The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - July 4, 2009



Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?
Aussiegunner1    4/27/2005 12:01:06 AM
I've read that the Jag has above wing missiles, for self-defence in the event of getting bumped whilst on an attack mission. Is their any evidence(eg, from ACM exercises, Red Flag etc) as to how it would perform in the low-level environment, in a short range A2A engagment?

Also, how would it have compared against the F-8's that were used by the French Navy. Had Marcel Dassault not convinced the French government to go with the inferior Super Etenard, instead of the maranised Jaguar, would it have been good enough to replace the Crusaders in their role as well? Could the Agave radar that was planned for the marinised Jaguar have been supplanted for a Cyrano IV, like on the F-1, allowing it to use Super 530's for BVR work whilst still allowing the Exocet to be used?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Shaken    RE:How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?    4/27/2005 1:16:12 AM
> (AGunner) > I've read that the Jag has above wing missiles, for self-defence in the event of getting bumped whilst > on an attack mission. Is their any evidence(eg, from ACM exercises, Red Flag etc) as to how it would > perform in the low-level environment, in a short range A2A engagment? Jaguar is not much for hard turning maneuver; thanks to its small, highly loaded wing. This is a fine choice for a low-level sriker, but it is a bad choice for dogfighting. Jaguar is also underpowered as a fighter and has middling bad out-of pit visibility. The Jaguar GR.4 could be VERY dangerous in close, as it has HMS + ASRAAM, so it doesn't have to turn mush to get the missile off the rail. > (AGunner) > Also, how would it have compared against the F-8's that were used by the French Navy. The Crusader has a great wing, pretty good power and fights clean (no tanks, just a pair of AAMs). It is a strong dogfighter and can duel even or better with any fighter up to the F-15. The Jaguar would be very hard pressed against it. (Except in the rare case of the HMS equipped GR.4 model). > Had Marcel Dassault not convinced the French government to go with the inferior Super Etenard, > instead of the maranised Jaguar, would it have been good enough to replace the Crusaders in their > role as well? Could the Agave radar that was planned for the marinised Jaguar have been supplanted > for a Cyrano IV, like on the F-1, allowing it to use Super 530's for BVR work whilst still allowing the > Exocet to be used? Possible, but you might as well have added the radar upgrade to the Crusader. An air defence Jaguar might offer some advantage in multi-role (although the Crusader can haul a pair of 2000 pound bombs a good distance) and servicability. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?    4/27/2005 1:44:23 AM
"Possible, but you might as well have added the radar upgrade to the Crusader. An air defence Jaguar might offer some advantage in multi-role (although the Crusader can haul a pair of 2000 pound bombs a good distance) and servicability". Yea, the Crusader in its last form was probably head over heels better than the Jag A2A. I've just read that they were updated in French service to take 530D's anyway. The only points that I would make, is that there is probably more room in the Jag's nose if you wanted to put a bigger, more capable set into it, as it doesn't have an inlet there to get in the way. However, I don't think that would compensate for the other advantages that would be lost if it were exchanged for the Crusader, unless the Jaguars also recieved aerodynamic modifications, with more powerful engines and a bigger wing for A2A work. That would mean two types on deck, an A2A and strike version. I know in the strike version, the Jaguar is better by far than either the Super Etenard or the Crusader(compare a typical load of 8 x 1000lbers to 2 weapons for each of the others), but how do you think an A2A modified Jag would go? Still interested to see how the Jag's have faired A2A in Red Flag and the like. I've heard that the familiarity of the pilots in operating at very low-levels is considered to be a factor in making them a dangerous target, as is the tactic of "dropping your knickers in his face", ie, dropping a retarded 1000lb'er in the path of pursueing fighters at low-level.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    CCV Sepecat Jaguar    4/27/2005 2:27:23 AM
It would be interesting to see how the CCV variant would have faired in A2A, as it had large LERXs and apparently a good turn rate. If only...
