Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 100

Thread: SEPECAT Jaguar

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    599

    SEPECAT Jaguar

    Having a bit of a nostalgic moment here.

    Does any one else believe that retiring the SEPECAT Jaguar when we did in the UK was possibly one of the most short sighted decision ever?

    Wouldnt they have been perfect for the work in Afghanistan, wouldnt their involvelment kept the GR9 harriers on the decks of the carriers?

    Should the UK be looking at developing something similar again ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, scotland
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Having a bit of a nostalgic moment here.

    Does any one else believe that retiring the SEPECAT Jaguar when we did in the UK was possibly one of the most short sighted decision ever?

    Wouldnt they have been perfect for the work in Afghanistan, wouldnt their involvelment kept the GR9 harriers on the decks of the carriers?

    Should the UK be looking at developing something similar again ?
    I could be wrong, but wasn't there an issue with it's Adour engines working in the Afghan climate?
    Last edited by MiG; 3rd December 2009 at 12:50.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Does any one else believe that retiring the SEPECAT Jaguar when we did in the UK was possibly one of the most short sighted decision ever?

    Wouldnt they have been perfect for the work in Afghanistan, wouldnt their involvelment kept the GR9 harriers on the decks of the carriers?
    This has been gone over here several times already. The Jaguar couldn't take off with a useful load in summer from the bases we are using in Afghanistan. We'd therefore have had to do twice-yearly rotations (expensive!), or spend a lot of money on an engine upgrade to give them more power (for pretty worn-out airframes!), or leave them at home.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    599
    fair enough thanks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    This has been gone over here several times already. The Jaguar couldn't take off with a useful load in summer from the bases we are using in Afghanistan. We'd therefore have had to do twice-yearly rotations (expensive!), or spend a lot of money on an engine upgrade to give them more power (for pretty worn-out airframes!), or leave them at home.
    Before I do buy that claim, please do give us the airbase used by the British.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    343
    The Adour 104 used by the GR1 was kn ow for its poor hot/high performance. Its predecessor the Mk101 used in the early aircraft was even worse. My Uncle was one of the RAFs test pilots at Boscombe Down during the Jaguars trials and said he was glad the airfield was on a hill as you took off by the ground falling away rather than gaining altitude.

    In GW1 the Jaguars had their engines overclocked to cope but their life was severely reduced. The Mk106 programme was started in the mid 1990's to improve the engine but it was brought in as a cost saving measure rather than an upgrade, with the increase in performance a welcome bonus. Many parts of the exisitinf engines were reused and the programme was run as cheaply as possible leading to production whilst testing was still underway. There were problem and these were never really solved meaning the engine could not be run at full power and so it was never fully cleared for operations. There were studies made as to whether the Jaguar could be deployed to Afghanistan but this never happened. Instead the Jaguar became an easy target for cutting costs and it was retired threee years early. How ever the Harrier greatly benefitted from the tech developed for the Jaguar such as the HMS and Recce pods and as Jaguar pilots were the best single seat crews in the RAF many are now flying the Typhoon with many of the ground crew moving over as well.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by LordJim View Post
    The Adour 104 used by the GR1 was kn ow for its poor hot/high performance. Its predecessor the Mk101 used in the early aircraft was even worse.
    Actually, the 101 was not used in service. The Jags had 102's as standard.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    33
    It's easy to over-state the Jag's lack of 'hot and high' performance.

    No.6 Squadron undertook extensive trials and determined that they could operate from Kandahar, even on a 45° day.

    They could never have done so carrying the same weapons as a Tornado GR4 or a Harrier GR7, and the RAF could not have realistically replaced either type with an all-Jaguar detachment, year-round.

    But Jaguar could have spread the load by flying the recce/designation and strafe (rocket/guns) missions, allowing a mixed Jaguar/Harrier detachment to undertake the UK's responsibilities in theatre (relieving the Harrier force of a considerable burden), or, in winter, the Jaguar Force could have taken over the commitment altogether.

    Moreover, and without straying too far into areas that should remain secret, the Jaguar had particular capabilities that exceeded those offered by GR7/9 or GR4. But we should perhaps pass over any talk of that.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    The IAF is going for engine upgrades on their Jaguars for the same reason poo hot and high performance.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    34
    Generally it is stated that the Jaguar was underpowered with whatever variant of the Adour. What would have been the ideal power rating for the engine?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,894
    Quote Originally Posted by HME View Post
    ...
    No.6 Squadron undertook extensive trials and determined that they could operate from Kandahar, even on a 45° day.

    They could never have done so carrying the same weapons as a Tornado GR4 or a Harrier GR7, and the RAF could not have realistically replaced either type with an all-Jaguar detachment, year-round.

