Looking for advice: ex Jaguar GR1(a) pilots/maint.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning Mate, you could also mention the ECM/PHIMAT/ALE40 fit that was bolted on with the MOD 1114 for the "A" change.
A French website has the story of the "M" as told by one of the test pilots. It was going to be rewinged as it's lateral handling was rubbish for deck landings and PTR was never trialled before cancellation. It didn't help that the second sea trials were stopped when fatigue cracks were found on an engine or engine mounting. Google translate wasn't clear on that.
A French website has the story of the "M" as told by one of the test pilots. It was going to be rewinged as it's lateral handling was rubbish for deck landings and PTR was never trialled before cancellation. It didn't help that the second sea trials were stopped when fatigue cracks were found on an engine or engine mounting. Google translate wasn't clear on that.
I never understood why the French participated in designing the Jag. They had just made the Mirage F1, which was pretty much the same spec as a Jag in terms of size, weight, wing loading etc and just a fraction more thrust and a radar - even if it was a bit crap. I believe they are still flying in the ground attack role.
I also can't see why we bothered, surely we could have just bought more Harriers and Buccs?
I also can't see why we bothered, surely we could have just bought more Harriers and Buccs?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Type rated, the Jaguar was going to be the RAF advanced trainer, and had nothing to do with Dassualt until they brought out Breguet, who designed the baseline Jaguar in the first place as the BR 121 to fulfil a French requirement for an attack trainer and light ground support aircraft. If Dassualt had their way, the Jag would have been binned like the AFVG, but it was too late for them to do so. The Jaguar had its limitations (mostly to do with the supersonic trainer requirement of AST 362, the French had wanted a subsonic design originally for ECAT), but while it couldn't carry the same load as a Tornado, at least with the Jag, you could actually get a wave of aircraft up at the same time. Harriers could carry even less that a Jaguar and Navwass when it did work, thrashed the pants off the Harriers nav attack system that was even less reliable. Jaguars also took to flying low level overground a bit better for structural integrity than the Buccs did.
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 3rd Oct 2013 at 09:29.
I remember a certain AVM who used to visit us at Lossie and, being ex Hunters, he did not bother with aligning the NAVWASS and proceeded to charge around Scotland using map & stopwatch.
Nothing really wrong with that, apart from the fact that 3 - 5 G did nothing for the inertial platform. They had to changed it every time he flew
Nothing really wrong with that, apart from the fact that 3 - 5 G did nothing for the inertial platform. They had to changed it every time he flew
I am asking this gently and quietly - and will take f@@k off as an answer - but as a non Jag man, why is the aeroplane so maligned - was it really underpowered, or only because so much hardware was hung off it?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,121
Received 2,959 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
It's a bit like a Skoda, now a Skoda in the 70's wasn't a bad car, lots were built, but then everyone else were whizzing around in Dolomite Sprints, and those that had Dolomite Sprints looked at the slow old Skoda owners and laughed...
Same thing really, it gets much maligned because it wasn't as fast or as nimble as everything else, but saying that in its later years it was reliable, cheapish to operate compared to the rest of the fleets and didn't require taking along the population of Woking to maintain them when deployed.
Same thing really, it gets much maligned because it wasn't as fast or as nimble as everything else, but saying that in its later years it was reliable, cheapish to operate compared to the rest of the fleets and didn't require taking along the population of Woking to maintain them when deployed.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dassault, having succeeded in killing the Jaguar M (A Breguet project), partly on the basis of it's one engine out characteristics around the boat, then went on to sell the Aeronavale the Super Etendard in it's place, an aircraft whose one engine out characteristics around the boat must surely put the Jag's straight into perspective!
I am asking this gently and quietly - and will take f@@k off as an answer - but
as a non Jag man, why is the aeroplane so maligned - was it really underpowered,
or only because so much hardware was hung off it?
as a non Jag man, why is the aeroplane so maligned - was it really underpowered,
or only because so much hardware was hung off it?
The original did lack thrust (power is thrust x TAS).
However, it had long range and is maligned by all who have never flown it and have no clue as to its' real capabilities.
Keep it above 450 kts and it was gem.
Signed,
1850 hours on Jaguars mate.
Wander, the Jaguar was not underpowered! How can an aeroplane, capable of Mach 1.2 and over 800 mph at low level be underpowered? One has to understand aerodynamics to understand the aircraft.
Go into a steep turn at 300 kts and you would slow down. Do the same at 500 kts and you would maintain speed. Why? Because of lift dependant drag; induced drag to us oldies.
In a straight line the Jaguar was very fast. Pull G and it slowed. Carry the same amount of bombs as an early Lancaster and it struggled. It was not an air superiority fighter. It was a very fast interdictor bomber. It could do CAS but did not turn too well. If bounced by the enemy, one flew down in the weeds. In the days before capable air to air missiles, an sixties fighter would have problems shooting down a Jaguar at 550 kts and 50 feet.
But it did its job most effectively. As Wg Cdr Walker (boss of the OCU) once said, 'bomb in a bucket'. It delivered ordinance extremely accurately, even before the days of smart bombs. Even I, yes even me, managed 8 direct hits out of 8 bombs on Wainfleet range
Go into a steep turn at 300 kts and you would slow down. Do the same at 500 kts and you would maintain speed. Why? Because of lift dependant drag; induced drag to us oldies.
In a straight line the Jaguar was very fast. Pull G and it slowed. Carry the same amount of bombs as an early Lancaster and it struggled. It was not an air superiority fighter. It was a very fast interdictor bomber. It could do CAS but did not turn too well. If bounced by the enemy, one flew down in the weeds. In the days before capable air to air missiles, an sixties fighter would have problems shooting down a Jaguar at 550 kts and 50 feet.
But it did its job most effectively. As Wg Cdr Walker (boss of the OCU) once said, 'bomb in a bucket'. It delivered ordinance extremely accurately, even before the days of smart bombs. Even I, yes even me, managed 8 direct hits out of 8 bombs on Wainfleet range
It could do CAS but did not turn too well. If bounced by the enemy, one flew
down in the weeds. In the days before capable air to air missiles, an sixties
fighter would have problems shooting down a Jaguar at 550 kts and 50 feet.
down in the weeds. In the days before capable air to air missiles, an sixties
fighter would have problems shooting down a Jaguar at 550 kts and 50 feet.
Two of us in Red Flag outran an F4 "aggressor" by doing M0.95 at twenty feet. !
He couldn't acquire.
I support the previous positives.
I did 2 Harrier tours before switching to Jags.
Harrier - great aircraft and good at what it was good at.
But so was the Jag.
Take-off performance could have been better - bigger engines were available, but funding was not.
Once airborne, it really did go quite quickly, even with stuff hanging from the wings. It was small, with smokeless engines. On a Tac Bombing Comp we were intercepted by 2-F-4s over the sea. We stayed low and straight, and they couldn't see us or get a lock, even though they knew there was something there. Just don't turn! Increases height, solves interceptors' problem as your speed washes off!
Clean the wings, and it really was very nimble - but ran out of petrol quickly if you used the heaters - rather like the Lightning!
Very accurate bombing for the era.
And, actually, a delight to fly.
So take your coat off Wander00 - you asked a good question, but will no doubt have absolutely no effect on the traditional banter!!
By the way, I like Skodas!
I did 2 Harrier tours before switching to Jags.
Harrier - great aircraft and good at what it was good at.
But so was the Jag.
Take-off performance could have been better - bigger engines were available, but funding was not.
Once airborne, it really did go quite quickly, even with stuff hanging from the wings. It was small, with smokeless engines. On a Tac Bombing Comp we were intercepted by 2-F-4s over the sea. We stayed low and straight, and they couldn't see us or get a lock, even though they knew there was something there. Just don't turn! Increases height, solves interceptors' problem as your speed washes off!
Clean the wings, and it really was very nimble - but ran out of petrol quickly if you used the heaters - rather like the Lightning!
Very accurate bombing for the era.
And, actually, a delight to fly.
So take your coat off Wander00 - you asked a good question, but will no doubt have absolutely no effect on the traditional banter!!
By the way, I like Skodas!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much maligned it was; mostly I have to say by those who hadn't flown it (although I have met a few people who flew it that really bad-mouthed it, and I have no idea why).
I thoroughly enjoyed flying the Jag and was actually impressed by its overall capability.
No it wasn't over-endowed with thrust, but it had enough for the job. The needing the curvature of the earth was a dig by those who had lots of thrust but hadn't flown the Jag. It actually got off pretty sharpish even with 8 x 1000lb bombs on board. I am allowed to say that as a comparative statement, because I also flew an aircraft that did have loads of thrust. Actually, thinking about it, 2 aircraft that had loads of thrust.
What was nice was that the Jag actually seemed to enjoy being flown at low level (something that I found out to my cost on one occasion, but enough of that right now). It also went a pretty long way with a very respectable weapons load and delivered said weapons with extremely good accuracy, good enough to hold your head high even in comparison with some of today's weapons delivery systems.
