Read the forum code of contact
By: - 20th January 2002 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-01-02 AT 02:39 PM (GMT)]in a dogfight, i'd put money on the hawk, ground attack- i'd have to go with the alpha jet. some facts:
page courtesy of: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/br/HAWKBAE0.ht…
Type: Hawk T.1
Function: trainer
Year: 1976 Crew: 2
Engines: 1 * 23.75kN R.R.-Turbomeca RT.172-06-11 Adour 151
Wing Span: 9.39m Length: 11.17m Height: 3.99m Wing Area: 16.69m2
Empty Weight: 3647kg Max.Weight: 7750kg
Speed: 1000km/h Ceiling: 15240m Range: 3090km
Armament: 2567kg
PIC: http://www.paulnann.com/images/pn_w1824.jpg
page courtesy of: http://www.nasog.net/datasheets/aircraft/lsa/Dassault_Dornier_Alpha_Jet…
Dassault Dornier Alpha Jet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Of Origin: France
Designation: Trainer/ground attack aircraft - Advanced
Aircraft Crew: Two pilots in tandem
Transport Capacity: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Dimensions:
Length: 38 ft 5 in (11.75 m)
Wingspan: 29 ft 10 in (9.11 m)
Height: 13 ft 9 in (4.19 m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Weights:
Empty: 7,374 lb (3,515 kg)
Max T/O: 17,637 lb (8,000 kg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Performance:
Max Speed: 621 mph (1,000 kmh)
Range: 2,160 nm (4,000 km)
Powerplant: Two SNECMA/Turbomeca
Larzac 04-C6 turbofans
Thrust: 5,952 lb (26.48 kN)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Armament:
Removable 27 mm Mauser/30 mm
DEFA cannon pod; five hardpoints;
5,510 lb (2,500 kg) warload; provision
for Sidewinder, Magic and
Maverick missiles; bombs; rockets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Variations:
MS1 support
MS2
PIC: http://home.freeuk.com/planefacts/photos/fr2.jpg
coanda:-)
By: - 20th January 2002 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
Portugal uses the Alpha jet as a ground attacker, loaded with unguided rockets and 500lb bombs
By: - 20th January 2002 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
In an issue of Jets last year a RAF instructor who had been on exchange with a French training squadron recalled his experiences of ACM with visiting RAF Hawks. He said that the Alpha Jet ran rings around the Hawks. The Alpha Jet is actually very underrated. The fuselage is a lot stronger than the Hawk fuselage and it´s T/W ratio is higher and the safety record of the Alpha Jet is a lot better than that of the Hawk. A lot of RAF Hawks have had fuselage and wing rebuilds. No Alpha Jet has had a rebuild. The Belgians routinely send their Alpha Jets up against F16s and the Alpha Jets give a good account of themselves.
By: - 20th January 2002 at 20:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
puff-The alphajets ran rings around the hawk?This forum is starting to get rediculas with performance hype that has no base on fact.The alphajet is clearly designed for flying at high mach numbers due to the following properties:low aspect ratio,thin airfoil,symetrical airfoil, long chord,sharp leading edge,high wing sweep angle.The alphajet therefore has quite a bit higher top speed than the hawk,but there is simply no way its going to maintain a turn with the hawk without breaking all the rules of aerodynamics.The hawk is optimised to a lesser extent with some of the above qualitys for high speed,but to a much lesser extent.Sorry folks,you cant have both,jets like the L-139,MB-339 are optimized for maintaining speed in a turn,and jets like the alphajet and Yak-359 are optimized for high cruising speed.
By: - 20th January 2002 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
Sorry, it wasn´t last year -it was the Summer 2000 edition, and I quote:
"Combat-wise the AlphaJet will outclimb and out-turn a Hawk T1. Starting nose-to-nose I could get 300 yards behind a Hawk in one 360° turn: it´s a good plane. The Hawk mates from Chivenor used to visit us wanting to do a few days of air-to-air but after a couple of fights would usually decide to go off on a low level jaunt around the chateaux instead."
"Really it´s horses for courses. The AlphaJet is a pilot´s aircraft but the Hawk is a better instructor´s aircraft -and as they are both trainers then the Hawk has got to be the better"
It could be that the AlphaJet´s higher G tolerance of +12(against the Hawk´s +8G) helps it out in the turns. For 300 kg less weight the AlphaJet has the same thrust as a T1.
The AlphaJet´s wing is very clean. Take a look at the Hawk´s wing and see all the little bits they´ve stuck on it to make it work.
Perhaps not "running rings" but still the better turner.
By: - 20th January 2002 at 22:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-01-02 AT 10:12 PM (GMT)]Back when the Luftwaffe was using the AlphaJet as a fighter-bomber, it was said in some publications that, in time of war, it would have had an anti-helicopter role - taking on Soviet Hinds and assault transports over the western front. Is this correct?
By: - 20th January 2002 at 23:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
This is correct yes. It would have the under fuselage 27mm Mauser fitted... Could it carry Sidewinders aswell??
By: - 20th January 2002 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
i thought the Hawk flies at a higher top speed than an alpha jet? but, the alpha jet definitely looks more aerodyanmic.
