CORSAIR Vs JAGUAR [Archive]

KenV

19th Dec 2014, 16:37

You mean the Corsair II. The original Corsair dates back to WW2. :O

The Jaguar had two engines which has certain advantages. And they had afterburners.
The Corsair had a single engine with no afterburner.
The Jaguar was supersonic while the A-7 was subsonic. The A-7 airframe was not "area ruled", so it was draggy at high subsonic speeds which also resuted in mediocre acceleration.
As for agility, the Corsair had 4.3 G sustained turn performance. I don't know but I understand that Jaguar could sustain 4.5 G

The Corsair was bigger and heavier and carried a larger load a greater distance than the Jaguar, it had a great avionics package, and it was an excellent and very stable bombing platform. For the narrow niche it was designed for, it was absolutely outstanding. The fact that USAF bought and flew a Navy jet spoke volumes all by itself. But its narrow niche was its downfall. Modern military jets needed to be multi-role. The Hornet, which replaced the Corsair in USN service, is the quintessential multi-role fighter.

The Corsair's biggest problem was that it was underpowered and was draggy at high subsonic speeds. (Their pilots' motto was, "It may not be very fast, but it sure is slow.") This was improved when the TF-30 engne was replaced with the TF-41, but thrust and acceleration were still lacking. USN began phasing them out in the mid 80s and the last one was gone shortly after Gulf War 1 in early 1991. The Hornet replaced them.

The Jaguar's main shortcoming was its avionics, especially its navigation and targetting systems. But this was resolved in the mid 90s, which gave Jaguars a new lease on life.

Perhaps the answer lies in the two aircraft's longevity in service wth their primary users. The Jaguar flew in front line service for the UK and France till 2007, 16 years after the Corsair had been retired. To me, that says a lot.

ASRAAM

19th Dec 2014, 16:45

I'm sure the Jag would have been gone a lot earlier if the UK had F18s available to replace it!

54Phan

19th Dec 2014, 16:51

In both cases though, you are talking about the primary user. Both the Corsair II and the Jaguar remained in service for quite some time after being retired by (respectively) The U.S., Britain and France. The Hellenic Air Force just retired their A-7s in October this year.

Boudreaux Bob

19th Dec 2014, 17:01

Perhaps the answer lies in the two aircraft's longevity in service. The Jaguar flew in front line service till 2007, 16 years after the Corsair had been retired. To me, that says a lot.

It just speaks of the available budget that drives what gets replaced by new or just simply taken out of service....or retained when there is no purchase of new.

kimono1950

19th Dec 2014, 17:33

I do not understand is why, Uk and France did not purchase the A-7 in lieu of the Jaguar, for a lesser cost.

ps the Jag was bigger than the A-7

Roadster280

19th Dec 2014, 17:47

I imagine jobs had a lot to do with it.

54Phan

19th Dec 2014, 17:50

The Jaguar was a joint Anglo-French project, both airframe and engines. IIRC, it was originally intended as a trainer. I would think that any nation that has the resources and the opportunity to support its own aviation industry would want to do so.

Not much chance of developing your industry if you continuously buy foreign kit, and every A-7 sold would have minimal effect on Britain or France's balance of trade.

typerated

19th Dec 2014, 18:40

I never understood why France built the Jag after just developing the Mirage F1. Very similar performance I understand

Rosevidney1

19th Dec 2014, 18:49

In the 1970s I was very impressed with the HUD/NAVWASS system on the Jaguar - and yet a few years later it was the subject of intense criticism.

ex-fast-jets

19th Dec 2014, 18:57

I flew both.

The Jag with the RAF, the A-7 with the USN on exchange.

Both had some great attributes, and each had some poor.

The Jag was better in the low-level arena, quite quick with a decent weapons load and a reasonable range.

The A-7 was a superb weapons carrier with a good range, and it was utterly brilliant at high angle (30/45 degree) dive bombing, even with stupid bombs.