    But Jaguar could have spread the load by flying the recce/designation and strafe (rocket/guns) missions, allowing a mixed Jaguar/Harrier detachment to undertake the UK's responsibilities in theatre (relieving the Harrier force of a considerable burden), or, in winter, the Jaguar Force could have taken over the commitment altogether....
    But a mixed deployment would need more manpower & more equipment than the same size force of a single type. For a small detachment, that's relatively more important. At the end of a long supply line with high shipping costs, that's an important consideration
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    343
    As I said my Uncle was part of the trials team before the jaguar entered full service and the a/c they were using werer fitted with the Adour 101. The Jaguar entered service with the 102 which the FAF used throughout its life.

    Regarding the IAF are they upgrading all their a/c or just those not fitted with the Adour 811 which is the engine the RAF should have gone for as it is in service with India and Oman, though I am not sure about the other "International" users.

    By the way did you know the GR3A had a "Turbo" button in the cockpit to allow the ECU to bring the engine up to full power!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    But a mixed deployment would need more manpower & more equipment than the same size force of a single type. For a small detachment, that's relatively more important. At the end of a long supply line with high shipping costs, that's an important consideration
    Wrong consideration, despite one in constant use. Every fighter does consume a "constant" value in manpower, fuels and spare parts. The supply chain of that is linked to the UK at all. If one squadron does run 13 Jaguars and the other 13 Harriers does not matter at first. The main gain from single type operations is to find in real war-time only. Here you can shift personal in demand and do some canibalisation to win some critical time by that. Real cost savings do seldom come from that. Do ask transportation people about that.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Wrong consideration, despite one in constant use. Every fighter does consume a "constant" value in manpower, fuels and spare parts.
    The problem is the cost of deployment. Each person, aircraft, etc. in Afghanistan is much more expensive to support than if they stayed in the UK.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    METZ
    Posts
    196
    In the French Air Force we said the Jaguar was able to take off just because the earth is round!!!!!!!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    376
    One has to think why did they use the Adour engine in the first place. If it was giving that bad performance right fromt he very start you would have thought they might of said lets use the spey or something more powerful? Surely there was a better more powerful engine available at the time. It could of been joint development. OR why di the RAF never replace the engine much sooner. They could of upgraded Adour with loads of extra pwoer or used tornado engines or used anything!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by F35b View Post
    One has to think why did they use the Adour engine in the first place. If it was giving that bad performance right fromt he very start you would have thought they might of said lets use the spey or something more powerful? Surely there was a better more powerful engine available at the time. It could of been joint development. OR why di the RAF never replace the engine much sooner. They could of upgraded Adour with loads of extra pwoer or used tornado engines or used anything!
    Up-rating an a/c with a more powerful engine is all very well, but it has to fit!
    You'd never get a Spey in that bay and if you did the intake would choke it.
    The Adour wasn't that bad. It did what it was supposed to do, get a fully loaded Jag in the air.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    The problem is the cost of deployment. Each person, aircraft, etc. in Afghanistan is much more expensive to support than if they stayed in the UK.
    Correct. To run 20 fighters in Afghanistan your are in need of ~400 people, be it a single typ deployment or a split in two types f.e.
    In short, it does not matter if you send 20 Harriers or you send 10 Harriers and 10 Jaguars, when both types have a similar cost per flight hour f.e.

    When the military have a new type at hand, they are eager to deploy that to prove the need for something new by that. By such considerations a cheaper to operate and proven type is an obstacle at first.
    The main runways at Kandahar and all the other ABs in Afghanistan are over 10.000 feet of length. The 45°C Temperature claimed is limited to early afternoon hours in the summer time or 1/3 of the year. The fighters there are neither challenged by hostile fighters or sophisticated SAMs.
    The British forces are in need of capable helicopters at first to support the own ground forces.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hilton View Post
    Up-rating an a/c with a more powerful engine is all very well, but it has to fit!
    You'd never get a Spey in that bay and if you did the intake would choke it.
    The Adour wasn't that bad. It did what it was supposed to do, get a fully loaded Jag in the air.
    Excact. The Jag was designed as a low level striker. Such mission profile in mind range or endurance is very limited in general. To overcome that limiting factor you are in need of a smart solution. Every kp of thrust has to be fed by fuel. Best sfc was reached at close to 100% rpm and close to 100% mission time. The thrust of the Adour was tailored the mission weight of the Jag in mind. For take-off accelleration or to overcome shortime maneuver-drag the AB thrust is added temporary. The designers had in mind to get more thrust from the engine through development to cope with the constant weight gains of the Jag. But that did not happen in the planned way by cost considerations in mind. The development gains could be used to rise thrust or to rise life-time of the engine. By cold logic most superiors did opt for higher life-time. In peacetime the Jags were seldom operated at max weight in general and the weight gains by the Jags were not felt as long it was not fully loaded. In war-time engine life is secondary and thrust more important. During the Gulf war the Tornados were flown with higher engine ratings, when the combat+ rating was temporary freed f.e. Something similar was planned for a war in Central Europe. But in general most pilots did not learn the power available with war-time ratings. Today it is much easier by FADEC.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    343
    Actually the Jaguar started as a anglo-french supersonic trainer then became a attack/Recce platform.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Correct. To run 20 fighters in Afghanistan your are in need of ~400 people, be it a single typ deployment or a split in two types f.e.
    In short, it does not matter if you send 20 Harriers or you send 10 Harriers and 10 Jaguars, when both types have a similar cost per flight hour f.e.
    Not quite. When operating very small numbers, you run into irreducible minima. The number of personnel needed to operate 4 aircraft of one type is not 1% of the number needed for 400. The number of aircraft deployed to Afghanistan by the RAF runs into the minimum numbers problem: the total is in single figures. That is too few to divide the roles between two types.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Not quite. When operating very small numbers, you run into irreducible minima. The number of personnel needed to operate 4 aircraft of one type is not 1% of the number needed for 400. The number of aircraft deployed to Afghanistan by the RAF runs into the minimum numbers problem: the total is in single figures. That is too few to divide the roles between two types.
    Indeed, 1 a/c or 10 you'll need at least one sootie, a rigger, a fairy, a lecky, a plumber, a rag packer oh, and a blanket stacker.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Missouri, home of the B-2.
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Having a bit of a nostalgic moment here.

