WI/PC: F-16's for RAF instead of Jaguars?

Well if you want an aircraft for ground attack there's always the A10. Still I think the Air Force would be more likely to get extra Harriers than anything else. As for a light fighter the F16 is unlikely, it's much more likely that the Mirage would be chosen.
 

Archibald

Banned
I remember the overwing sidewinders. Seriously, only British excentricity could do that. By the way, how did they manage to fire the AIM-9 without re-contact with the plane ? did British pilots turned their Jaguar upside down before firing ?
 
British eccentricity was over-wing ferry tanks for E-E Lightning. Indian eccentricity was over-wing Magic for Jaguar, adding British complicity with Sidewinders, in a pinch.
 
How about the Spey Skyhawk?

Same basic engine as the F-4K. Was offered to Belgium, Netherlands and Italy in the late 60s (1966-68 timeframe). The main advantage of the Skyhawk was that it was a very efficient little airframe (low structural weight), delivering good payload-range. Otherwise A-7 Corsair would be an obvious choice for a bomb truck, though apparently the avionics were too complex for a basic tactical jet.

More info on the Spey Skyhawk here:
www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2144.0.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=u...=spey a-4 skyhawk&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false


***********

The Jaguar itself was way overrated. I've taken a good look at the Jag's performance figures (available on Avialogs.com), and they stink. The design was compromised from the get go due to the supersonic requirement, which led to a terrible wing-design (wing was too small, low-lift, too thin for combat slats) and gas-guzzling afterburners. This was compounded by the Adour engines' anemic performance in dry thrust... a problem that the RAF only fixed after 2 re-enginings (Adour Mk 104 and Mk 106). Most of the time however, in dry power the Jaguar would be a sitting duck - it could only fly slow, straight and low. The higher it flew, or the hotter the temperature, the worse it would compare to other jets (due to the Adour's high bypass ratio). The only solution was to engage the afterburners (which pilots would have to do all the time... in order to climb, turn, or accelerate) but then the Jag's nice paper combat range became distinctly average.

In fact, looking at the Jag's performance figures, it now makes sense why the French Navy dropped the Jaguar M and ran away from it as fast as it could. Even the much-maligned Super Etendard turned out to be a better alternative, with superior carrier performance, longer range at altitude, much better maneuverability (excellent thrust/weight in dry thrust), similar payload etc. The best thing that could be said for the Jag M was that at low altitude and in favorable circumstances it might have a 20% higher combat radius... but only if the pilot flew straight and kept his hands away from those afterburners!

So to sum-up, for low-level attack, the Spey Skyhawk or A-7 Corsair would be best. For good all-round performance at all altitudes (including as a tactical day fighter over West Germany), Super Etendard. And let's not forget the Mirage F1, the Jag's closest competitor, which cost about the same and was much more versatile. The export markets made no mistake in preferring it to the Jag... but probably not an option for the RAF!
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The only thing you need to do (as is so often the case with modern U.S. combat aircraft) is get Congress to refrain from trying for a "Joint" design. That delayed the Falcon for at least two years.

Range is not an issue, actually the Falcon has slightly more range on internal fuel (the Wiki shows range with external tanks, without tanks the Jaguar has a combat radius of under 250 miles). With two 300 gallon external tanks the F-16 has a combat radius of over 600 miles with room for 10,000 pounds of stores/pods and 50% greater top speed (with tanks).

What is an issues, and a HUGE one is that the British had every reason to keep as much defense spending at home as possible (pretty much goes for any country that can manage the task). Even license built Falcons will have a higher price tag than the Jaguar.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
How about the Spey Skyhawk?

Same basic engine as the F-4K. Was offered to Belgium, Netherlands and Italy in the late 60s (1966-68 timeframe). The main advantage of the Skyhawk was that it was a very efficient little airframe (low structural weight), delivering good payload-range. Otherwise A-7 Corsair would be an obvious choice for a bomb truck, though apparently the avionics were too complex for a basic tactical jet.

More info on the Spey Skyhawk here:
www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2144.0.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=ubDgAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA79&ots=zB5LHUAn1e&dq=spey a-4 skyhawk&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false


***********

The Jaguar itself was way overrated. I've taken a good look at the Jag's performance figures (available on Avialogs.com), and they stink. The design was compromised from the get go due to the supersonic requirement, which led to a terrible wing-design (wing was too small, low-lift, too thin for combat slats) and gas-guzzling afterburners. This was compounded by the Adour engines' anemic performance in dry thrust... a problem that the RAF only fixed after 2 re-enginings (Adour Mk 104 and Mk 106). Most of the time however, in dry power the Jaguar would be a sitting duck - it could only fly slow, straight and low. The higher it flew, or the hotter the temperature, the worse it would compare to other jets (due to the Adour's high bypass ratio). The only solution was to engage the afterburners (which pilots would have to do all the time... in order to climb, turn, or accelerate) but then the Jag's nice paper combat range became distinctly average.

In fact, looking at the Jag's performance figures, it now makes sense why the French Navy dropped the Jaguar M and ran away from it as fast as it could. Even the much-maligned Super Etendard turned out to be a better alternative, with superior carrier performance, longer range at altitude, much better maneuverability (excellent thrust/weight in dry thrust), similar payload etc. The best thing that could be said for the Jag M was that at low altitude and in favorable circumstances it might have a 20% higher combat radius... but only if the pilot flew straight and kept his hands away from those afterburners!

So to sum-up, for low-level attack, the Spey Skyhawk or A-7 Corsair would be best. For good all-round performance at all altitudes (including as a tactical day fighter over West Germany), Super Etendard. And let's not forget the Mirage F1, the Jag's closest competitor, which cost about the same and was much more versatile. The export markets made no mistake in preferring it to the Jag... but probably not an option for the RAF!
The A-7 was an exceptional attack aircraft, tons of range on internal fuel, HUGE bombload, not much in the air-to-air role.

It was also cheap, cheap, cheap to procure, under $3 million a copy. It could also have operated off the RN CATOBAR carriers until they were decommissioned.
 
The A-7 was an exceptional attack aircraft, tons of range on internal fuel, HUGE bombload, not much in the air-to-air role.

It was also cheap, cheap, cheap to procure, under $3 million a copy. It could also have operated off the RN CATOBAR carriers until they were decommissioned.

A-7 was also very fuel efficient and had a reputation for accuracy even with unguided bombs.
 
Taking a step back...

It's 1967, and the RAF is looking for a light strike aircraft to release the Phantom FGR.2 for air defence duties now that the AFVG has been cancelled. That's too early for the F-16. Other options, then:
  • Super Etendard, Mirage F1 - After AFVG going south and whatever happened to the Jaguar, it's unlikely that a French aircraft would be on the cards.
  • Some new British type - It'll look brilliant on paper, be 50% over budget, take twice as long as predicted, and fail to meet the specification.
  • Harrier - Good news, it's a Harrier. Bad news, it's a Harrier. The only sensible 'buy British' option, despite its' limitations - and they are many.
  • F-4 Phantom - The Rolls-Royce solution, especially if you don't fit Rolls-Royce engines. Potentially very good - but also very expensive, and replacing Phantoms with more Phantoms looks a bit silly.
  • F-15 or F-16 - Not even a dirty piece of paper yet.
  • A-4 Skyhawk - A good aircraft, but rather small for the requirement. Problems with range and warload.
  • F-5E Tiger II - The American type closest to the Jaguar specification. Problems with range and warload.
  • A-7 Corsair II - Excellent aircraft, already uses a Rolls-Royce engine, and a fairly new design.
  • SAAB Viggen - This is going to be embarrasing, since we refused them a Rolls-Royce engine. And the whole 'neutral power' thing. Very nice aircraft if you can swing it though.
Realistically, I think the options are the Harrier or Corsair II, with the Viggen an outside possibility.
 
A-7 gives you the most bang for the buck and a number of other countries use it making life cycle logistics easier.
 
... and in the CAS / GA role as it has neither rough nor short field abilities (as per the then current doctrine).
The rough field ability I'll give you, but short field ability? As others have mentioned this is the jet where the standing joke was that thanks to its small wings it took so long to get off the ground more due to the curvature of the earth than anything else. Now they may very well have been exaggerating or been standard joking between pilots flying different aircraft, I couldn't say, anyone got the specifications for its takeoff distance under combat load?


Could the avionics fitted to the Jaguar be fitted to the Buccaneer producing a new mark called the GR Mk 3?
I don't know how comparable they are in size but the Buccaneer was used to test the Tornado's avionics systems before its introduction and they're roughly of a generation since the Tornado first flew around the same time as the Jaguar was entering service.
 
The main advantage of the Jaguar was that it was really reliable and easily deployable. In the mid 90's the RAF was so keen to increase the numbers on the books they actually looked into buying back airframes sold to Ecuador and they sent a team to Nigeria to see if the ones sold to the Nigerian airforce were viable (they weren't). What ultimately killed it was defence cuts.

The high wing loading (small wings) also made it very stable and comfortable at low altitude - a Mirage III on the deck would expect to receive 50 .5g vertical accelerations a Jaguar would get 12.
 
Can someone suggest why more Buccaneers would be a bad idea? British, has the range and the payload and optimised for short runways.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
A-7 gives you the most bang for the buck and a number of other countries use it making life cycle logistics easier.

Only a handful -- beyond the US, only Portugal, Greece, and Thailand -- and only Greece operated the type before 1980; and aside from Greece, they were using secondhand models. I'm not sure there'd be much ease of logistics if the British are looking in the 60s, aside from the obvious commonality with the US. They may even go with the A-7D model the USAF was using, in that case.
 
Only a handful -- beyond the US, only Portugal, Greece, and Thailand -- and only Greece operated the type before 1980; and aside from Greece, they were using secondhand models. I'm not sure there'd be much ease of logistics if the British are looking in the 60s, aside from the obvious commonality with the US. They may even go with the A-7D model the USAF was using, in that case.
Corsair II, Buccaneer and the F-4K/M Phantom all used the Spey engine would that be good for RAF logistics?
 
The BAC P.45 and the Hawker Siddeley submission to the SEPECAT requirement IIRC designated the P.1173 haven't been mentioned yet. Is it within the scope of the OP to substitute the Jaguar with either of them? The former was proposed with one Spey or 2 Adours. I don't know anything about the HS design other that it existed.
 
Can someone suggest why more Buccaneers would be a bad idea? British, has the range and the payload and optimised for short runways.
i agree here, the buccaneer is perfect for the job, maybe modernise them with a newer engine later (Tay instead of Spey)
 
The rough field ability I'll give you, but short field ability? As others have mentioned this is the jet where the standing joke was that thanks to its small wings it took so long to get off the ground more due to the curvature of the earth than anything else. Now they may very well have been exaggerating or been standard joking between pilots flying different aircraft, I couldn't say, anyone got the specifications for its takeoff distance under combat load?

You misunderstand the grammar. I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Jaguar has anything like a short - field perfomance. Merely that the F - 16 has neither characteristic - hence neither - nor. Either characteristic, in period, would be acceptable to the RAF, i.e. Jaguar = rough - field capable, Tornado - short - field capable (or was, before the thrust reversers were disabled).
 
Can someone suggest why more Buccaneers would be a bad idea? British, has the range and the payload and optimised for short runways.
MancFrank wrote in Post No. 7
Buccs are a possibility - they're readily available and certainly have room for regular avionics upgrades when needed BUT, much as with the Phantom, Buccs are overkill for the role they're envisaged for in this scenario. Also, not ideally suited to tactical recce or CAS. The Buccaneer is a long range strike platform - probably the best in the world at less than treetop height in this time frame - and pretty much as fast as anything at these ultra low levels over sustained ranges. Jags aren't nearly so long ranged, but that's not what the RAF are using them for, either.
 
Buccs would be my selection in a Jag - less world, but I'll readily admit there are reasons against, too - namely; cost, extra crew requirements, not ideal for CAS or, more importantly, tactical recce (remember - one Jag sqn is dedicated to tac. recce in period). It doesn't really need a new engine in this period, either - the baseline Spey is just fine. Also note that the TF - 41 & Tay are quite far removed from the 'standard' Spey and that, in the Bucc, the engines run THROUGH the main spars. This necessitated a comprehensive redesign of the structure when replacing the Gyron Junior with the Spey and would, presumably, need more of the same for any donk with a larger core size.

I also like the idea of the A - 7, which would be an excellent choice for CAS, but equally aware of its unsuitability for tac recce and also GA / strike in this environment, not being known for speed at ultra low level with a meaningful warload.
 
Top