closer to the EFA to serve as a LIFT and capture some of the F-5 and A-4 replacement markets.

Does anyone know any more about this planned variant or the BFTS programme?

 

[Hood]

Another Flightglobal result I've found for the Hawk 2000. From the proposed engine changes it seems quite likely to be a quite different aircraft. Reading this week that BAE Systems has pulled out of Poland's LIFT contest due to the emphasis on combat over training it seems like the Hawk 2000 may have been a much closer match today, certainly it would have given the T-50 a rival too. Of course though it probably would have been too expensive for the RAF.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1991/1991%20-%200408.html?search=Hawk 2000

 

[datafuser]

A Flight article dated 9-15 Feb 1994 - Hawk fades out to Gripen deal - says "British Aerospace is winding down further development of its Hawk advanced jet trainer/strike aircraft in anticipation of a deal being struck with Saab on the JAS39 Gripen. [snip] The expected deal between BAe and Saab, under which BAe would market the Gripen in return for a programme workshare and which is likely to be signed by June, will effectively put a stop to further combat developments of the Hawk."

 

[RAP]

Hi- Found this pic in my files and was not sure where to post it but wanted to share it. It shows a Hawk (2000?) in USAF markings attacking ground targets.

 

[_Del_]

If I remember correctly the Hawk 2000 was supposed to carry a variant of the AN/APG-66. I seem to recall the F404 and RB.199 being proposed. It was basically a Hawk 200 with all the adds. I think BAE realized that when you tack on that many goodies you're quickly competing with a whole other class and the price difference isn't enough to savings to justify.

 

[datafuser]

BAe's supersonic Hawk development proposal to South Korea in mid-90's. The cost was estimated at around 730 million in 1993 dollar.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Hi- Found this pic in my files and was not sure where to post it but wanted to share it. It shows a Hawk (2000?) in USAF markings attacking ground targets.

Not Hawk 2000, but an earlier attempt to sell the 'vanilla' Hawk to the USAF after selling the T-45 to the US Navy (note the AF88 serial on the tail):

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202951.html

 

[RAP]

Thanks Harrier. I had never seen the Hawk with USAF markings but did have some recollection of it being offered to the Air Force but could not find any back up documentation.

 

[kcran567]

Hi- Found this pic in my files and was not sure where to post it but wanted to share it. It shows a Hawk (2000?) in USAF markings attacking ground targets.

The Hawk appears to be attacking a small farm? Very strange picture to say the least. Would be very cool to see a cleansheet "2020" Hawk/Skyhawk/Gnat concept be made. Hopefully not used to attack small farms though.

 

[Hood]

That would seem to fit with the Flight article I linked at the top of this thread. Perhaps a bit of speculative guesswork by Flight, but the idea that the Hawk 2000 might be fitted with a new engine based on an EJ200 core must have come from something more official around that time.

 

[red admiral]

My sources indidate that some of these options were looked at again by BAES and NG for T-X before the requirements were changed.

 

[Cjc]

So I'm not sure were to put this question, but this aperiers to be the only hawk thread on the site so I figured it would be good enough (and if its not the mods can gust delete this) but do we know how many hawks were built? Because my Googleing has come up with answers all over the place, like 400,650,900,and 1000+. Wich is wired, obviously most of those numbers are for different times and different varents, but they are all claiming to be total built.

 

[GTX]

From my analysis using Cirium's records, the total looks to be 1035 today with another 15 on order. This includes the T-45. If you take out the T-45, there are 812 produced today.

 

[Hood]

Attaching here a 1989 document on Hawk 2000 that I unearthed at the Brooklands museum. At this stage it seemed more like a generic future wish list exercise.
You'll note the engine proposed was the RTM543-49, an Adour development.

No doubt this was the starting point for the 1991 Hawk 2000 developments, perhaps for USAF needs as indicated above (Flightglobal links of course long dead sadly) and the early 1990s supersonic developments.

