CORSAIR Vs JAGUAR
 

Hi guys.

I would like to know, if the A-7 Corsair was better than the SEPECAT Jaguar , and if so, why ?

http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2014/...0458457243.jpg


http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2014/...0734679067.jpg

The Jag on shore could have benefited from a Catapult Launch system so commonly used by the A-7 on Carrier Takeoffs.

A-7 did have a RR engine.....:ok:

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.

CORSAIR Vs JAGUAR
 

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

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.

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.

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

I imagine jobs had a lot to do with it.

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.

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

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.

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!!:):)

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.

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

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.

India still operates the Jag.

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.

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.

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

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

Fresh delay hits Indian Jaguar upgrade - 5/15/2014 - Flight Global