When we discussed ISTAR in the Future of the RAF series I looked at the role of manned ISTAR versus unmanned and wrote that there was still a role for manned aircraft, operating costs, satellite bandwidth frugality and the ability to fly in complex airspace being just two advantages they have over current UAV’s.
The UK has been flying the King Air based Shadows, Defenders, the Sentinel and Diamon DA42′s in this role for some years.
The DA42 is also available from Aurora Flight Sciences in an optionally manned variant called the Centaur which combines the best of both UAV’s and a manned aircraft.
What characterises all these aircraft is that they are variants of already existing aircraft, there is of course nothing wrong with that but Northrop Grumman have in the last few days released details of a purpose built, optionally manned, armed ISTAR aircraft called the Firebird.
It is aimed squarely at the Heron/Predator market but designed specifically to offer lower costs and easier payload integration with the added benefit of optionally manned operation for short duration missions or transits through restricted airpsace. It is designed to loft multiple payloads up to about 550kg, fly at 30,000ft and with an endurance of up to 40 hours. One of the most attractive features is the ease by which multiple payloads can be quickly integrated, a great deal of thought has gone into the open electronic architecture.
In what I think is a noteworthy trend, the Firebird is an aerial pickup truck onto which multiple payloads or loaded, these can be combinations of SIGINT, electro optical, radar based or communications. Firebird also has a pair of hardpoints for weapons carriage.
It will all come down to cost of course but it is interesting nonetheless.
It reminds me of another Grumman aircraft, the OV-1 Mohawk
Obviously a Scaled Composite job, note White Knight two parked on the ground, makes one wonder if they will create a similar transport vehicle for long transits which would have relevance to many UAS deployments in the future.
With the increasing use of UAVs this factor of rapid deployment over extended distances(as per the reaper to Libya) needs some sort of system and the White Knight concept seems perfectly suited.
The other question is what else have Scaled got up their sleeve? they have also built larger innovative vehicles like proteus and of course White Knight two and they can build a really large multi UAV system if any one can.
Beautiful plane. I wonder about its endurance? And if it only carries 550kg, what do the side-looking terrain scanning radars weigh? All optical systems only?
If that one has taken the Firebird name, then this http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bronco.html should be called Thunderbird.
Some of the things a Bronco can do : It has a speed of 305 knots -twice that of a helicopter and can carry 2400lb (more than a ton) ordinance. It’s tougher than a helicopter and can take off in just 345m (1,130ft).
- again, endurance missing (has a pilot, though)
2×3 Brimstones?
40 hour endurance.
I’ve been saying we need something like this for Afghanistan for years, and now we might get, we’re quitting afghanistan.
Having something that could be launched / landed on the CVF would be a nice to have. Wingspan on this one is probably too long as is the take off distance.
Long wings? Turbo prop? No pointy noise? That thing will never pass the required sex-ay test.
And if the project is well managed and not overly expensive, then the MoD is bound to consider it too good to be true.
Airframe life, repairability, payload growth? An aircraft of small airliner/large biz-jet size with decent high altitude and long range performance would be a more sustainable and practical replacement for the EE Canberra/ Douglas Skywarrior-shaped gaps in capability at a reasonable price. Something like the Global Express already used for Sentinel.
Tried to give you a set of links to Burt Rutans set of designs that are far more interesting than the Firebird but the site rejected them
google Burt Rutan and Oshkosh images and then also search Burt Rutan and White Knight Two in videos.
A Carrier based or any other UAV configuration (from the big aerospace guys) will always be years behind where Rutan was years ago – he’s now doing space travel
try this for starters
http://stargazer2006.online.fr/pages/flying1989.htm
Try this for space travel and long high lift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFGilm8d0Wo&NR=1
burt also developed a really cheap CAS aircraft which the US army binned and then dusted it off again about 5 years ago, think internal politics finally killed it. It’s on you tube under turbofan killer bee. Interestingly enough talking of US inter service politics (nice to know it’s not just us) US army has been told to hand over it’s JHSV ships to the US navy.
Hi Paul G,
RE: “developed a really cheap CAS aircraft which the US army binned and then dusted it off again about 5 years ago, think internal politics finally killed it.”
- done that link on two different TD threads
- suggested that what is to be added is a titanium tub seat for the pilot in Rutan mudfighter; I don’t know about composites (re: Firebird), would a Lee Enfield (Taliban favourite) round go straight through, or wreck the whole thing?
