The SAAF Forum

It is common knowlegde that the SAAF purchased the Hawk to replace the Impala and to fulfill the role as lead-in trainer for the Gripen.

The Saaf operated 2 types of Impala i.e. MK I dual seater & MK II single seat light strike version. The MK II was extensively used operationaly during the bush war with excellent results

Question is How will the Hawk be utilised? Only as a trainer for pilots on their war to the Gripen? We all know that the Hawk is a very capable aircraft and must surely play an operational role in some way in the future. The CAF mentioned in an interview with Dean some time ago that they are looking at activating a squadron to also operate the Hawk. Would it then not make sense if the SAAF also purchase say 24 single seat Hawk 200's to be operated by that squadron. The SAAF can then operate the Hawk in more or less the same way as the Impala's were operated. I do not think that all pilots trained on the Hawk will end up flying the Gripen.
This will provide the SAAF with a much more balanced force as the Hawk 200 is a very capable light striker with an excellent radar and 11 hardpoints (8 underwing, 2 wingtip and 1 centreline) for carrying various ordonance.

This will provide young pilots with valuable operational squadron experience and more promotion oportunities, before the chosen one's can move onto the Gripen.

I think you should take into consideration that the Gripen is now a multirole fighte that can do stuff that the old Mirages were never capable of, including, perhaps, the kind of stuff that the old Impala mk2's used to do. I don't know. I'm just wondering.

If not, your suggestion has just one little flaw: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, or rather the lack of it in the defence budget.

This old defence force of us is a typical post war force: it has been bled dry of money. It is a wonder that the old equipment got replaced at all. There may have been more reasons than the obvious for the replacing the old equipment but let us rather not speculate on that.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

You will find that the Hawk can probly fill both of the Imps' roles quite easily.

It is a very capable aircraft.

_________________
When in doubt, use a hammer. The bigger the doubt, the bigger the hammer.

… … and with PGMs the Gripen should be able to do some CAS like the F-16s are doing in the currents US wars. The Brits have deployed Harriers and Tornadoes and the French sent Mirages … … all to fight insurgents and enabled by precision munitions. The Gripen should be able to do that when required.

While that maybe a desert, also consider the just ended Sri Lankan war. An AFM issue from a month or two ago had an article on the air force’s contribution. While the Mil-24 played a part, the IAI Kfirs did a great job too. The commander mentions how getting PGM capability improved their effectiveness a great deal.

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!

the hawk is equivalent to the k-8. the k-8 is cheaper. they should have just bought lots of k-8s

_________________
I have always believed if done right , armed robbery doesn't have to be a totally unpleasant experience- Brad Pitt as J.D in Thelma and Louise

PGM: Most modern combat aircraft deliver this capablity nowadays. We had a PGM capablity on Cheetah C/D/E
CAS with JAS39, yes - I do believe that the Hawk Mk120 will be more suited to this role, however, that said, Gripen will be able to do it just as well and even some more things...

Skyhawk I have to ask this.

Why do i feel like with you that everything from the West is BAD and anything from the East is just awesome?

Dont get me wrong as my favourite fighter aircraft is a Mig29. It looks amazing and manouvers like a bat out of hell. But I also believe even though it is cheaper than western fighter aircraft my return on investment could be completely hindered by maintenance issues, gaining spares from Russia. Not even a Mig 29 sitting on the tarmac can beat a Sopwith Camel that is actually in the air.

Sorry for hijacking Topic!!

As for the Hawk issue. Can't our Hawks software be slaved to a Grippen (Radar, etc). Therefore allowing current Hawks to be used operationally anyway in a Combat/Ground support role. So to raise an operational squadron that shares current airframes with the training squadron.

_________________
I should be working right now.

No

Now wouldn't it be awesome if Saab allowed Link-ZA to talk with the Tactical Data link of the Gripen. It'll be a hell of allot cheaper than buying more airframes.

_________________
I should be working right now.

It has been suggested on more than one occasion for a Gripen to fly high above the battle-field / nearby and use its radar and other sensors to locate and identify targets. These would then be datalinked to the Hawks who would then proceed to move the mud at that target location.

I do not have time to research the K-8, but my understanding is that, although it looks like a Hawk, it is in a different category, being lighter (and considerably cheaper) and more suited to initial jet training, not the advanced training regime of the Hawk. I think the K-8 is also underpowered, with export aircraft using a different engine to the local Chinese version.

However, having said the above, I do not want this thread becoming a Hawk vs other aircraft thread.

As per usual - I'd like to have my say as well.

The USAF had the F-16's, but developed the A-10 for air support for their ground forces - main reason the F-16's etc. being too fast to be an effective ground attack aircraft (saw it on TV ok... ).
Our Impalas were mostly armed with rocket launchers and small bombs, to assist our ground forces (the F1's & Buccs were used for bombing ground targets before ground forces moved in(mud moving) - read Vlamgat by Dick Lord).
Of course our Hawks would be excellent in doing that. As others said, our Gripens would be more than capable as well, being able to fly so much slower than our Mirages and Cheetahs.
My point: it will all come down to the intensity and size of the battle. Our decision makers will probably then decide whether Hawks or Gripens will be used for assisting ground forces.
I HOPE someone will be VERY clever then, and use Rooivalk heli's to do the job. From what I read/heard somewhere, our main problem with exporting it was that it didn't have operational usage behind it.
I agree with Dean on the Gripen and Hawk used together. If you load a Hawk with laser guided bombs, the Gripen can lase it from high altitude acting as decoy, while a low level entry (below radar) by Hawks could be used to deliver the actual bombs. What will also help is the Gripen's stealth properties. So hopefully our targets will be bombed before they realised anyone to be on the way. That is of course if the an airplane can carry LGB's without FLIR (if the Hawk doesn't have it).

So does the Data link between Gripen and Hawk exist then. But would this allow the Hawk to see what the gripen see's on Hawks own Radar screens? Allowing Hawk to use this for weapons delivery.
If this already exists then I dont see why we need extra airframes for another squadron.

Also FLIR exists on the Hawk. Wasn't Denel responsible for that?

_________________
I should be working right now.

I think that the Hawk is altogether a more capable aircraft than the Impalas. I guess if the war is short, which it almost never is, then one can use ones trainer assets together with the multirole Gripens for mudmoving. Bring down the maximum amount of turds on top of the enemy, I say. Therefore, the more the merrier. Maximum force must be used wherever possible.

I was amazed to learn that the Japs had the mightiest warship in the world, the Yamato, during WW2 but the bloody thing was mostly kept in port or used as a command post, far away from the battle. Only when it was totally too late (all air support was destroyed) did the Jap navy belatedly sent the Yamato on a suicide mission in order to keep up with the airforce Kamikaze off Okinawa. Had they committed it to battle right from the start in a position where it could do some damage, it would probably have been sunk earlier in the war but probably not without handing out some damaging blows in the process, like the Bismark, for instance.

Same with the Hawks: commit them to the max, together with the Gripens, as early as possible, if it is possible.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry

Sorry off thread abit

The Hawk can used as a mud mover but can not be compared to the A-10, which is first and foremost a tank killer and then a mud mover. For its role it is heavily armoured and take hits from a 23mm as its main enemy would have been the Russian quad 23mm Shilka AAA tank.

The first prototype YA-10 took to the air in 1972, the protype F16 in 1974. The A-10 concept was in the pipeline long before the F-16 was thought of.

The A-10 is built around the GAU-8 cannon and when planing the aircraft the best concepts of the A-1 Skyraider, ILyshin II and Hs-129 were taken into concederation, plus Hans-Rudel the highest scoring tank killer and the worlds most decorated pilot book was required reading. As he took the Ju-87 "Stuka" an obsolete and vunerable aircraft and turned it into a tank killer by putting two 37mm AA cannons.

The Yamato had a sister ship the Musahi and the third was turned into an aircraft carrier though it was sunk by a USN submarine. The Pacific war was carrier against carrier and the battle wagons were really only used for pounding Islands. So Yamto and her sister were white elephants, hence the third being converted to an aircraft carrier.

Tirpitz, Bismarks sister achieved more than the Bismark did, by just simply being in Norwegian waters she tied up alot of Royal Navy ships that could have been else where. As from her postion she could strike the Russia bound convoys so the RN had to keep ships to counter in case she came out of her Fjord.

We've ordered 17 single seater Gripens and 9 two seaters. To me a third of the Gripen fleet being two seat trainers doesn't make sense...but if you start thinking about using those two seaters as stike aircraft it kind of adds up.
I'm not saying that the two seaters will not be used for training but most western airforces are using two seaters for strike duties (F15 Strike Eagle, Tornado, Mirage 2000N etc.) and I rekon the SAAF will do the same.
With regards to the Hawk, I believe that the treat level will dictate where they can be used. In a low threat enviroment (no opposing fighters, no long range SAMs etc.) the Hawk is well suited for CAS, in a high threat enviroment the Hawks could still be used but with support from the Gripens (i.e. Gripens flying CAP and SEAD/DEAD over the battle field while the Hawks put iron on target). The problem is that we don't realy have enough Hawks to provide for training, maintenance and strike.