CORSAIR Vs JAGUAR
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vought YA-7F
Realistically it didn't stand much of chance in the market with the '16 around, but interesting nonetheless.
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 !
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Jag ... a decent weapons load ..."
Not seen that in the same sentence before.
Mind you, AS30 was pretty awesome.
Not seen that in the same sentence before.
Mind you, AS30 was pretty awesome.
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?
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."
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."
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...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornadoken, as ever there are 4 dimensions to every aircraft: span, length, height, and politics.
And politics always overrules the first three.
And politics always overrules the first three.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 21st Dec 2014 at 20:24.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Also see this for recollection of the F-8 in an AG role.
Also see this for recollection of the F-8 in an AG role.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEEEJ,
Ref that first link.. ho ho.
Happy Xmas.
Ref that first link.. ho ho.
Happy Xmas.
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”.
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.
'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.
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.
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?
Last edited by sandiego89; 22nd Dec 2014 at 17:10.