With 40 hours of airtime, it would be nice if it could be launched from carriers for ASW.
RE “be launched from carriers for ASW”
- 550 kg payload?
Yes, absurd. Let me rephrase. It’s too bad there isn’t a craft that can be launched from carriers, can stay aloft for an extended period, and can do ASW. And is cheap.
Seen the Rutan CAS aircraft. Nice piece of kit, well designed. Basically hallmarks of a Rutan build.
Shame that I only came across it after having stumbled through the site of that nutcase Mike Sparks.
TD
Im glad you did a piece on this type of aircraft. I firmly believe this type of a/c should be the type acquired for the scavenger program and indeed the son of tarnis UCAV type a/c. Why for a number of reasons 1st I don’t think the UK will ever be able to afford the kind of satellite system with sufficient redundancy to allow assured usage in future operations.
They allow usage in any possible future operation were atmospherics or intentional signal jamming (or cyber attack) may impede normal uav operations. The Diamond a/c have been very useful and this could be a natural successor especially of there reputed price can be met.
It will allow troops to train with the a/c in UK airspace prior to deployment and allow the aircraft to transit to a theatre manned negating many of the current problems or indeed conduct recon missions over london a la nimrod after july 7 bombings(all not currently possible). Indeed when deployed you could have a couple of unmanned orbits backed up by several manned mission at particularly busy times without being dependant on bandwidth.
In a future strike aircraft it will allow the incredibly important legal and moral issue to be resolved. For example mod currently believe future UAV algorithms will be sophisticated enough to allow the search of an area identifying military objectives position the a/c for attack allow weapons release all without human imput. This level of technology should not be allow in my opinion so a future optionally manned UAV could in the intial stages of operations be unmanned to attack pre-programmed fixed installations (c4 or sam sites) then revert to manned missions for attacks on tanks trucks ect.
Hi Chris B,
Don’t know on which site you read about the Rutan CAS, but it went through a firing range test (all great) and still got dropped!
Survivability is an issue, but you can armour up the things around the pilot (, invest in some proper CSAR) and up the turbofan power
… although with the Firebird, unmanned eyes in the sky (40hrs at a time), I would have a few improved Broncos idling at forward bases, and taking off to deal with anything that is not within gun (GMLRS?) range.
Harriers in forward bases turned out to be too juicy targets for mortar attack, but for the Bronco you could have 400m long strips everywhere (and how much does the concreted arch to defeat a mortar round cost?)
@ACC & ChrisB
Is it me or is the Rutan CAS aircraft quite similar to the BAE SABA design – P.1233-1? I know the Rutan has delta wings and canards instead of the more conventional wing of the P.1233-1, but it suggests that despite British Aerospace’s concerns it could have been on to a winner (even if SABA was designed for A2A against drones and helicopters).
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread186160/pg1
Thanks Tubby,
RE “The US firm Scaled Composites were in a similar program with the ARES. The Scaled Composites ARES was designed for the US Army as a light agile support aircraft that could land and take off from rough ground. It was cancelled for some reason back in the early 1990s.”
- this ARES thing actually flew
- it had the cannon (impressive results)
- pilot survivability was quoted (easily rectified!) and no A-stan campaign in sight (other than easy wins, with B-52s pulverizing anything that could be sparkled with laser designators)
@ACC
Thanks, looking at the images of ARES, the wing layout and canards actually now look very similar to the P.1233-1 main difference is the power plant. I for one think that the MoD should brush off one of these designs and resurrect them, as near peer conflict looks dated, and it seems a waste of money to use your 1st day of war platforms for CAS once you have taken down the air defences, and after-all Libya is just the latest in a long line of conflicts where the air defence go down in a few days and then we spend a protracted amount of time conduct ground attack missions.
@ACC
Thanks, looking at the images of ARES, the wing layout and canards actually now look very similar to the P.1233-1 main difference is the power plant. I for one think that the MoD should brush off one of these designs and resurrect them, as near peer conflict looks dated, and it seems a waste of money to use your 1st day of war platforms for CAS once you have taken down the air defences, and after-all Libya is just the latest in a long line of conflicts where the air defence go down in a few days and then we spend a protracted amount of time conduct ground attack missions.