The A-7 turned better than the Jag, but ran out of energy quicker - but the Jag had to use burners to compete, which made the fuel run out quicker. So which is better?

Both were very good aircraft in their own right and in the environment they were designed for.

The A-7 had plenty of fuselage space for a different engine which might have offered more thrust, more efficiently, and there were many in the USN (late 70's) who advocated such a move as a better and more economical solution to the F-18.

The A-7 was a whole lot better at carrier landings!! I did that in the A-7 :eek: - I would not try it in the Jag!! := But the Jag with its large brakechute stopped a whole lot quicker than the A-7 if un-arrested. So which is better?

The Jag was called many things, but I don't think it was ever called a SLUF!!

To answer your question properly, you need to be more specific about the areas where you wish to compare the two.

I really enjoyed flying both!!:):)

kimono1950

19th Dec 2014, 20:07

BomberH ,very nice reply ! What I would like to understand is why, France and UK, whom had carriers ,did not choose the A-7, as it was less expensive and had an Air Force version too.

Dan Gerous

19th Dec 2014, 20:39

There was a Taccy Bombing Comp at Lossie, in 77 or 78, and the 23TFW A7's kicked everyones backside.

LowObservable

19th Dec 2014, 20:51

This was one maneuverable little SOB. You just couldn't run down anyone to maneuver against.

+1, OK465 wins the Internetz.

India still has Jags, as nobody has mentioned yet, and all sorts of lofty hopes for upgrades (including the F125 engine) that are running well behind schedule.

NutLoose

19th Dec 2014, 20:54

Quote:
The Jaguar flew in front line service till 2007, 16 years after the Corsair has been retired.
Greeks retired the last A-7 this year.

India still operates the Jag.

Davef68

19th Dec 2014, 22:33

BomberH ,very nice reply ! What I would like to understand is why, France and UK, whom had carriers ,did not choose the A-7, as it was less expensive and had an Air Force version too.

The UK had the Phantom and Buccaneer to do attack and strike duties. I beleive the A-7 was a candidate for the French when they cancelled the Jaguar M, but Super Etendard was chosen. Presumably 'Buy French' had a lot to do with that.

Against the Jaguar on land, I always thought the A-7 was more analogous to the role the RAF use dthe Harrier in - subsonic bomb truck rather than the supersonic interdiction/strike role of the Jaguar force at that time.

Vought's attempt to turn the A-7 back into a mud-moving F-8 might have been interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F

Re the Mirage F1 - it was initially designed as a fighter, and was developed as an attack/recce aircraft. Dassault would have been attracted to the idea of 100% of Mirage F1 export revenue rather than a % of the Sepecat after they bought Breuget.

GreenKnight121

20th Dec 2014, 06:20

BomberH ,very nice reply ! What I would like to understand is why, France and UK, whom had carriers ,did not choose the A-7, as it was less expensive and had an Air Force version too.

By the time the RN could have bought the A-7, it had settled down to using only 1 attack airframe from its carriers - the Buccaneer.

As the Bucc was best compared to the A-6 - all-weather/night capable - the A-7 would have been a step backwards for the small RN carriers with their limited aircraft capacity.

Remember, for most of the second half of the 1960s on through the late 1990s, the USN had two fighter types and two attack types on each carrier. The RN had one attack type and one fighter type.

For the French, yes - the A-7 was better than the Étendard IVM/Super Étendard - but as with many things, "built by our own citizens" trumped "capability". The only reason the MN used the F-8 Crusader was that French industry had come up with nothing that was even on the same playing field - much less actually competitive.

TEEEJ

20th Dec 2014, 07:37

The Indians were still rolling Jaguars off the production line in 2010.

