How good is the Sepcat Jaguar A2A?

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

Aussiegunner1 RE:Jaguar and the French 5/1/2005 1:42:06 AM

"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 Indian Air force has them and it has exactly the same radar as the Super Etenard. Why on earth would it cost more to maintain on a Jaguar than on a Super Etenard? More to the point, if the Indian's can afford to run a small batch of them, I'd be suprised if the French couldn't. Face it buddy, buying the SE over the Jag it was pure politics with no operational justification for the decision. "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?" As far as I know, the payload of the Indian marinised Jags is unaffected by the addition of the radar in its nose. In the very least it carries 2 Sea Eagles plus 3 drop tanks, that being 2 extra missile and 2 extra tanks over the SE's normal profile. I doubt a carrier based version would need much strengthening either, as the Jag is already tough due to its rough field requirements. "Super Etendard can still carry 4 *1000 lb bombs." It was virtually never used without drop tanks though, reducing its weapons load to 2 bombs or rocket pods. Otherwise, you would have beached the carrier trying to get the thing close enough to a land-based target due to its very poor range. It typically only carried 1 exocet on anti-ship missions. "BTW SuperEtendard have better fligh quality and more manoeuvrable than Jaguar." I don't know if it was more manouverable, but it was definately only 2/3 as fast. To my mind a modified Jaguar would have been a better fighter, but I tend to agree that keeping the Crusaders instead of that was the right thing to do. A Crusader/Jaguar combination would have been much better IMHO. "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." I agree that the lack of a modern A2A fighter was a problem and was wondering why they didn't go for the F-18. It would have solved all the navies problems at once, a2a and air to surface, allowing for both the Crusader and Super Etenard to be retired. Its a shame that it was knocked over, but hey thats politics. I still think having only a marginal air to surface capability in the Super Etenard was a problem though. The only reason the thing appeared any use at all, was because it carried a good missile.

Quote Reply

Ander320 RE:Jaguar and the French 5/1/2005 3:56:42 AM

The Indian Air force has them and it has exactly the same radar as the Super Etenard. Why on earth would it cost more to maintain on a Jaguar than on a Super Etenard? More to the point, if the Indian's can afford to run a small batch of them, I'd be suprised if the French couldn't. Face it buddy, buying the SE over the Jag it was pure politics with no operational justification for the decision." Really Aéronavale Budget in the 8's was a shame and the difference in flying cost of a two engine medium fighter and a single engine light fighter wasn't sth to bypass. The Jaguar was a great plane and i'm one of his fan. Pity that Dassault lobying gave this beast such problem with the air force (no avionic put in it)but for the navy you have to know the budget was damn small. "As far as I know, the payload of the Indian marinised Jags is unaffected by the addition of the radar in its nose. In the very least it carries 2 Sea Eagles plus 3 drop tanks, that being 2 extra missile and 2 extra tanks over the SE's normal profile. I doubt a carrier based version would need much strengthening either, as the Jag is already tough due to its rough field requirements. " Jaguar need a lot of space to take of even if it can do it from rought air base. The carrier version of the jaguar may well have been unable to take of with a full load from the Foch class ship (same problem for a F18). Indian Jaguar are just Jaguar with naval avionic they aren't CV able and the Super-Etendart avionic is up to date for the Anti-ship and A2G. "It was virtually never used without drop tanks though, reducing its weapons load to 2 bombs or rocket pods. Otherwise, you would have beached the carrier trying to get the thing close enough to a land-based target due to its very poor range. It typically only carried 1 exocet on anti-ship missions. " exocet on anti-ship for sure but SE was used with 4 bomb or 4 rocket pod configuration in Lebannon. In Afganisthan i think they also were used with a 4 bomb config (thank to refueling) "I don't know if it was more manouverable, but it was definately only 2/3 as fast. To my mind a modified Jaguar would have been a better fighter, but I tend to agree that keeping the Crusaders instead of that was the right thing to do. A Crusader/Jaguar combination would have been much better IMHO." Sure that's a Crusader (uprgrade!) and Jaguar combination would have been better. But i'm sure they would have been more expansive. The aéronavale wasn't even able to upgrade the Crusader properly (as FS suggest). SE as i said is a proven aircraft wich gave a good disponibility and strike capacity at a low maintain cost. As i said his operationnal deed speak for it. Wasn't the best naval striker of his time for sure but did a good job for the navy during the past decade. "I agree that the lack of a modern A2A fighter was a problem and was wondering why they didn't go for the F-18. It would have solved all the navies problems at once, a2a and air to surface, allowing for both the Crusader and Super Etenard to be retired. Its a shame that it was knocked over, but hey thats politics. I still think having only a marginal air to surface capability in the Super Etenard was a problem though. The only reason the thing appeared any use at all, was because it carried a good missile." Well it's missille + accurate strike with dumb bomb or rocket + nuclear strike capacity and precise bomb after their MLU and that's for a ridiculous maintain and use cost (i agrea the buy cost was bigger than expected). Really not that bad for a "bad fighter" F18 on Foch class would have been limited in Take off weight. But the idea to get a F18 squadron still went until the end of the 80's for the CdG planned service entry (1994-1996). The Gouvernement in charge in 1990 decide to stop the CdG built and that + Dassault Lobbying put an end on the idea. The Carrier capacity in the end was saved by a mix of Dassault (the cancelling of Rafale M could have treathen the whole programme) + Navy (they wanted to kept a CV capacity ) lobbying wich for once were on the same side. I think that's a socialiste president in 1995 instead of Chirac would have never allowed the CdG.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 RE:Jaguar and the French 5/1/2005 9:48:45 AM

Ander, I've read in several different sources, including the one that I've provided, that the decision was purely a political, not an economic one. If you can provide a source that contradicts this I'll be happy to reconsider my view, but until then it stands. I'd also be interested to see evidence of the SE being used with four bombs in Lebanon and Afganistan. Please also note that the Jag is only 8 feet longer than the SE and the wingspan is 7 feet shorter. Assuming that both marinised versions had folding wings, I don't see that that would make space considerations a huge deal. It might even be that the Jag's fitted in better, if the hanger in question was long but thin. On the accuracy of the Super Etenard in the A2G role, check this out, "On 17 November 1983 ten Super Etendards bombarded carefully selected bases of the Shi?ia Militia and the Iranians in the Balbek, while four hit the main base of the Jihad-al-Islami ? the organization that took the responsibility for bombings of US and French headquarters ? with napalm bombs. The French fighter-pilots were confronted by a considerable amount of flak and several SA-7s and their attack was not especially precise, most of their bombs landing in the nearby vineyards. The Shi?ia losses were nevertheless heavy. In the following days the USN reinforced its units off Lebanon, by deploying the carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and her combat group to the Bagel Station." link

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:Jaguar and the French 5/1/2005 9:56:18 AM

"Im' pretty sure that we would have done better in 1982 in Falkland war than UK, with our two aircraft carriers." Ouch! Let's hope the Pom contributors don't pick up on that little insight ;)

Quote Reply

Ander320 RE:Jaguar and the French 5/1/2005 3:49:36 PM

"On 17 November 1983 ten Super Etendards bombarded carefully selected bases of the Shi?ia Militia and the Iranians in the Balbek, while four hit the main base of the Jihad-al-Islami ? the organization that took the responsibility for bombings of US and French headquarters ? with napalm bombs. The French fighter-pilots were confronted by a considerable amount of flak and several SA-7s and their attack was not especially precise, most of their bombs landing in the nearby vineyards. The Shi?ia losses were nevertheless heavy. In the following days the USN reinforced its units off Lebanon, by deploying the carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and her combat group to the Bagel Station." Well good air defense no loss for the french SE and heavy loss for the ennemy. Not a bad achievement for a light fighter. About the 4 bomb/rocket pod i think it was this attack. I'm not that's sure. In afganistan SE used a 2 LGB configuration without tank (as i said thanks to refuelling) On the point of the purchase i agrea with you from the beginning : The Jaguar M was killed by a lobbying move of Dassault. The navalised F1 was too expansive and Dassault put the SE in front this last one coming more expansive than expêcted. BUT during the lifetime period of the SE it's appear that's the SE was a good choice after all. It was low cost to used and low cost to maitain and should the Aéronavale have had the Jaguar the whole concept of a CV group may well have came to an axe in the beginning of the 90's. Jaguar wasn't very powerfull and his fly caracteristic and take off distance are much worst than the SE. Pure speed isn't that a difference the Jaguar using PC to go Mach 1.6 clean when the SE go Mach 1.3 WITHOUT PC. The gap between the 2 aircraft may well have been not so important than the pure "comparaison" between the "air force" Jaguar and the "Naval SE" cause of a possible limit in take off weight of the Jaguar. The Foch class could only accomodate a 30+ number of fighter so a easy to maintain and good serviciabilit plane wasn't that a bad choice. As i said from the beginning i love the sturdy Jaguar and i'm pretty sure as a stricker it would have gave good service to the Aéronavale BUT i'm sure it would have hurt the Navy budget one way or another. Conclusion i'm much more ashame by the lack of A2A for the aéronavale between 1980 and 2001 than by the SE choice wich prove a reliable aircraft in each conflict it did.