Hi Tubby,
RE “it seems a waste of money to use your 1st day of war platforms for CAS”
- very much agreed
” once you have taken down the air defences, and after-all Libya is just the latest in a long line of conflicts where the air defence go down in a few days”
- they did have some nasty stuff (SA8′s etc, even though most of it was dated); so without the good old USA, how long would it have taken, and how many planes down?
” and then we spend a protracted amount of time conduct ground attack missions”
- this part is about RoE; Apache perfect for it? (has to fly from somewhere not too far away, though)
ACC
Did the Apache not get shot up pretty gd in the second gulf war doing this sort of solo deep assault role. Helicopters have there limits.
@ Mark
If I remember correctly the Americans tried an aerial version of the charge of the light brigade. It ended just as well. They sent a completed unprotected force of helicopters to go tank plinking, without realising that the Iraqis still had AA guns amongst other little surprises attached to their units.
As for the question of CAS over places like Libya and Afghan; Where are the Tucano(e?)s? Where are the Hawks?
Don’t these aircraft have ground attack capability built in specifically to make them more attractive on the international market? Why aren’t we using this ability?
Hasn’t the super Tucano been shown as not the panacea it was perported to be? Too little payload and too little endurance?
Yes, exactly:”the Americans tried an aerial version of the charge of the light brigade”
Against a concentrated Guards Armoured division.
I think they only lost one chopper, but every single one had multiple hits (must have been mainly the heavy MGs that most soviet-built tanks have for AA).
- forgetting the tactics, credit as such to the Apache’s construction
Was looking for the link,Wiki has it somewhere
If we need a CAS platform (and I think we do) how about buying the design rights to the Su-25 Frogfoot and churning out new ones? Hell if we get up-rated engines we could even use them off the carriers. I know the war in Georgia demonstrated their limitations, but the way I have read it Russia’s main problem was lack of training and upgrades, which is why the Georgian Su-25′s outperformed the Russian’s.
Does anyone know if the Tbilisi factory in Georgia still has the toolings to make Su-25′s, as it would be easier to deal with them than Russia.
Or my idea for bulking out the CVF air group, T-45 Goshawk plus engines and glass cockpit from the Hawk 128 plus AN/APG-66H radar from the Hawk 200 plus refueling probe from the Hawk 208 plus Sniper pods from the Harriers.
Bit of Kevlar on the delicate bits, integrate Brimstone and some additional electronics like Link-16 – the code’s already been written for the Tornado and Harrier upgrades, so shouldn’t be too hard to adapt – and off you go.
All off the shelf, all indigenous apart from the Sniper which we’ve already bought, training requirements are low as all our FJ pilots qualify on Hawks anyway, supply chain already in place, and it can go plink APCs in Libya for probably a third of the price of a Typhoon.
Hi El Sid,
Like your idea but just some questions:
– Have seen this idea suggested before, and also seen it rebutted by the fact that the Goshawk is not designed for long term deployment on carriers and would need additional changes to protect if from corrosion. Do you know if this is correct?
– Also do we really own the IP for the Goshawk or does Boeing and/or the US government own it?
– Also given that they only have two weapon pylons its questionable how much ordnance it could really carry, is there any way to improve its payload as I would hope it could manage a minimum of 4,000 kg?
– Would it not need to make a fair number of modifications – I guess you want a quadplex FPW system, build it around either the full FADEC Mk 951 or F404-RR-402, plus I imagine there would be extra structural changes for incorporating defence aids and different bits of kit. This sounds expensive to design and certificate, do you have a feel for the costs involved?
Still I was thinking along similar lines to you. I was wondering if you took the harrier, removed the thrust nozzles, sourced a new FADEC 100 kN engine that fits in the space available, strengthened the air frame a small amount more, incorporated a APG-73 radar and add a tail hook if we could build a CATOBAR version of the Harrier for CAS and ground attack missions.
I don’t think it would cut it, it’s costly to bring in new types despite it being in service. Disbanding and forming new units is expensive.
I think it’s low load would rule it out especially in KAF. By the time you’d the required software, added some plating for protection, it would few weapons.
I don’t know what it stores system is like, it can be quite difficult to bring new kit on. A lot of the time you don’t know until you start.
@ El sid and all
You beat me too it. I think it’s a great idea. I’ve been doing a little bit of research and I think the Hawk/Goshawk plan is a good one. For starters it has (with a non-afterburning engine) the same speed as a harrier and roughly the same service ceiling height. And we were quiet happy having SHARs doing CAP missions. Since the Hawk 100 series for export customers, the hawk has been equipped with twin rack stores system so it could carry up to 9x 500lb bombs and it’s cleared for ASRAAM, Sidewinder, Sea Eagle, Maverick and like you mentioned it shouldn’t be too hard to integrate Brimstone.
The latest hawks have 7 hardpoints in total: 2x wingtip rails, 4x underwing and 1x centreline. Apparently in a CAP situation carrying a gun pod and a few missiles it can last 3.5 hours without drop tanks. It also has a combat radius without external fuel of about 400nmi
In an ideal world we could stretch the nose/fuselage out a tad and cram in some form of gun, but I’d be happy with the gun pod for now. So pay for integration of brimstone, upgrade/coat/whatever you have to-do to make the innards of the Goshawk more corrosive resistant, add an Adour afterburning engine instead for those little boost of speed that you might need (possibly around Mach 1? I’m sure someone on here is smart enough to tell us what speed it could fly at with another 8k-10k lb of thrust, max speed of a Hawk is Mach 0.84 without an afterburner) and if possible stretch it out a bit more to fit an internal gun.
The Goshawk at the moment cost £22m a piece with maintenance factored in, so if the modifications and spares etc cost another £8m then each new Goshawk Mk.2/Jaguar 2/any other great British plane name would cost £30m or too put that in perspective, we could by 2.5 of them for 1 F-35c (if it manages to come in at £75m a piece). We could by 50 0f them + training for around £1.75bn, it’s a bargain
This means that
a) Most of the F-35c can go to the RAF making them happy
b) The carriers won’t have empty decks and look silly
c) They will share many parts with an a/c already in service
d) They will provide adequate CAP in hostile situations (I’m think of those islands that shall not be named) whilst not costing much and have a secondary role for strike and reccon
My ideal Carrier Air Wing would then been
12x Goshawk Mk2/ Jaguar 2 (it pretty well is a modern jag) for CAP secondary strike role
6/8x F35c for Strike secondary A2A role (it also means that the RAF get most of the F-35’s but we could surge them if needed as we’d have FAA pilots trained to fly them)
3x Hawkeye (eventually)
5x Merlin for ASW and COD
If we had a carrier capable of launching these a/c now we could have them flying over Libya and Afghanistan now flying reccon mission or armed with 8x Paveway IV on the wing stations, 2x ASRAAM for self defence and a targeting pod under the fuselage or instead of Paveway IV we could have triple brimstone launchers or a mixture of both and in CAP mode it could be armed with 4x meteor (dual launchers on 2 of the wing stations) and 4x ASRAAM and a drop tank on the centreline hardpoint.
I might be making this too simple and it might not be practical but a think a Goshawk Mk2 might be useful and a cheap non-gold plated answer to a problem that needs an aircraft that can do a bit of everything.
Sorry for the long post guys.
TMM
While a hawk may have some merit in this role to increase numbers it will carry no where near the ordnance you suggest. For example a typhoon fully armed will hold a cap at about 150m for 3 hrs without aar. I’m not sure what hawk will do with the same load
Its an intriguing proposition though isn’t it
Some commonality with the training aircraft and a reasonable set of capabilities
I think with the reduction in size and weight of weapons eg brimstone and pave way iv and the Uav type sensors it does offer options for these a/c proved we keep it simple and the a/c as close to a hawk 100 as possible maybe even bae could offer an optionally manned hawk jet with say 3 brimstone and a single paveway 4 with some sensors.
I think all export orders have been delivered, and I don’t know which model comes off the line in India, but these for Finland (upgrades) are probably the most recent ones, ie. the baseline to start from.
“The mk66 fleet will undergo a cockpit upgrade with digital multifunction displays and a new digital mission planning and recording system.
“The Air Force will induct 18 upgraded Hawk mk66s into service in 2011–12 and has plans to upgrade 26 Hawk mk66s, mk51s and mk51As by 2015″
El Sid had a wonderful list of “optional extras” but how much payload will be left after them (and aren’t the modifications to get the Goshawk, from a Hawk, quite extensive? ref: carrier use).
The Hawk 200, IIRC, is offered with the same radar as the F-16. I vaguley remember however reading somewhere that the Blue Vixen radar was an option. If this was combined with Meteor, it could possibly be a very effective (and relativy cost effective) missileer.
Re “If this was combined with Meteor”
- yes, but… it is A2A; even the anti-radar version still in the making? Or am I behind the times?