Final production - The final order for Jaguar came on March 31, 2006 when, as Phase Six, 20 single-seat Jaguar ISs were funded. This would keep the aircraft in production until 2010.

http://www.air2airpix.co.uk/Jets_SeptOct2013.pdf

Fresh delay hits Indian Jaguar upgrade - 5/15/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fresh-delay-hits-indian-jaguar-upgrade-399313/)

orca

20th Dec 2014, 08:03

Dave,

Did the Jaguar really have a supersonic strike role? In a war fit I'd have thought the fuel burn to achieve and maintain supersonic flight would be horrendous.

I do remember then being very quick in a straight line at low level, and probably have the low level rules/ limits to thank for a couple of intercepts against them.

Willard Whyte

20th Dec 2014, 08:48

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/YA-7F_Strike_Fighter.jpg

Vought YA-7F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_YA-7F)

Realistically it didn't stand much of chance in the market with the '16 around, but interesting nonetheless.

jetslut

20th Dec 2014, 19:13

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc128/avg185d/FordCorsair001.jpg

versus

http://www.gq.com/images/cars-and-gear/2011/07/jaguar-e-type/jaguar-e-type_628.jpg

er, ... difficult decision.

rvusa

20th Dec 2014, 19:34

In my limited experience even a clean Jaguar, in re-heat, would not accelerate to supersonic speed in level flight at low level! Hang anything on it, no chance.

bvcu

20th Dec 2014, 19:38

not mentioned in the YA7F info posted was the effect the two flying prototypes had on the price of a new F16 ! Once they realised the USAF were looking seriously at an aircraft that was a rebuild they drastically reduced the cost of the F16 , cant remember the figures , sure someone will remember !

AdLib

21st Dec 2014, 08:55

"The Jag ... a decent weapons load ..."

Not seen that in the same sentence before.

Mind you, AS30 was pretty awesome.

Vendee

21st Dec 2014, 09:18

"The Jag ... a decent weapons load ..."

Not seen that in the same sentence before.

Mind you, AS30 was pretty awesome.That's a bit unfair. The Jag could carry quite a substantial weapons load, just as long as you didn't want to do something silly like...... take off with it ;)

I spent 8 years on Jags and really liked them. I managed a back seat trip on a post major airtest (clean a/c... not even pylons fitted) and it seemed quite nifty.

It was interesting to read the links provided further up the thread about the Indian Airforce wanting to re-engine theirs with the Honeywell F125IN engine. It seems a lot of expense for an extra 230lbs dry/ 1420lbs wet thrust per engine.

The article also said that RR declined to tender for an uprated Adour. I wonder if they felt there was no more growth left?

OK465

21st Dec 2014, 14:43

A comment on the A-7.....

For an aircraft which itself was essentially a flying speedbrake, it was fitted with a colossal speedbrake, pretty much the entire bottom of the aircraft.

To quote a female acquaintance during my A-7 days.....

"That thing is huge."

TBM-Legend

21st Dec 2014, 19:52

One of my RAAF colleagues flew A-7's on exchange at Davis-Montham and used to say that the Cessna O-2 FAC aircraft could always beat him back from the range when I asked him about speed but he did say it was an awesome weapons delivery machine with a great Nav attack system. He'd come from Mirages which I guess were the opposite of this...

tornadoken

21st Dec 2014, 19:55

Industrial Politics, A-7D/E and Jaguar.

May,1965. UK has an Option on 50 F-111K for long range nuclear strike. Makes an Agreement with France to do Anglo-French Variable Geometry Aircraft, Aeronavale, RN, FAF, RAF deep nuclear strike. UK to lead airframe, SNECMA to lead engine. The price extracted by France for that was UK commitment to 200 Breguet type selected by FAF as trainer, daylight mud mover, and Aeronavale strike: Breguet to lead airframe design, RR to lead engine.

Same time, DoD accepts Elliott HUD and Allison TF41 (=RR Spey) for A-7D/E, as industrial offset to F-111K.

Scroll now to 1971. F-111K and AFVG are dead. So is Breguet, absorbed by Dassault, who had Mirage F.1 in the precise Jaguar strike role, and SuEtendard displacing Jaguar M. Not until 1980-odd did BAe. secure control of Jaguar marketing and stop AMD's internal creative tension on exports. UK changed its order to 165 strike, 36 trainer...but stayed with it, despite AMD causing France to renege on AFVG, 6/67. The reason not to dump it for (something off-a-shelf, such as) A-7D was to occupy BAC sheds after Saudi Lightnings through 1970s until Tornado.

Willard Whyte

21st Dec 2014, 20:04

Tornadoken, as ever there are 4 dimensions to every aircraft: span, length, height, and politics.

And politics always overrules the first three.

54Phan

21st Dec 2014, 21:35

Well you have to support jobs for your citizens.

Coochycool

21st Dec 2014, 21:40

tornadoken speak good savvy, respect Sir.

I was looking at an A-7 in Lisbon just Tuesday past actually. Yup, I can confirm that that thing sure is ugly.

Always appeared to me as the runt of a litter of F-8 Crusaders. Was there ever actually a comparison between those types ie. was the F-8 ever trialled in the GA role? Woulda been interesting

This thread has also reminded me of watching Jags screaming down the Spey valley as a boy, then later visiting the OCU at Lossie.

Suffice to say, if I'd been tasked to go over the wall, I know which seat I'd have preferred, the pointy one

Evalu8ter

21st Dec 2014, 21:51

Coochy,
The F-8 carried Zunis (and retained the cannon) for A-G. They also got a couple of MiG kills with Zunis (!). The A7 could carry far more A-G weaponry, further, deliver it far more accurately and for far lower cost. I think the USAF A-7s had one of the lowest loss rates of any aircraft during the Vietnam war.

Archimedes

21st Dec 2014, 21:56

The USMC used the F-8 extensively for AG work. As well as the special Zuni launchers which went where the AIM-9 rail(s) were fitted, the E-model had two underwing pylons for ordnance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/F-8E_VMFAW-235_DaNang_Apr1966.jpg/640px-F-8E_VMFAW-235_DaNang_Apr1966.jpg

Also see this (http://mofak.com/mandatory_missions.htm) for recollection of the F-8 in an AG role.

GreenKnight121

21st Dec 2014, 21:59

Coochycool, the A-7 was the ground-attack version of the F-8 - it could carry over three times the weight of ordnance (15,000lb vs 4,000lb - 3 pylons under each wing instead of 1 helped in this), and carry it further.

It also could navigate its way there & back better, and hit its intended targets with much greater accuracy.

It also entered front-line service some 10 years after the F-8 did.

Coochycool

21st Dec 2014, 22:32

Yup, pretty much expected responses, thanks muchly for the input.

If nothing else, that screwjack wing design on the F-8 was surely always going to be a load limiting factor, no? Bit strange though that upon appearances, the F-8 is the earlier generation.

But to be honest, not sure I agree with the premise of the question. Jag M strikes me as being a typically French wet dream of we'll sell a three legged dog to anyone, to max our top heavy state controlled aero industry. Never going to happen.

Versus a dedicated mud mover akin to a heavy weight version of the A-6 , we aint pretty and we dont care.

But then of course the answer is obvious, best between the A-7/Jag? The F-18

Al R

21st Dec 2014, 23:02

TEEEJ,

Ref that first link.. ho ho.

Happy Xmas. :ok:

Its future will, however, possibly be determined by the recent announcement of an order for the Dassault Rafale. Reports indicate that the air base at Ambala will be one of the first recipients of this “down-market Typhoon”.

sharpend

22nd Dec 2014, 09:24

Quote:

'In my limited experience even a clean Jaguar, in re-heat, would not accelerate to supersonic speed in level flight at low level! Hang anything on it, no chance.'

In my experience (3 Tours) oh yes it could; even with the little engines.

sandiego89

22nd Dec 2014, 15:51

Perhaps the answer lies in the two aircraft's longevity in service wth their primary users. The Jaguar flew in front line service for the UK and France till 2007, 16 years after the Corsair had been retired. To me, that says a lot.