    Does any one else believe that retiring the SEPECAT Jaguar when we did in the UK was possibly one of the most short sighted decision ever?

    Wouldnt they have been perfect for the work in Afghanistan, wouldnt their involvelment kept the GR9 harriers on the decks of the carriers?

    Should the UK be looking at developing something similar again ?
    Yes. It would be useful for the Brits, and perhaps more importantly, it would make for a great export product. A proper successor to an aircraft like the Jaguar or perhaps the MiG-27 could do great internationally.

    The important point would be to KISS.
    (Keep it simple, stupid!)

    Some air forces don't need supermaneuverability. They don't necessarily need advanced datalinks, esp. for less integrated environments. They don't necessarily need planes that extensively use composites, which may make repairs of (combat) damage more difficult.

    Just KISS.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    361
    One senior Indian AF test pilot used to remark that "only reason Jag is able to take off is that earth is round :-)".


    Indians found jags inadequate in Kargill war and it was not used extensively. Some sorties were flown through valleys but generally its mission profile was found to be too restricted,

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    4,812
    Yes in britain we said the Jag managed to take off due to the curvature of the earth.
    I know there are people who think the Jag was good - but the performance of the a/c was abysmal,it either needed re engining and/or a bigger and/or thicker wing right from the start.
    What we need for HotnHigh at the moment is something akin to an A10 - and as Sens posted...lots more (good) helicopters.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Not quite. When operating very small numbers, you run into irreducible minima. The number of personnel needed to operate 4 aircraft of one type is not 1% of the number needed for 400. The number of aircraft deployed to Afghanistan by the RAF runs into the minimum numbers problem: the total is in single figures. That is too few to divide the roles between two types.
    I agree about that, but we have keep in mind that the British had figured out that the best ratio for a squadron size force for expedition forces is around a dozen aircraft. The flexibility of the British system does allow to mix forces from different squadrons in such a unit to spread experiences and allow a constant rotation. In my example of two different types I had two squadron-size forces in mind, which do share the overhead.
    When the British does not field more than a dozen fighters, you are correct about that as I did agree before.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by bazv View Post
    Yes in britain we said the Jag managed to take off due to the curvature of the earth.
    I know there are people who think the Jag was good - but the performance of the a/c was abysmal,it either needed re engining and/or a bigger and/or thicker wing right from the start.
    What we need for HotnHigh at the moment is something akin to an A10 - and as Sens posted...lots more (good) helicopters.
    Just the case of the two sides of the same coin. There was the idea of the bigger wing Jaguar in the 70s to half the take-off and landing requirements by a lower wing-load f.e.
    The penalty from that was a much higher buffeting stress at fast low level flight.
    The higher wing-load does counter that. A Jag has to be flown fast and low similar a F-104G. The Tornado around the corner the low cost substitute of the Jaguar was never changed for a good reason.
    By the way a classical example, that every fighter is a compromise and in the ideal case it does offer some gains outside the main-mission too.
    Before the vitues of the Jaguar get lost a small tribute to that striker.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wXeKV7dLeQ

