Wank the SEPECAT Jaguar

groundhogday666

Banned
Fact is the R530 did not worked too well. Neither did IR AAMs - be them Shaffrir or AIM-9B. The Israelis quickly gave up and scored an enormous percentage of their 1966- 1974 Mirage kills with the DEFA guns and pilots skills.
 

Riain

Banned
groundhogday666 said:
Fact is the R530 did not worked too well. Neither did IR AAMs - be them Shaffrir or AIM-9B. The Israelis quickly gave up and scored an enormous percentage of their 1966- 1974 Mirage kills with the DEFA guns and pilots skills.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were unimpressed with the R530 in action, not the missile itself as much IIUC but how it was used. I think it took a long time to warm up and took too much pilot attention during the attack leaving the aircraft vulnerable to counter-attack. The missile could only do Mach 2.7 or thereabouts, so an engagement did take some time to set up and execute, probably OK with bombers but not fighters.

I believe Israel adopted the AIM9D during the War of Attrition and was happy with it as it was considerably more capable than the 9B.

Personally my favourite 1st Generation AAM is the Red Top, faster than the R530 with similar range and far more missile than the AIM9B/D.
 

Father Maryland

Riain said:
Yes, they were unimpressed with the R530 in action, not the missile itself as much IIUC but how it was used. I think it took a long time to warm up and took too much pilot attention during the attack leaving the aircraft vulnerable to counter-attack. The missile could only do Mach 2.7 or thereabouts, so an engagement did take some time to set up and execute, probably OK with bombers but not fighters.

I believe Israel adopted the AIM9D during the War of Attrition and was happy with it as it was considerably more capable than the 9B.

Personally my favourite 1st Generation AAM is the Red Top, faster than the R530 with similar range and far more missile than the AIM9B/D.
Click to expand...

Pfft. Everyone know's the best air to air missile was the AIM-26 Falcon with the nuclear warhead. "What's that you need you're silly conventional AAM to get within a few feet of the enemy to probably kill it. With these babies you can comfortably wipe out an entire squadron if they get within say five miles."

Just like the best ship based SAM was the nuclear TALOS.

And the best land based SAM was the Bomarc. Who doesn't love the idea of a SAM that can fly 500 miles at Mach 2.5 and then kill every aircraft within a few miles.

God I love that early Cold War insanity. Especially the TALOS. A fucking SAM the size of a fighter jet and practically manufactured onboard ship by a insanely cool assembly line.
 

Monk78

Riain said:
Yes, they were unimpressed with the R530 in action, not the missile itself as much IIUC but how it was used. I think it took a long time to warm up and took too much pilot attention during the attack leaving the aircraft vulnerable to counter-attack. The missile could only do Mach 2.7 or thereabouts, so an engagement did take some time to set up and execute, probably OK with bombers but not fighters.

I believe Israel adopted the AIM9D during the War of Attrition and was happy with it as it was considerably more capable than the 9B.

Personally my favourite 1st Generation AAM is the Red Top, faster than the R530 with similar range and far more missile than the AIM9B/D.
Click to expand...
it reminds me of the AA-5 Ash AAM of Tu-128
 

Father Maryland

Monk78 said:
Genie or Falcon ?
Click to expand...

Genie was unguided. Falcon was guided and I think much larger with a longer range. The nuclear version quickly got decommissioned but for some reason the Swiss bought a bunch of the conventional version and used them for decades.

The basic design and concept (minus the nukes) evolved into the wonderful AIM-54 Phoenix.

Though now that I think about it could you have fit a nuclear warhead on a Phoenix?
 

jsb

tomo pauk said:
Let's give some love to the Jag. Like an update to it's wing, powerplant, electronics etc. so it still matters in 1980s/90s for both new and old customers. Cancel/axe other aircraft where & when needed so there is enough of funds for countries to buy the 'better Jag'.
Click to expand...
Would the best not be to simply not have it compete with Dassaults fighters?