I don't think that is the answer. In just talking about primary users (US Navy for the A-7, and RAF/French for the Jaguar) the dates may be interesting but do not tell the whole story.

A-7 first flight 1965, intial ops by front line squadrons 1967 and right into extensive combat service. Retired @1991 from the USN. Other users until later (2014)

Jaguar. First Flight 1968, intial ops by front line squadrons @1974. Retired by France 2005, RAF 2007. Other users still continue.

So by your reasoning the A-7 had about 24 years with its priamary user, the Jaguar about 33 year- so it is "better". Yes a longer service life, but that does not by default make it "better". Both had pros and cons for their designed role as others have pointed out. Great input from bomberh.

And why were they replaced and what were they replaced with? The A-7 was replaced by the F-18 which was designed specifically to replace it, and by 1991 the hornet was mature and ready to replace the tired A-7's. The Jaguar was replaced arguably by nothing in RAF service and the Rafale in France, which was not in service until much later. So did they last longer because they were "better" or because there was nothing to really replace them with?

Dominator2

22nd Dec 2014, 15:53

Sharpend,

Yes and go about 80 nm to flameout - What a great combat capability!

I quite liked the Jag but it was no replacement for the Phantom FGR2.

The Helpful Stacker

22nd Dec 2014, 16:48

The Jaguar was replaced arguably by nothing in RAF service...

(Eventually) it was replaced by it's intended successor, the Typhoon FGR4.

sandiego89

22nd Dec 2014, 19:19

Quote:
The Jaguar was replaced arguably by nothing in RAF service... (Eventually) it was replaced by it's intended successor, the Typhoon FGR4.

Understood and acknowledged. I was trying to point out some reasons why the A-7 was phased out earlier than the Jaguar, namely because it's intended successor (the F/A-18) was up and running at a much earlier date than the Typhoon.

West Coast

22nd Dec 2014, 23:15

A USAF buddy of mine bought a 1969 XKE convertible in garish canary yellow.

Ahhh, a Lt mobile. Kinda a unique one though.

BEagle

23rd Dec 2014, 07:13

sharpend wrote: In my experience (3 Tours) oh yes it could; even with the little engines.

As you frequently told us at Chiv., Blunty old bean! But weren't those great times, 34 years ago! How's the book coming along?

I do recall, during my brief F-4 time, chasing 4 Jags at low level as they approached their run in to Otterburn at some speed. About the only time I ever saw 'transonic jump' on my altimeter...:uhoh:

KenV

6th Jan 2015, 14:29

QUOTE: Perhaps the answer lies in the two aircraft's longevity in service wth their primary users. The Jaguar flew in front line service for the UK and France till 2007, 16 years after the Corsair had been retired. To me, that says a lot.

I don't think that is the answer. In just talking about primary users (US Navy for the A-7, and RAF/French for the Jaguar) the dates may be interesting but do not tell the whole story.

Agreed. Longevity is but one data point and it depends on lots of factors, including political/economic ones.

The whole business of directly comparing two aircraft to determine which is "better" is pretty much pointless anyway. Better at what and for whom using what tactics in what environment? Case in point is the MiG-21 vs F-4 thread. The Mig was a great aircraft, for what it was designed to do for the people who operated it in the environments in which it was operated using Soviet tactics. The F-4 was a great aircraft for what it was designed to do for the USN operating from carriers, using USN tactics. The fact that USAF and several other Air Forces operated it in very different environments using different tactics and for a wide variety of missions it was never designed for says much about the "greatness" of the aircraft, but says nothing about whether it is "better" than a Mig. As I've said multiple times in the KC-46 vs A330MRTT and C-17 vs A400 threads, "better" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Is a fillet knife "better" than a steak knife? Is a two seat sports car "better" than a 4x4 SUV? Is a semi auto pistol "better" than a revolver? It all depends on the eye of the beholder.

Fonsini

6th Jan 2015, 22:32

The A-7s greatest achievement was not in the air, it was on the ground during development.

The aircraft's design, development, and flight schedule into service was one of the fastest, smoothest and most efficient in US jet combat aircraft history, and remember that this was an aircraft that introduced unheard of technology for its day, usually a certainty for development time and cost overruns. LTV even signed a contract that included a financial penalty clause for every day the project was late, unheard of today, and they never had to pay the government a penny.

The feds asked for a low cost, subsonic mud mover that would be available on schedule and on cost, and LTV delivered it. It was a huge achievement by the project team, I can think of none better in the years that followed.

typerated

7th Jan 2015, 04:51

Viggen, first flight 1967 of the strike fighter version.

Miles ahead of either I always thought (apart from in range!)

oldpax

7th Jan 2015, 05:24

http://i58.tinypic.com/2dhb88y.jpg

FleurDeLys

7th Jan 2015, 10:18

So what do we think about A7 vs Bucc?

Not_a_boffin

7th Jan 2015, 10:33

A more valid comparison might be A6 vs Bucc.....

ORAC

7th Jan 2015, 10:42

In my experience (3 Tours) oh yes it could; even with the little engines. Back in the mid-70s, just after the Jag took over at Colt, one flew a navex around East-Anglia/Lincolnshire supersonic (not sure if it was pilot or ASI error). You could plot the route from the low flying complaints as reports of the broken windows et al flooded in.......

Trim Stab

7th Jan 2015, 10:53

BomberH ,very nice reply ! What I would like to understand is why, France and UK, whom had carriers ,did not choose the A-7, as it was less expensive and had an Air Force version too.

The Aeronavale trialled a Jaguar M on Clemenceau in the 1970s. I believe that the project was eventually abandoned due to poor single engine handling characteritics.

Dassault-Breguet Jaguar M [in french] (http://www.ffaa.net/projects/jaguar/jaguar_fr.htm)

KenV

8th Jan 2015, 15:39

A more valid comparison might be A6 vs Bucc.....

The Buccanneer was originally designed as a low level nuclear delivery platform. The S.1 version with DH Gyron engines was woefully underpowerd, but the S.2 with RR Spey engines was brilliant. It had excellent low level performance/range and an excellent avionics suite for independent low level, all weather navigation over long ranges and an excellent targeting system for delivering nukes. It also had a good-sized internal bomb bay which allowed it to maintain its impressive performance even when carrying a good sized load. Later Buccs had laser spot-trackers/designators. Buccaneers did very well at Red Flag and Maple Flag exercises and very well in combat during Desert Storm even after the Tornado had entered service. Buccs also did very well in combat in South Africa.

The A-6 Intuder was originally designed as an all-weather tactical bomber with a nuclear strike capability. It had a suprisingly advanced (for its day) integrated avionics suite (Diane - Digital Integrated Attack/Navigation Equipment) with THREE excellent (for their day) radars in the big bulbous nose. Diane included an effective internal diagnostic system for finding and isolating system faults (well, effective after a few year of experience on Yankee Station.) The B version was USN's equivalent to USAF's Wild Weasel. The Intruder's mission systems were regularly updated and by the E model were pretty advanced and included a FLIR turret with laser spot-tracker and designator. The E models were upgraded to E TRAM, then E WCSI and then E SWIP. The most developed version was the A-6F, which had a really highly developed avionics system, two additional hardpoints, and new non-afterburner F404 engines that provided more thrust, lower fuel burn, and much improved reliability. Only five were built because USN decided to pursue the stealthy A-12 Avenger project, which never came to be. There was also two EA-6 versions. The B version was stretched to accomodate 2 additional operators. The Intruder did very well in combat in Vietnam, Labanon, and Desert Storm.

Both the Buccaneer and the Intruder were retired somewhat early just after lots had been spent to upgrade them (and in the case of the Intruder included new wings) and with quite a bit of life left in them.