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:CCV Sepecat Jaguar    4/27/2005 2:50:51 AM
"It would be interesting to see how the CCV variant would have faired in A2A, as it had large LERXs and apparently a good turn rate. If only..." Oh well, the Frogs can thank Marcel Dassault for quashing all those interesting possiblities and leaving them with an inferior solution. Still, he built a bunch of other good aeroplanes, so they will probably forgive him. Apparently designing naval fighters just wasn't his core skill.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:CCV Sepecat Jaguar    4/27/2005 2:53:12 AM
It was actually the RAF in-house project that got the cold shoulder I believe wrt CCV Jags. Around the time of the EFA successor, the EAP.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:CCV Sepecat Jaguar ...oops   4/27/2005 2:54:36 AM
I meant predecessor, not successor.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:CCV Sepecat Jaguar    4/27/2005 3:36:56 AM
Why would the RAF or Britain in general have anything to do with CCV Jags, given that they weren't operating conventional carriers at the time?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:CCV Sepecat Jaguar cancellation a french decision.   4/27/2005 3:41:21 AM
"Two prototypes were built for each of the four variants, giving a total of eight, with five of the prototypes built in France and three in the UK. A single prototype of the Jaguar M carrier-based strike variant for the Aeronavale -- with a longer nosewheel leg, stinger arresting hook, and other navalizations -- performed its initial flight on 14 November 1969. It completed carrier deck trials before being cancelled in favor of the Dassault Super Etendard, an act which in hindsight is widely regarded as having been a bad move. The Super Etendard was clearly less capable, but it was sold as a modest low-cost update of the existing Etendard IV, and though the "modest" part turned out to be arguably true, the "low-cost" part turned out to be unarguably false. Some authors have poked fun at the evaluation report on the Jaguar M versus the proposed Super Etendard, which is said to have criticised the Jaguar M's handling with an engine out, somewhat oblivious to the fact that as the Super Etendard only had one engine its engine-out performance clearly would leave even more to be desired. In any case, the AdA picked up the other 50 Jaguars ordered by the Aeronavale." link
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    AussieG - you misunderstand me   4/27/2005 3:53:08 AM
"Why would the RAF or Britain in general have anything to do with CCV Jags, given that they weren't operating conventional carriers at the time? " CCV = Control Configured Vehicle. NOTHING to do with carrier aviation! I merely mentioned the CCV variant in response to the chat about A2A. Not your comments on French carrier ops vs Etendard and Crusader. CCV as in the following: link and Jaguar, AFTI F-16, F-106G-CCV etc etc
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:AussieG - you misunderstand me   4/27/2005 4:13:34 AM
Sorry, I'm getting my CV's and CCV's mixed up. LOL! Anyway, the link doesn't seem to explain what this CCV thing is all about. Can you explain it? Incidentally, these quotes from the vectorsite link might interest you, re: A2A possibilities. "A number of Jaguars have been used for test and trials purposes, the most noticeable being the "Jaguar Active Control Technology (ACT)" demonstrator, a modified Jaguar S used to demonstrate reduced-stability / high-agility flight with a quadruple-redundant digital "fly by wire (FBW)" control system. The initial flight of the machine with the FBW system was on 20 October 1981. Ballast was then added to the tail to destabilize it, and in 1984 it was fitted with oversized leading-edge "strakes", performing its first flight in this configuration on 15 March 1984." and, "Another rumor is that IAF Jaguars have been given a low-cost "stealth" upgrade, featuring such simple items as anti-radar engine intake screens, that cuts their radar cross section by more than half." I reckon the French ferked-up big time, by not converting this thing into at least a carrier-striker, if not a fighter. Apparently a lot of Jaguar lost possibilities were to do with Dassault acquiring the French partner in Sepecat, Bregeut, then pushing the F-1 instead of the Jag. As a side note on the question you asked about the Jag on the Australia thread, about any use in rough/short-field conditions, the following quote confirms that the Frogs did so in Africa during the 70's. The type proved very successful. "The French found the Jaguar very handy for their running string of interventions in Africa. The aircraft was very capable, rugged, easy to maintain, and could be operated off of rough airstrips under primitive conditions." Cheers, Aussiegunner - Long-term Jaguar enthusiest and now even more so after reading the Vectorsite blurb;-). Read about the Indian all-weather 2-seaters with Litening pods and WSO's, and, and, and.... Ferkin awesome!
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:AussieG - the actual link   4/27/2005 4:14:57 AM
I should have said "Active Control technology" as that is what the Poms called it. Not CCV like the rest of us do ;) link This should clarify things...
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:AussieG - you mongrel   4/27/2005 4:17:15 AM
I see you found a ACT link before I could post it to you ;) Grrr!!! Yep, I'm a fan of the big Cat too. Love the Gr.4 with HMS and Asraam. A world of possibilities... ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:AussieG - you mongrel   4/27/2005 4:56:26 AM
"I see you found a ACT link before I could post it to you ;) Grrr!!!" And whats worse, I didn't even know that that is what I'd found. LOL!!! Anyway, I can understand the Poms ditching it, because it was only an interim RnD effort for them. The Frogs however had an opportunity to develop the Jag into a naval fighter that would have been better than at least the Super Etenturd in the strike role, if not the formerly great but by the 1980(let alone 1999 when it was retired!) geriatric Crusader, in the fighter role. Just as well thier carriers didn't get involved in any real wars with those two types on deck and that they have the Rafale now.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?    4/27/2005 11:03:00 AM
The Jaguar is an attack-plane, fast, very lowflying and accurate. A tough pair of brass-knuckles that refuse to take early retirement. A2A: Well the tactics in Red Flag was flying to pairs af one another, so when the Eagles lined up to kill the first pair, the following pair had big big exhausts lined up rock steady for infrareds - as far as I've heard very effective. Don't ever underestimate the "poms" trying to enter the room under the carpet! They are good! I think the choise of jaguar for ccv test was: If things got really bad durings tests (illiterate programmers) they could drop the counterweight - flip a switch and get out of trouble.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?    4/27/2005 6:07:14 PM
"I think the choise of jaguar for ccv test was: If things got really bad durings tests (illiterate programmers) they could drop the counterweight - flip a switch and get out of trouble." What do you mean by drop the conterweight?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy