cancel the HAWK light attack aircraft
I always wondered lets mate the su-15TM flagon and Jaguar to create a interceptor/strike aircraft for the late 70s/early 80s ?
Wank the SEPECAT Jaguar
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
I always wondered lets mate the su-15TM flagon and Jaguar to create a interceptor/strike aircraft for the late 70s/early 80s ?
Riain
Banned
I agree about Dassault which is why I think Britain is the key to greater Jaguar success even with the French Navy getting on board.
However unit price is often only a medium factor, or only important in that a country selects a capable and thus expensive plane or a less capable and thus less expensive plane, IIUC the Jaguar was pretty cheap to buy and perhaps more importantly cheap to run so can be competitive with US and Soviet planes in that regards.
I'd suggest that one of the biggest selling points of the Jaguar is political. Soviet and US kit comes/came with significant political baggage in the Cold War and in the case of the US quite a few of regulatory hoops with regards to end use monitoring, third party transfer etc. The Jaguar, especially if Britain was pushing it, gives countries that third option to diversify their sources of supply away from the US and Soviets and the attendant political statements about Cold War alignment. The British and French were also first world western powers, the Jaguar has plenty state of the art kit which gives customers the opportunity for significant tech transfer rather than the heavy controlled 'monkey models' that the US and Soviets offered for export during this period.
I wonder if it would have been possible for Britain to buy out the French portion of Jaguar as Dassault wasn't interested in developing it.I agree about Dassault which is why I think Britain is the key to greater Jaguar success even with the French Navy getting on board.
However unit price is often only a medium factor, or only important in that a country selects a capable and thus expensive plane or a less capable and thus less expensive plane, IIUC the Jaguar was pretty cheap to buy and perhaps more importantly cheap to run so can be competitive with US and Soviet planes in that regards.
I'd suggest that one of the biggest selling points of the Jaguar is political. Soviet and US kit comes/came with significant political baggage in the Cold War and in the case of the US quite a few of regulatory hoops with regards to end use monitoring, third party transfer etc. The Jaguar, especially if Britain was pushing it, gives countries that third option to diversify their sources of supply away from the US and Soviets and the attendant political statements about Cold War alignment. The British and French were also first world western powers, the Jaguar has plenty state of the art kit which gives customers the opportunity for significant tech transfer rather than the heavy controlled 'monkey models' that the US and Soviets offered for export during this period.
Riain
Banned
In a more powerful, confident Britain that might happen or simply Dassault could let the British government and company do the promoting and selling and Dassault reap half the benefits.
groundhogday666
Banned
Now that's an idea. No idea if the May 18, 1965 UK-FR binational agreement would allow this. I think something like this happened in the late 70's - must have red that somewhere on Google books...
Riain
Banned
I did have a thought but quickly dismissed it.
In the early 70s the RAAF was looking to replace the Mirage fleet by the end of the decade. When the option to either return or purchase the F4E we leased in lieu of late F111 delivery came up the RAAF rejected keeping them because they thought it would delay the Mirage replacement.
Perhaps if the RAAF guessed that the Mirages wouldn't be replaced until 1985-88 they may have retained the F4Es. In that scenario if the Phantoms did the air to air task the RAAF might be in the market for an efficient, cheap to buy and operate but capable attack aircraft.
Better yet NZ might get in on the act, sell their A4s to the RAN and get their own Jaguars as part of the group buy.
But I don't really want that, so forget about it.
In the early 70s the RAAF was looking to replace the Mirage fleet by the end of the decade. When the option to either return or purchase the F4E we leased in lieu of late F111 delivery came up the RAAF rejected keeping them because they thought it would delay the Mirage replacement.
Perhaps if the RAAF guessed that the Mirages wouldn't be replaced until 1985-88 they may have retained the F4Es. In that scenario if the Phantoms did the air to air task the RAAF might be in the market for an efficient, cheap to buy and operate but capable attack aircraft.
Better yet NZ might get in on the act, sell their A4s to the RAN and get their own Jaguars as part of the group buy.
But I don't really want that, so forget about it.
F-4s for RAAF could have fulfilled both interceptor and strike roles I'm not sure why they did not purchase it only leased it
Riain
Banned
Our F111s were built in 1967, paid for and delivered straight into storage and by 1970 were still there with no RAAF acceptance date in sight. To cover the capability gap from the obsolete Canberra the US offered to lease us the Phantoms until the F111s were delivered, it was an important step in the relationship, Australia was getting pissed-off with the F111 delay and the US was worried about the strain on a country committing (and uniquely bearing the full cost) forces to Vietnam so made the offer.
I understand that but why not ditch the F-111 and just go for the F-4E ? And later get the F-18 as in the OTL
'cause they were expecting the F-111s "just 'round the corner". The F-4 was too much of an aircraft for the RAAF. It required a tremendous amount of maintenance after every flight and was very expensive as a consequence. Aircraft are more than just the cost of purchase. They are also the cost of maintenance and the F-4 required several hundred hours of work.
F-111 would have just fulfilled strike roles, they were prepared to rely on mirage III for all air defence roles ?
Riain
Banned
The F111 was a much, much, much better strike aircraft than the F4E, IIRC to replace 24 F111C the RAAF would need to buy 36 F4Es and 8 KC135s. Besides we'd already paid for the F111s, what were we to do with them, sell them at a loss?
If the F4E was to stay in RAAF service perhaps to replace the 19 Mirages that had crashed by then it would have been too much plane for the RAAF, as @Rickshaw says. The Mirage III was already the top of the heap in SEA through the 70s, we don't need to spend a pile more money to get even further in front.
Yes. Nothing wrong with the Mirage IIIO in the mid-late-1960s, early-1970s. It was an efficient and comparatively cheap aircraft to purchase and maintain. It even had a BVR missile. Something it's competitors lacked.
groundhogday666
Banned
The R530. France very own Sparrow. We had to put it on the MiG-21 / F-5 equivalent... per lack of a Phantom or MiG-23 larger fighter. The Mirage IVC could have been, but the Force de frappe and 1958 severe cuts decided otherwise... and it become a bomber.
I never quite realized, the F-104, except for the peculiar case of the Italian F-104S, had no Sparrow either. So the Mirage having a medium range, SARH missile was indeed some kind of bonus on export markets... how about that. Maybe I was too biased against the R530 after all.
Last edited:
but in reality it was used against most threats in 3rd world ..other fightersThe R530. France very own Sparrow. We had to put it on the MiG-21 / F-5 equivalent... per lack of a Phantom or MiG-23 larger fighter. The Mirage IVC could have been, but the Force de frappe and 1958 severe cuts decided otherwise... and it become a bomber.
I never quite realized, the F-104, except for the peculiar case of the Italian F-104S, had no Sparrow either. So the Mirage having a medium range, SARH missile was indeed some kind of bonus on export markets... how about that. Maybe I was too biased against the R530 after all.
israel and pakistan did they use it in action ?