CORSAIR Vs JAGUAR
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The Jaguar was replaced arguably by nothing in RAF service...
Quote:
The Jaguar was replaced arguably by nothing in RAF service... (Eventually) it was replaced by it's intended successor, the Typhoon FGR4.
The Jaguar was replaced arguably by nothing in RAF service... (Eventually) it was replaced by it's intended successor, the Typhoon FGR4.
sharpend wrote:
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...
In my experience (3 Tours) oh yes it could; even with the little engines.
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...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Retired 2007
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
In my experience (3 Tours) oh yes it could; even with the little engines.
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.
Dassault-Breguet Jaguar M [in french]
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A more valid comparison might be A6 vs Bucc.....
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.
The A-6F would have been quite amazingly useful over the past decade-plus.
As for the Jaguar M - it was canned due to poor engine-out handling and replaced by the Super Etendard. Which certainly had predictable engine-out characteristics going for it.
As for the Jaguar M - it was canned due to poor engine-out handling and replaced by the Super Etendard. Which certainly had predictable engine-out characteristics going for it.
I'm fairly sure one of the main reasons for the Super Etendard being picked over the Jaguar M was that all of it would be built in France, and not merely half of it...