 

[red admiral]

Thanks Hood

Says it all that "reduce cost" is written in pencil at the end of the list...With the programme move to BAES they seem to lose sight of what made Hawk successful

 

[TsrJoe]

BAe. P.1225/1

 

[starviking]

Those are very long wings! Were they planning on hanging a load of bombs off them?

 

[TinWing]

Those are very long wings! Were they planning on hanging a load of bombs off them?

The wingspan is definitely wider, although more than half of the difference might be attributable to the wing tip Sidewinders (and launch rails!) if the quoted 10.54 meter span is over the fins of the missiles.

Assuming higher bring back weight of the ventral mounted conformal bomb (and fuel?) installation, the wider wingspan might have something to do with maintaining a low approach speed. The leading edge slat on the wing of the T-45 apparently created some unfortunate low speed characteristics, making the T-45 actually harder to land on a carrier than any Super Hornet. In hindsight, BAE probably would have preferred engineering a larger wing to the slats on the T-45.

 

[Hood]

They were intending to hang a lot more than bombs off the P.1225-1.
It was the core of Project Defender to provide Saddam Hussein with a low-cost strike aircraft that could carry a couple of Sea Eagle ASMs and have the radius to interdict shipping with a radius capable of covering over the entire Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and even out as far as Cyprus.

The P.1225-2 was even more spiffing with a ventral intake and semi-recessed ventral stores.

Heady times the early 1980s....

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

They were intending to hang a lot more than bombs off the P.1125-1.
It was the core of Project Defender to provide Saddam Hussein with a low-cost strike aircraft that could carry a couple of Sea Eagle ASMs and have the radius to interdict shipping with a radius capable of covering over the entire Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and even out as far as Cyprus.

The P.1125-2 was even more spiffing with a ventral intake and semi-recessed ventral stores.

Heady times the early 1980s....

Mind sharing some more on these two? Are you sure of the designations? Can't find any detail on them on this forum or the wider net.

 

[Hood]

They were intending to hang a lot more than bombs off the P.1125-1.
It was the core of Project Defender to provide Saddam Hussein with a low-cost strike aircraft that could carry a couple of Sea Eagle ASMs and have the radius to interdict shipping with a radius capable of covering over the entire Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and even out as far as Cyprus.

The P.1125-2 was even more spiffing with a ventral intake and semi-recessed ventral stores.

Heady times the early 1980s....

Mind sharing some more on these two? Are you sure of the designations? Can't find any detail on them on this forum or the wider net.

Sorry - my typo, should be P.1225!
Joe has posted the P.1225-1 above. I don't think the P.1225-2 has been posted before, but then its probably little known. I've read the brochure at Brooklands but I'd like to keep my powder dry though for future writing projects so won't say too much more.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Sorry - my typo, should be P.1225!
Joe has posted the P.1225-1 above. I don't think the P.1225-2 has been posted before, but then its probably little known. I've read the brochure at Brooklands but I'd like to keep my powder dry though for future writing projects so won't say too much more.

No man! At least share a little info... Keep the juicy details for other works.

 

[scorp]

Can Hood at least provide a few more facts about Project Defender? Did that involve only aircraft? More than one? A French volume on Iran-Iraq war by Pierre Razoux refers to offer of a turnkey factory to Iraq for assembling 200 Hawk "trainers." Or is this request OT?

 

[Hood]

Project Defender/Sa'ad 25 was a proposed two-stage programme. First was the assembly/production of standard Hawks in Iraq in a purpose-built facility. Stage two was the production of the P.1225 - or similar Hawk based - fighter variant. A further (but sketchier) Stage three involved P.106...

The whole effort seemed to begin around 1980 and ended around 1987ish. Progress was sluggish with some inertia from the Iraqi side. I've seen some mention in Kew files and the MoD/FCO seem to have been happy enough with the proposals but doubtless once the Iran-Iraq War kicked off the idea of selling a fighter tailored with a radius to cover all of Iran and maritime strike to boot was probably increasingly politically awkward. But BAe was fairly chuffed as its plants (Warton, Brough et al) and the general UK aerospace sector stood to gain a couple of billion in order values for parts etc. by the 1990s.

I'm not sure how serious the Iraqis were, though the creation of an indigenous military aircraft industry probably did appeal to them to steal a march on their regional rivals. BAe obviously thought they had the lead on Dassault and Alphajet as they couldn't offer Saddam a complete fighter factory. I have heard rumours that BAe also wanted to sell Nimrod AEW to Iraq, but that wasn't specifically part of Project Defender as far as I can tell. Anyhow events overtook all of this.

As to the P.1225 wings, they were standard Hawk wings with a new extended root section and new extended wingtips with AAM rails. Only four underwing hardpoints plus the ventral stations, which as the GA drawing shows could be fared in to reduce drag. Nose could be radar or FLIR equipped. The RT.172-86 came from the 'Super Jaguar' development (note that this 'Super Jag' is different from the 1976 P.97 Super Jag offered to AST.403 with the RB.409-07 or RTM.172-63).

 

[Cjc]

. BAe obviously thought they had the lead on Dassault and Alphajet as they couldn't offer Saddam a complete fighter factory.

Fasanating information @Hood .

Was there a particular reason way dassault couldn't offer the alpha jet?

 

[Hood]

Was there a particular reason way dassault couldn't offer the alpha jet?

Dassault did offer the Alphajet (I'm not sure if they offered licence-production/assembly - I'm sure one of our French members will confirm either way).
But there was no way Dassault could offer a supersonic light fighter developed from the Alphajet. BAe definitely thought they had the advantage by going above and beyond offering just a training aircraft.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The P.1225-2 was even more spiffing with a ventral intake and semi-recessed ventral stores.

Heady times the early 1980s....

More than a year later and I still desperately want to see the P.1225-2 concept!

 

[kaiserbill]

The RT.172-86 came from the 'Super Jaguar' development (note that this 'Super Jag' is different from the 1976 P.97 Super Jag offered to AST.403 with the RB.409-07 or RTM.172-63).

Any further info on this engine?

 

[Hood]

More than a year later and I still desperately want to see the P.1225-2 concept!

Ok, as the Hawk book is 3 years away I'll post a teaser pic.

Any further info on this engine?

No, so far I haven't unearthed any detailed technical information.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Thanks for the teaser! From the side view she certainly looks a bit on the fat side with the air intake cross sectional area shifted down.

Based on the style portrayed, it seems to share the same wing concept with the P.1225-1. I wonder what the gear arrangement would be like. I assume P.1225-1 was very similar to the standard Hawk arrangement but on P.1225-2 that would place it in front of the air intake, but located behind it the wheelbase might be a little short?

 

[kaiserbill]

The undercarriage arrangement would be quite...interesting.
Edit: I see Black Mamba noticed/beat me to it . Apart from the front undercarriage unit, with the deeper ventral fuselage, the main gear retraction/location also changes I think.

 

[Hood]

That is a good question.
P.1225-1 has a standard Hawk nose leg, its position is identical to that of the Hawk 200. The main undercarriage units were 2.3m from the centreline because of the new wider-span centre section, so the track was definitely wider (and given the geometry of the wider span I guess the main legs would be a little further aft than a standard Hawk).

Looking at the P.1225-2 it's clear that the nose leg would not fit in that position, the leg would be right up against the face of the intake. Moving it forwards seems unlikely given the radar nose, there just wouldn't be space. Whether or not the main undercarriage was moved aft I don't know, no indication is given - on paper it's meant to be more or less a stock P.1225-1 wing, so would have the wider track but BAe were trying not to mess too much with the main spar box.

Also, the intake ducting would be very serpentine given that the Adour is in its normal position but the intake is much lower than the lateral intakes on the standard Hawk, plus there is the factor of the twin 1,000lb bomb recess immediately behind it. Plus that would make an undercarriage leg under the intake difficult to fit in.

The concept was a means of reducing cruise drag by recessing the ventral stores and I guess the only feasible way they could that was by making a ventral intake as a convenient method of doing that, though I guess some kind of FAST pack might have been a better idea. My gut feeling is that it was a speculative concept and probably not fully thought out, hence the lack of undercarriage thought.