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    816
    France's 1964 Requirement was to replace US-funded T-33 and S.Mystere B4/F-100D, so: ECAT - "school and tactical attack"; UK needed to replace Gnat T.1 and (after chopping P.1154) Hunter FGA.9/FR.10. Both Nations also needed a heavy, to replace various Mirages and (after chopping TSR.2) RAFG Canberra B(I)6/8. So: UK would take the Breguet winner of ECAT, 200 each, BAC-junior, if France would take a BAC-led swinger. RR would lead TM on the little engine, SNECMA lead BSEL on the hotter one. All done, 17/5/65; all set to be undone 29/6/67 when M.Dassault caused CDG to dump AFVG. Jaguar GR.1 could have died right there, though BAC was deep into much change: new wing, kit - Elliott NavWass, Ferranti laser rangefinder. Instead UK Ministers persevered, even as recidivist Dassault throttled Jaguar 'M', for SuE (though France still took all 40 as 'A'/'E'), and pitched Mirage F.1 v (1971: Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation {AMD-BA}) Jag.Intnl. Healey recast ours - in 1965, largely to be T.2 - as (35) 38 T.2, 165 GR.1, largely for RAFG and largely as nuke tossers, to plug gap until (UKVG, changed 14/5/69 to be {MRCA} Tornado GR.1). In Oct.1970 he chose Hawk vice Gnat, so RAF received (60 Harrier GR.1, 118 F-4M and) 203 Jags and 175 Hawks to replace Hunter 9/10, Canberra B(I)6/8 and the residue of 105 Gnats. Oh, plus 228 Tornado GR.1/B. Massive Force enhancement.

    After Tornado was deployed Govts. kept most ex-RAFG Jaguars at Colt. as Stuka, Forlorn Hope during the flexible response, pre-nuke phase in RAFG, for which it was well-suited, and in Expeditionary Tasks, where it was less so. Airlines call this the "intelligent misuse" of assets, in the absence of tailored kit. After 1985 it was Jag, as seen, or nowt. Quite how the type lingered after USSR faded in 1991, until ('A', 2005, 'S'/GR3, 2007), is odd.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    4,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Just the case of the two sides of the same coin. There was the idea of the bigger wing Jaguar in the 70s to half the take-off and landing requirements by a lower wing-load f.e.
    The penalty from that was a much higher buffeting stress at fast low level flight.
    The higher wing-load does counter that. A Jag has to be flown fast and low similar a F-104G. The Tornado around the corner the low cost substitute of the Jaguar was never changed for a good reason.
    By the way a classical example, that every fighter is a compromise and in the ideal case it does offer some gains outside the main-mission too.
    Before the vitues of the Jaguar get lost a small tribute to that striker.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wXeKV7dLeQ
    Yes Sens ...I well understand why the wing was small but as Alertken posted,why it lingered in service for so long is a mystery,carrying any useful ordnance was never going to happen hot or high,we really should have got some A10's or similar.

    regards baz

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    33
    Alertken has it wrong.

    ("After Tornado was deployed Govts. kept most ex-RAFG Jaguars at Colt. as Stuka, Forlorn Hope during the flexible response, pre-nuke phase in RAFG, for which it was well-suited, and in Expeditionary Tasks, where it was less so. Airlines call this the "intelligent misuse" of assets, in the absence of tailored kit. After 1985 it was Jag, as seen, or nowt. Quite how the type lingered after USSR faded in 1991, until ('A', 2005, 'S'/GR3, 2007), is odd.")

    And so does Bazv.

    (Yes in britain we said the Jag managed to take off due to the curvature of the earth.
    I know there are people who think the Jag was good - but the performance of the a/c was abysmal,it either needed re engining and/or a bigger and/or thicker wing right from the start.
    )

    Jaguar was not under-powered for its primary intended RAF service role (strike/attack in Europe) nor for out of area ops on NATO's flanks - northern AND southern, which is why the French managed perfectly OK with theirs - and they kept the original Adour 102 and then took them out to Chad and Djibouti and the like!

    Jaguar was perfectly suited for Expeditionary Tasks, because of its deployability (low logistics footprint, ability to operate from austere airfields, rapid deployment capability) and role flexibility.

    (It is interesting to note that a Jag deployment needed about half the manpower of an equivalent Harrier or Tornado deployment, so it's clear that using a Jag det to augment Harrier would not have been quite as profligate as Swerve inplies, and it would have allowed the Harrier force to support its Afghan det for longer and with less overstretch.)

    The aircraft proved its worth in Desert Storm and then again in the Balkans.

    Its usefulness was then enhanced by the GR1B, J96 (GR3) and J97 (GR3A) upgrades, which made it, in many (but not all!) ways, a more useful air-to-ground platform than the Harrier and GR4.

    Though the Adour 106 programme did not fulfil its original promise (which offered a 15% increase in thrust, with 21-25% avaliable briefly) it did reduce costs of ownership, and did confer some useful improvement in thrust.

    The fact that it 'lingered' isn't odd - what is 'odd' is that we didn't keep it longer.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES