If the RAAF operated the Jaguar it would have made sense for the RNZAF to buy the Jaguar as well. Their Skyhawks entered service from 1969 so it would have required them to wait several years for the Jags. Maybe we could have cascaded them 20 or so Sabres to tide them over until the Jaguars were available.

 

Imagine an ANZAC Joint Jaguar Force, a joint OCU, 4 or 5 RAAF Sqn, 2 or 3 RN FAA Sqn, 2 or if we share training resources 3 RNZAF Sqn, operating a mix of non radar standard Jag's, an enhanced radar equipped model and a carrier capable version of the radar equipped model.

 

If we went for the Jag in the mid 70's building them through to maybe the early 90's, what would we be replacing them with now? Would it be the cheap option i.e. Gripen, or would we go the expensive option of JSF? Having had a high low mix for a couple of decades would we continue down that track or would we go for a single type? With Eagle, Jaguar and B-1B in service in 2010, what would we end up with going towards 2020?

Just come across some interesting info, the Jaguar M flew in 1969, successfully completed carrier trials and then was dropped in favour of the inferior, more expensive Super Etendard. Basically the development work was done and had the UK decided to do so they could have easily retained Hermes, Centaur and Eagle as strike carrier into the 80's by adopting Jaguar M variants to replace the Sea Vixen and even the Buccaneer.

 

Could the Jaguar M have been operated successfully from HMAS Melbourne or, assuming she was transferred to the RAN in the late 60's, Hermes?

 

If the RAN FAA had a fleet of modern, capable Jaguar M in service would we have tried to maintain a CTOL carrier capability into the 90's or longer?

 

Had the UK gone for the Jaguar M to extend the lives of her old CVL's would they have delayed the Invincibles and redesigned them to operate Jaguar M's, i.e increased length, COSAG instead of COGAG propulsion and steam catapults, providing a viable, affordable CTOL option for the RAN?

If wiki is to be believed the normal jaguar was 3-4 tons heavier then the largest aircraft to operate from melbourne (A4 and S2), since the M probably would have been heavier, could melbournes deck and catapult even support Jaguar M operations?

 

The Jag was smaller and lighter than the Super Etendard, which Argentina operated from their Majestic Class CVL (apparently with some difficulty), which is why I wondered if it could operate from Melbourne. With the greater thrust and STOL ability of the design the Jaguar may actually have been easier to launch than the Super Etendard. I'm not saying that it would work only wondering if it would be practical.

 

I have put some more thought into the hypothetical of the RN FAA adopting the Jaguar. Seeing the writing on the wall for the CVA-01 program the RN retreated to the stand that, if the new carriers were unaffordable and the smaller Victorious, Hermes and Centaur could not be modified to operate the Phantom, the Phantom order should be cut to sufficient for only two operational squadrons to operate from Ark Royal and Eagle while the Jaguar should be ordered to serve on the three smaller carriers. This would have given the RN a critical mass of operational carriers into the 70's and more options to absorb additional cuts.

 

At this point the helicopter escort cruiser (that evolved into the Invincible Class) would have remained as originally intended, something more akin to Vitorio Venito or Moskva, with guns and missiles forward and a large helideck / hanger aft. The Bristols would have been built as a class as there were still carriers to escort. While the new carrier program would have been for a class of smaller Jaguar operating ships to replace Victorious and the CVL's while Ark and Eagle served into the early 90's.

 

At this point the Jaguar M would have received the same degree of effort that evolved the Harrier into the Sea Harrier FRS1 and then into the FA2 using similar systems and armament. Imagine a Blue Vixen equipped Jaguar armed with AMRAAM and ASRAAM, supported by Hawkeyes, operating from a class of 25-30000t CVLs during the mid 90's.

 

 

At this point the Jaguar M would have received the same degree of effort that evolved the Harrier into the Sea Harrier FRS1 and then into the FA2 using similar systems and armament. Imagine a Blue Vixen equipped Jaguar armed with AMRAAM and ASRAAM, supported by Hawkeyes, operating from a class of 25-30000t CVLs during the mid 90's.

I'd prefer to imagine those carriers operating with FA-18C's ;-).

 

Agreed, the F/A-18C is a significantly more capable platform but the whole reason these carriers exist would be because the RN adopted the Jaguar M in the late 60's and then proceeded to evolve the design into an effective, multirole, carrier based strike fighter that was worth developing a new platform to fly them from once the CVL's wore out.

 

Now replacing the Jags with Block II SH's once the Jags were worn out is an entirely different matter. However had the UK spent 20 to 30 years perfecting the Jag, why wouldn't they just life extend them until the F-35C was available?

 

Something I have read, but can't confirm, is that India has managed to significantly reduce the RCS of the Jag through a variety of measures, including fitting screens in the intakes to shield  the engine faces.

At this point the Jaguar M would have received the same degree of effort that evolved the Harrier into the Sea Harrier FRS1 and then into the FA2 using similar systems and armament. Imagine a Blue Vixen equipped Jaguar armed with AMRAAM and ASRAAM, supported by Hawkeyes, operating from a class of 25-30000t CVLs during the mid 90's.

If the RN bought Jag M's in during the late 60's then it would be perfectly reasonable to replace them with F-18's during the late 80's or early 90's. Carrier bourne aircraft are subject to greater fatigue than land-based ones so the airframes would probably be pretty shagged by that time anyway. It might be a bit cheaper to zero life them and add Blue Vixen and AMRAAM's than it would be to buy new Hornets, but the reality is that they would only be getting a strike aircraft posing as a multi-role, when a real multi-role would be available. The RN would probably only get 10 years out of uprated Jaguar M's before they became simply too obsolete to be any sort of credible air defence for the CBG, whereas F-18's would be credible for at least another 20 years. They would probably end up cheaper in the long run.

Again I agree but I could see the UK going for new build FA2 Jags in the early 90's instead of F/A-18Cs. I think parochialism would have won out. Alternatively it could be called supporting local industry and facilitating exports.

 

Where this whole idea is going is the RAN acquiring examples of these carriers and, the RAN FAA, Jags to fly off them.