By: - 21st January 2002 at 00:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
IMHO -
the hawk was built as a traniner with some gun bolted on.
the alpah was built to be a french trainer and a german CAS plane. therfore built with that in mind.
for a cas type role i would but alpha bu the hawk has stood the test of time and is still in production and used by countless users world wide (including the hardest export market -USA)
rabie :9
By: - 21st January 2002 at 00:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
Alpha Jets in UK service! QinetiQ,(new name for DERA)plan to operate their fleet of ex Luftwaffe Alpha Jets until at least 2020.
http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow01/valley/alphajet.jpg
TJ
Attachments:
By: - 21st January 2002 at 07:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
Folland, why do you do these things? The Alpha Jet does NOT have a higher top speed than the Hawk. The Hawk can hit about 660 mph, and about Mach 1.2 in a dive. The Alpha Jet can hit about 620 tops. Just correcting you on that. You've been wrong several times before (Ching-Kuo ring a bell?), so don't come in here saying you are tired of this or that of what people say. Just chill out. I don't know enough about either to make an accurate judgement. As far as A/A combat in concerned I'd bet it is pretty close, unless you are talking about the Hawk 2000 and its associated radar and BVR missile capabilities.
By: - 21st January 2002 at 07:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
The Hawk's a lot prettier...
MinMiester
By: - 21st January 2002 at 08:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
No they could carry Stingers on the outer pylons . When I remember correct two per pylon.
By: - 21st January 2002 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
Rabie
as far as the test of time goes, the fuselage of the AlphaJet is certainly stronger than that of the Hawk. The Hawk wing needs a rebuild after 2000 hours. The AlphaJets have not yet shown any need for a rebuild. Also, the AlphaJet has a better safety record. Hawk export success is certainly a credit to BAe and teir willingness to invest in various upgrades.
By: - 21st January 2002 at 13:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
yes the uk has a fw alpha but why we hav ethem i don't know ....
both very nice planes
rabie :9
By: - 21st January 2002 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-01-02 AT 01:54 PM (GMT)]As far as I know they were purchased by the developing Centre (DERA (Or QineticQ))to retire some old planes like the hunters they still used. They went for the Alphajet cause the UK has not enough Hawks to make some available for this role.
By: - 21st January 2002 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
cheers mate
rabie :9
By: - 22nd January 2002 at 02:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
Here we go again, there's always one trouble maker in the pack :P , Sorry Folland, no offence.
I remember the fly off comp we had here a few years ago regarding the new lead-in-fighter-trainer for the RAAF, sure the Hawk won, but the Alphajet was reguarded as a very serious competitor. In fact the only reason that it lost out was because the line had closed, and the RAAF thought that restarting the production run was going to cost them even though Dassult said they would start it for nothing! The other fact that stopped the Alpha's success was the blatant disregard for our Earth when they let off the nuke down our way!
The Hawk has always been the better at speed and had more potential for upgrade, not to mention carring mor range of weapons! But I would never write off the Alpha, it proved to have a better manouverability at lower altitudes than the Hawk, and the fact that it has two engines makes me think that the LIFT competition was stacked against France for political reasons. But what ASM missiles canthe Hawk carry? The only one in all of my records is the Maverick, compare that with the Exocet carried on the Alpha and you can see that in maritime strike role if you see an Alpha, it's brown trousers time!
Opperators of the Aplhajet are:-
Belgium, Cameroon, Egypt, France, Ivory Coast, Morroco, Nigeria, Portugal, Qutar, Thailand, Togo, UAE and the UK.
Opperators of the Hawk (in all forms) are:-
Australia, Finland, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, South Africa, South Korea, UAE, UK and the US.
Cost of the planes are in favour of the little Alpha but supportability is in the Hawks favour, I like both but if you gave me a choise I'd take the Hawk 200 any day!
When push comes to shove, don't stand near a cliff
By: - 22nd January 2002 at 11:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
dera/qinetiq has alphas for test pilot purposes as far as i'm aware. as for the alpha, its bigger, its heavier, its slower, and its wing looks funny with that much anhedral!! however-the belgians always put on a good show at air days with their singleton alpha jet, as did they used to with their fouga magister. I think the anhedral on the wing doesnt help it in positive Gpulls, and would suggest to me that it would like to roll instead of pull, but hey, maybe thats just me. the hawk needs a rebuild, in uk service, because it was not expected to encounter the kind of hard work it gets, its undeniable that there are fewer of them and therefore work harder nowadays. its quite right that the alpha is designed stronger because of its purpose built dual role.
coanda
By: - 22nd January 2002 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Alpha Jet versus Hawk
"as for the alpha, its bigger, its heavier, its slower, and its wing looks funny with that much anhedral"
Err, you´re wrong.
The AlphaJet is in fact 290 kg lighter than a T.1
667 kg lighter than a Mk.60
1055 kg lighter than a Hawk 100
1105 kg lighter than a Hawk 200
The max speed at altitude is Mach 0.85, the same as the T.1 and slightly faster than the other variants and it has the best climb rate of all of the above.
I can´t argue about the anhedral.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 20th January 2002 at 12:52
Hi guys
Some years ago(in the early 90´s)a British magazine(perhaps Air Pictorial, Air International or Aircraft Illustrated)featured an article comparing the above mentioned trainers. I´d be most keen to hear from anybody who knows which magazine it was.