The continuous (or is it stage-wise burn) of the Meteor gives it such an effective range that it really does not matter where it is launched from (unless the opposing side has AMRAAM-c, or better for BVR)
- I won’t quote the S-500/ S-600 for this, as where they have them is well known; the storm about Iran getting some (they did not; there was a similar storm about Cyprus buying the previous generation – and neutralising a strong NATO air force in a stroke… that also did not happen)
Getting back to Scaled Composites – I believe White Knight One has been used to carry sensor pods, like Prometheus, as well as test models of the USAF new space plane. It also reminds me of the old concept of the xc-120 pack plane. Could the future be a separation of aircraft and cargo/sensors? One design of aircraft able to be a Transport, Bomber, ISR, Tanker, MPA, and other roles depending on what module/pod it carries?
Pic of White Knight One with radar pod – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scaled-wk-070711-08-16.jpg
I would love to get my hands on this book – Will have to start saving
http://retromechanix.com/publications/mother-ships-parasites-and-more-selected-usaf-strategic-bomber-xc-heavy-transport-and-ficon-studies-1945-1954-american-aerospace-archive-5/
@ GJ
You are correct the Hawk 200 series were equipped with AN/APG-66H radar and also have a Ferranti laser range finder and a Marconi “forward-looking infrared (FLIR)” imager in the extended “chisel nose”
@Mark
From what I can tell of wiki, the Hawk can carry 6500lbs of ordinance and the difference in empty weigh between a Hawk 128 and a Goshawk is about 700lbs, so I think that as long as the Goshawk’s wing was modified to have a second under wing hardpoint each side and wingtip rails then it should be able to carry around 5000lbs of weapons, pods, etc. So I think it could mange 8x paveway IV’s and a sniper pod?
Also about range and CAP. You probably know more than me and I’m making this too simple. A typhoon carries 4500kg of fuel and has an engine producing 60 kN of dry thrust, can carry out a 100nmi CAP for 3 hours. A Hawk can carry about 1700kg of fuel and has an engine producing 29 kN of dry thrust. Also the Hawk’s MTOW is just under half of that of a typhoon, so since everything seems to be in proportion surely it could carry saw 2x ASRAAM and 2x Meteor for a 3 hour cap?
@All
Not sure what the SHAR’s carried for cap but a Hawk could carry 2x droptanks, 2x meteor and 2x ASRAAM for a CAP if it could manage the 3 Hours. Surely this is more than adequate for what we would be going up against? I don’t know if it’s possible but I’d love to somehow squeeze in a Mauser BK-27 as I think it would round it off nicely.
Another advantage is that the engine apparently is designed to drop out of the underside of the aircraft and therefore an engine change takes only 1.5 hours?
If my fag packet calculations are right then with an afterburner producing say 9000lbs more thrust and most of that is used to overcome drag etc, 2500lbs of extra thrust should take it to about Mach 1.2?
Looking around on wiki and at the Libyan AF it seems to me that a Goshawk Mk2 could take on everything they have in their inventory.
Sorry for taking this thread back off topic. If you guys think it’s a good idea I’ll do a post about a supped up Goshawk, cost, capabilities and the like opposition we could use it against.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avhawk.html#m5
http://www.flightglobal.com/imagearchive/Image.aspx?GalleryName=Cutaways/Military%20Aviation/Military%20Aviation%201946-2006&Image=Grumman-Goshawk-T45
I’ve long been a believer in the RAF using hawks for CAS, but Goshawk/Hawk is really a case of not being as common with each other as they look. There’s not much on the aircraft that wasn’t changed (Different wing, Fuselage, Control surfaces etc) so the “commonality” benefits maybe aren’t as strong as they first look.
They’re at best cousins and trying to meld the Two together into essentailly a Goshawk Airframe and Hawk Avionics probably wouldn’t be simple. The signifcantly different airframe would mean that you’d need to re-do all the stores clearance work for anything not already cleared by the USN.
If only the argentinians hadn’t had the idea of buying remanufactured A-4s with all the modern bells and whistles first, they’d be the ideal solution for cheap planes for “our” FAA.
TMM
the problem is stretching the fuselage of the Goshawk to fit in an afterburner, and then adding all the avionics required, is as Rich stated above not simple at all. In fact as you want an afterburning engine you are basically designing a new aircraft.
