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     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
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

Thomas    RE:How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?    4/29/2005 10:17:26 AM
As far as I recall, they had a bloody big lump of concrete aft if center of gravity to make the thing unstable during tests.
 
Quote    Reply

Ander320    RE:Jaguar and the French   4/29/2005 1:11:22 PM
About the Jaguar, the french never look at it as a fighter. It was even not a all weather striker. To keep the cost low french Jaguar have very few avionic in it and from the 70's to the 90's it was used as a sturdy "striker" in Mauritania, Chad and other Africa mission. I don't think you would have done a good fighter of it without great modification. About the Super-Etendard i know a lot of people only look at it capacity badly but this little plane even without keeping the buy cost promise of the 70's is a good fighter for the "Aéronavale". It is sturdy, easy and low cost to maintain, have good anti-ship capacity and can make precise strike. It was use succesfully in Lebanon, Falkland (with the argentinian) Gulf (during Iran/Irak)and Afganisthan. Of course it's not a "performance" fighter able to compete with even a Mirage F1 CT in term of load and range but according to the Aéronavale budget and goal (in the 80's: have a anti-ship capacity onboard for blue water operation against the USSR and gave local point support to french operation in Africa) i think it was the right choice. Jaguar was sturdy but may still have been much more expansive to buy and operate on french CCV.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:Jaguar and the French   4/29/2005 8:30:00 PM
According to the link that I posted earlier, the Super Etenard did not turn out to be that cheap for Aeronavale in the end, even though its performance was much inferior to the marinised Jaguar in every way. I would imagine that this would have had a lot to do with building an aircraft with a very small production run. The obvious thing to do was to take advantage of the already large production run of the Jaguar, but French politics got in the way I'm afraid.
 
Quote    Reply

Ander320    RE:Jaguar and the French   4/30/2005 8:32:12 AM
Super-Etendard wasn't as cheap to buy as promise but for the use and maintenace cost it is really a cheap aircraft. The jaguar with a naval avionic wouldn't have been cheap to buy and to maintain and used it would have outrun the small Aéronavale budget. The politic kill Jaguar M for sure but Dassault would have not dislike a Naval Mirage F1 (wich could have been derivated in A2A and A2G). At the end of the day the Super Etendard live to his expectation and gave a good service to Aéronavale for a small cost. The real problem for the aéronavale before getting the Rafale wasn't the strike and anti-ship capacity it was the A2A. The Jaguar wouldn't have cleared this problem.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Jaguar and the French   4/30/2005 10:31:56 PM
The super Etendard has good avionic for its role(INS and radar in the 70ies).It payload is small but how would have been those of naval Jaguar? Super Etendard can still carry 4 *1000 lb bombs. BTW SuperEtendard have better fligh quality and more manoeuvrable than Jaguar. Ander 320 is right the problem was air fighter. Navy wanted F18 to replace Crusader but Dassault made a strong lobbying because they were afraid that navy would not fund Rafale. Crusader was effective until end of eighties with Magic 2 agaisnt Mig23/21. Im' pretty sure that we would have done better in 1982 in Falkland war than UK, with our two aircraft carriers. I think an interim solution could have been a improved crusader with M53P2 and new avionic including HMS, and some airframe parts to add flight potential . With this it would have still been effective until end of ninenties.But having 20 F18C would have been better. Crusader was maintain until 1999 mainly as a trainer for naval pilots.It was really retired in 92/94.It would have been used only agaisnt a country with only mig 23 or 21. We were during 8 years in the same position of UK when SH2 will be retired removing BVR capacities and radar for fleet, unitl F35 come in 2015 or after.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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