Very importantly, it was exceptionally reliable. We never went on detachment with less than 10 single seaters and 1 or 2 T-birds, and we frequently took all 12 single seaters on inventory. While on detachment we lost few - if any - sorties through unserviceability. All this with a relatively small number of groundcrew, compared with some other outfits.
Surprisingly, when flown properly it could also be a bit of a handful for other aircraft in a visual fight, guns or Winder scenario. There was one occasion when 2 Phantoms from Wildenrath bounced my T-bird in which I was giving a local area famil to a new flight commander. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for the Phantoms, we were clean with just pylons. I took control and got a guns kill on BOTH Phantoms without getting done myself. You can confirm this by asking the new flight commander whose initials are BC. I think he was nearly as surprised as the Phantom drivers were!
Enough of this, suffice to say - as Bomber says - it was a delight to fly.
Edited to say: Oh yes forgot ...... one silly design fault was that any idiot who designs an aircraft with very little lift from its wings, and then proceeds to add a system that destroys lift on one of the wings in order to get it to roll, deserves to have been in the Navy and sent to find the Golden Rivet! However, as long as you understood that - at low speed - you didn't destroy nearly as much lift if you used the secondary effect of yaw in order to roll the aircraft, you managed quite well.
I thoroughly enjoyed flying the Jag and was actually impressed by its overall capability.
No it wasn't over-endowed with thrust, but it had enough for the job. The needing the curvature of the earth was a dig by those who had lots of thrust but hadn't flown the Jag. It actually got off pretty sharpish even with 8 x 1000lb bombs on board. I am allowed to say that as a comparative statement, because I also flew an aircraft that did have loads of thrust. Actually, thinking about it, 2 aircraft that had loads of thrust.
What was nice was that the Jag actually seemed to enjoy being flown at low level (something that I found out to my cost on one occasion, but enough of that right now). It also went a pretty long way with a very respectable weapons load and delivered said weapons with extremely good accuracy, good enough to hold your head high even in comparison with some of today's weapons delivery systems.
Very importantly, it was exceptionally reliable. We never went on detachment with less than 10 single seaters and 1 or 2 T-birds, and we frequently took all 12 single seaters on inventory. While on detachment we lost few - if any - sorties through unserviceability. All this with a relatively small number of groundcrew, compared with some other outfits.
Surprisingly, when flown properly it could also be a bit of a handful for other aircraft in a visual fight, guns or Winder scenario. There was one occasion when 2 Phantoms from Wildenrath bounced my T-bird in which I was giving a local area famil to a new flight commander. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for the Phantoms, we were clean with just pylons. I took control and got a guns kill on BOTH Phantoms without getting done myself. You can confirm this by asking the new flight commander whose initials are BC. I think he was nearly as surprised as the Phantom drivers were!
Enough of this, suffice to say - as Bomber says - it was a delight to fly.
Edited to say: Oh yes forgot ...... one silly design fault was that any idiot who designs an aircraft with very little lift from its wings, and then proceeds to add a system that destroys lift on one of the wings in order to get it to roll, deserves to have been in the Navy and sent to find the Golden Rivet! However, as long as you understood that - at low speed - you didn't destroy nearly as much lift if you used the secondary effect of yaw in order to roll the aircraft, you managed quite well.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dmanton300, please stop copying phrases out of a book. The Jaguar M didn't work well off or on a carrier. On one engine, it was as dead as a Entendard on zero engines. It wasn't just engine power, the aircraft didn't handle well enough for the French Navy to say yes to likely improvements that required major redesign.. Dassualt were a safe option.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A clean Jag was sporty as I saw on my first backseater trip. The second trip was on Jordanian midday launch in T fit with half a ton of concrete hanging off the front centreline ERU.. Take off was a little longer and acceleration was a bit on the slow side. First one was with 104s and the second was 106s.. Shame the 106 wasn't funded as a complete new engine.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wholigan
You know full well it was British designers that chopped the size of wing off the original French design for supersonic performance..
And it was a Frog who designed the "non effective at high AOA" lift dumper for roll control..
It's a shame that the MoD didn't allow BAe to try out the super wing design. Yes it only saved 14% weight over the standard wing, but the improvements in other areas would have been interesting.
You know full well it was British designers that chopped the size of wing off the original French design for supersonic performance..
And it was a Frog who designed the "non effective at high AOA" lift dumper for roll control..
It's a shame that the MoD didn't allow BAe to try out the super wing design. Yes it only saved 14% weight over the standard wing, but the improvements in other areas would have been interesting.