What about having it as an Anglo-German (or any other European Italy/Spain etc nations) fighter trainer after they decide to replace the G.91?

Then have them accept UK design lead (they have more experience building fast jets) as long as Germany gets the financial lead on cost limits (so its actually cheap and successful for export not gold-plated like most RAF projects)?

Have "JAG" built as a single engine to reduce coast using say a single Rolls-Royce Spey 203 low bypass turbofans, 12,140 lbf dry thrust (54 kN), 20,500 lbf in afterburner (91.2 kN) (with reheat only in the fighter version) (numbers all from wiki)
(v OTL Jaguar 2 × Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk.102 afterburning turbofan engines, 22.75 kN (5,110 lbf) thrust each dry, 32.5 kN (7,300 lbf) with afterburner)

Slightly more power and one engine will reduce cost and with no problem with competing with in house Dassaults designs?
 

groundhogday666

Banned
Would the best not be to simply not have it compete with Dassaults fighters?
Click to expand...
Or better, reverse OTL and have Dassault win ECAT and Breguet getting AFVG. Wouldn't change Breguet fate (they were already doomed by 1965), but for Dassault... Jaguar would be a poisoned chalice, somewhat.
 

tomo pauk

jsb said:
Would the best not be to simply not have it compete with Dassaults fighters?

What about having it as an Anglo-German (or any other European Italy/Spain etc nations) fighter trainer after they decide to replace the G.91?

Then have them accept UK design lead (they have more experience building fast jets) as long as Germany gets the financial lead on cost limits (so its actually cheap and successful for export not gold-plated like most RAF projects)?

Have "JAG" built as a single engine to reduce coast using say a single Rolls-Royce Spey 203 low bypass turbofans, 12,140 lbf dry thrust (54 kN), 20,500 lbf in afterburner (91.2 kN) (with reheat only in the fighter version) (numbers all from wiki)
(v OTL Jaguar 2 × Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk.102 afterburning turbofan engines, 22.75 kN (5,110 lbf) thrust each dry, 32.5 kN (7,300 lbf) with afterburner)

Slightly more power and one engine will reduce cost and with no problem with competing with in house Dassaults designs?
Click to expand...
The 1-engined Jaguar makes a lot of sense. Perhaps this scenario might work:
The ECAT is initially conceived around a non-afterburning jet engine, say the 'Avon minus' or the Atar as used on Etandards, or indeed the non-A/B Spey? The actually produced, fully-combat capable version gets the afterburning version?
Complexity and price reduction might or might not be achieved, while the thrust-to-weight ratio is much improved with knock-on effects with regard to improving combat capability vs. the OTL Jaguar. Especially if the Spey is powerplant.
If the Avon is chosen, swap it with RB.199 by late 1970s - that can also embark the Italians and Brasil on the alt Jaguar ship by axing the AMX? Portugal and/or Greece don't buy the A-7, but Jag?
 
Lascaris

Lascaris

Father Maryland said:
Did the Greeks and Portuguese operate the A7 in the anti shipping role with cruise missiles or dumb bombs and rockets?
Click to expand...
No Harpoons in Greek service. So the only guided munitions available were Mavericks, Paveway bombs and older AGM12 Bullpups. That said I don't see the Greeks adopting the Jaguar over their A-7E. A-7 in Greek service had a very clear role. It could fly below radar coverage all the way to Cyprus or inside Turkey /Warsaw pact and deliver up to 7 tons of ordnance with the same accuracy with an F-16. Don't think Jaguar could accomplish as much.
 

groundhogday666

Banned
That's one of the big strength of the FLUFF / BUFF - that thing had big range and weapon load altogether. Probably the alliance of a stubby fuselage and a turbofan. It even very nearly undermined the Hornet to replace it, which range suffered in comparison (10%less or even more - it hurts !)
And that was an aircraft designed around a TF30 piece-of-junk, hastily replaced with a licence-build Spey. Imagine what might have been with a F404. No surprise the Hornet had such difficult time replacing it on range alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top