![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Not sure if it was missed whoever wrote the article, but Australia does use this aircraft. KarmaKangaroo ( talk) 23:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Not sure if it was missed whoever wrote the article, but Australia does use this aircraft. KarmaKangaroo ( talk) 23:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
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)