I am not saying its not an interesting idea, but it’s only cost effective if its an order of magnitude cheaper than joining the USN in a multi-year buy of F18E, and with everything on your wish list, and that fact that we are talking about BAe, I doubt very much that it would “cheap” at all, either relatively nor in real terms.
Perhaps a deal with India might give something like the performance you require at low cost – they buy Typhoon for MMCA, we buy the Naval version of the Tejas light fighter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas#Recent_development
Add on some Sea Avenger stealthy UCAV as first generation unmmanned strike / ISR assets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger#Sea_Avenger
If you really want an aircraft that is cheaper than the F-35C, then you may as well go for a fully proven aircraft that already has a spare parts supply chain and a huge logistical train for training etc etc.
Look no further than the Super Hornet.
Why try to re-invent what already exists?
C’mon people, think laterally!
The US Navy, the guys who really do carrier strike, have loads of experience and loads of expertise with this aircraft, why not just integrate our weapons and sensor systems?
For me, thinking ahead, 15 – 20 years, i don’t see a realistic alternative to the F-35C.
Not if you mean to win a war, that is.
Sorry Jed, didn’t see your post, was busy considering how to say what i wanted to say
That’s an interesting aircraft, it’ll pull +9 or -3.5 G. Better performance than the Super Hornet.
I’d still go with the Hornet over the Tejas, as it’s an end product of loads of R&D and loads of expertise on how to operate it.
This would not be a replacement for f35 but rounding out numbers for a cheap cas a/c. This thread somewhat shows the way defence procurement in uk works. It’s starts off let’s use a hawk as a cheap training a/c and hang a few bombs of it for a coin operation. Then we have a drift let’s add bvr missiles a radar maybe go supersonic eg all the things that make modern fighters complicated and expense. So you’ve now got the most expensive hawk in history.
I think i’d rather stick to one type of aircraft for naval a/d, strike, cas etc etc
Why add another supply chain and training requirements?
If you really think it’s worth it and neccessary, just buy some older F/A-18′s or AV-8B’s.
Although I really like the ideas about Super Hawks etc I think it’s all too optimistic which I know is hypocritical of me to say but it’s unlikely we will get a Hawk that verges on a proper light fighter. The furthest I think we should go is enabling all the Hawk T2’s to carry a standardised targeting pod and a variety of air to ground munitions that only need the pod. That coupled with a pair of wingtip rails for ASRAAM should do for CAS with a basic air self defence capability no need for radar or other major bits of kit.
As for the Naval Training role frankly the way things are going I would just ship FAA pilots off to the US Navy to learn to land on a carrier after they have done basic and advanced flying training here in the UK. The Goshawk will probably be out of production by the time a decision is made and I would rather leave it that way than have to set up a line for 2 dozen or so the FAA would need. The Goshawk is a Hawk derivative yes but it’s a long long way from the land based Hawks that we operate and plan to operate.
Michael
I agree this would in my view be a land based cheap cas a/c .naval strike should be f35 solely .
As f18 failed to be selected in India it’s days in production are numbered line closes in 2014 it’s not an option for uk
@Mark,
I somewhat agree that there has been some capability drift here, but if we think about a Goshawk CAS platform’s core abilities, surely they should it would need all weather and night capabilities to engage land targets and if it is carried based with secondary anti-shipping role. No expert (just like to pass myself off as one) but surely we are talking about some sort of ground following radar with SAR or Reverse SAR mode, a INS/GPS navigation system, plus a FLIR system, laser designator, modern stores management system and NVG. Ideally you want a centre line pylon for a targeting/recon pod, two wet pylons strengthened to take drop tanks, or heavy munitions (Paveway II, possible new buy of Harpoon), another two pylons stressed to carry Paveway IV and wing-tip pylons for ASRAAM. You would not need a BVR capability, but you would very much need the best data link you could squeeze, HOTAS, and a helmet mounted sight to designate ground targets. Given the mission it would be useful to have both single seat and two seat versions, but I do not see much need for supersonic speeds or re-heat on the engines. I think this is achievable and if our primary interest was developing an export light fighter which would be of interest to future CATOBAR operators (such as Brazil, and I suspect Thailand will end up going that way) then this makes sense. Still I expect that to make a carrier capable version of the Hawk with all these capabilities would cost several billion in development costs, might as well spend the money on developing a CATOBAR version of the Gripen NG.
Tubby, I don’t think even with a Gripen there would be a market big enough to cover the costs to make it carrier capable.