Quote Reply

french stratege Ander 320 5/1/2005 4:19:36 PM

I don't think that Jaguar would have been more expensive if we add SuperEtendard development cost.After all we have produced maybe 84 superEtendard included those for Argentines (and 71 French).I think that 50 French Jaguar with common parts for air force would not have cost more. We should have bought Jaguar but Super Etendart is not as crap as it seems.At least it has similar payload*range than a seaharrier.Today it has radar, ECM, INS, flir pod for LGB.But in the end of seventies and begining of eightiers priority was on SSBN and ground forces. I'm not sure a socialist would have killed CdG.It depends.After all it is Mitterand who did launch program and Chirac (the Bastard)plus its Juppé dwarf who delayed it.

Quote Reply

Ander320 RE:Ander 320 5/1/2005 4:38:22 PM

To buy 50 Jaguar may not have been as expansive but to used them (2 engine and less maintenance friendly) would have been more expensive. + As you said the SE was'nt that's crap. In fact in Aéronavale, "Iraki" and Argentinian operationnal live it was usefull and sturdy. I'm not sure the Jaguar given is higher landing speed and his long TO distance would have been so much better than it would have prove more usefull for the french navy. The good point of the Jaguar would have been the range wich is the real limit of SE. But again what would have been the real TO weight and fuel capacity of the Jaguar on the Foch class? With the CDG sure it would have had more capacity (longuer and stronger Cat on CdG) but that's another story. About the CdG i always though it was Mitterand or Balladur wich were responsible for stopping the work in the beginning of the 90's, my mistake. BTW for the load i check this page (sorry in french): link For lebannon raid the SE used 4x400kg bomb or 6x250kg bomb as load.

Quote Reply

HorribleSailor RE:Dropbear 5/1/2005 5:18:42 PM

Now now, no need to stir the pot! It's a tangent, but I'd be interested in how FS thinks CLEMENCEAU and FOCH (would both have been available?) would have done a much better job at providing top cover for amphibious landings in a Falklands-esque scenario than HERMES and INVINCIBLE did.

Quote Reply

Ander320 RE:Dropbear 5/1/2005 5:48:19 PM

"It's a tangent, but I'd be interested in how FS thinks CLEMENCEAU and FOCH (would both have been available?) would have done a much better job at providing top cover for amphibious landings in a Falklands-esque scenario than HERMES and INVINCIBLE did. " I think the main advantage of the Foch/Clemanceau (wich could have been all two available but i haven't look at the date precisely) would be in number first. The 2 CV could load sth like 60/70 aircraft wich is more than thier brit counter part. About the aircraft: A few Alizé would have been good for sea control. Better solution to have a prop aircraft than a helicopter for Searadar patrol and surety. A dozen Crusader would not have been bad in speed and manouverability against the Argentinian aircraft flying at their max range. 30/35 Super Etendard with Exocet/ IR missille for defense and bomb may have took the stricker role. Etendard IV for reccon and Army chopper would have complete the load. The capacity to launch aircraft in bad sea may have been a drawback thought and the whole operation as for the UK would have been risky. A good lucky shot by Argentinian SE against one of the two carrier may have disable half of the air power.

Quote Reply

Phaid RE:Dropbear 5/1/2005 6:08:08 PM

That's funny, I just posted about that very thing in the Naval Air forum (hypothetical French task force retaking Falklands in 1982 instead of the British). Except on that thread, the poster I replied to claimed that a single Clemenceau-class carrier in 1982 would have fared better than the British did, which is pretty far fetched. I know that Foch and Clemenceau operated together in November 1981 (Exercise Tarot 2) and from November to December 1982 (Operation Thiof), so depending on timing both carriers certainly could have been available. Would these two carriers operating together, providing a total force of 20 Crusaders and 32 Super Etendards, have done better than the British with their 28 Sea Harriers and 8 (+4) Harrier GR3s? The critical mission, as HorribleSailor points out, is providing CAP for the troops ashore. The Super Etendards would have been basically useless in this role. The Crusaders had better endurance than the Sea Harriers, though not by very much, but their radar was completely inferior and their missiles even more so. Also, sortie generation would have been a terrible problem for the French; the British VTOL carriers definitely had the advantage in bad weather, and the weather during much of the Falklands war was abysmal. At best, the theoretical French 2-carrier task force could have done equally well as the British did, but just as with the British experience it would have been "a damned near-run thing".

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT