Register here

Author Topic: Jaguar  (Read 17023 times)

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 982
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2011, 02:54:33 pm »
Terry   The raf trainer dayglo and silver was worn on the Gnat trainers in 1968. Had Jags replaced them in the 70s they would have been red and white like the Hawks that did. Actual Jag trainers were camouflaged like the A and S versions. Shame as the early Jag designs also look sharper.

Thanks uk 75, I was hoping that I could find a Jaguar that looks like the JASDF Mitsubishi T-2s. I always thought the T-2 looked very sharp in Light Gull Grey, Dayglo and International Orange. Never mind......

Terry (Caravellarella)
Because L'ORAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1232
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2011, 04:44:32 am »
Here is some lovely Jaguar artwork

Offline Alber Ratman

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
  • Big Cat man
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2012, 07:54:06 am »
The British  supersonic and low level specification driven changes killed any chance of the Jaguar ever being a trainer. While it was clean with no stores, it did almost have the speed of the British specification, however the changes made to the original Breguet Br121 design and weight gain over the Adours potential development gave it some marginal handling qualities that became dangerously unpredictabble near the edges of its flight envelope. The first prototypes had trouble in roll and roll stability, the differential tail required to allow a decent rate of roll from low speed up to 450 knots, autostablisation at low level and in tubulence was essential in all three axis and stalling the aircraft was a big no no, especially the two seater as unless a spin was recovered in one cycle, the aircraft would virtually be unrecoverable from departure at any height! There was a document in June 1970 put forward to the RAF Air Staff with the recommendations of directorates of flight training costed the Jaguar to be too expensive for training and operaions that RAF equipment for use by NATO commands in Europe for the new NATO flexible response was not enough. Thats when the Government changed the order to 165 S versions + the 38 two seaters for conversion from the 90 S and 110 B variants and to pursue the HS 1184 as the Gnat/Hunter T7 replacement.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 10:01:58 am by Alber Ratman »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2012, 10:13:56 am »
There was a document in June 1970 put forward to the RAF Air Staff with the recommendations of directorates of flight training costed the Jaguar to be too expensive for training and operaions that RAF equipment for use by NATO commands in Europe for the new NATO flexible response was not enough. Thats when the Government said 165 S versions and no proper traniers.


Ironic given that the Jaguar became the most numerable fast jet in RAF service, it equipped eight squadrons at its peak and a ninth was considered.

Offline CNH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2012, 04:34:26 pm »
Let's see - one of the major functions of Jaguar and TSR2 was to deliver tactical nukes in the event of the Warsaw Pact rolling west.

How many Jaguars could you buy for the price of a TSR2?

Offline Alber Ratman

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
  • Big Cat man
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2012, 02:32:50 pm »
Let's see - one of the major functions of Jaguar and TSR2 was to deliver tactical nukes in the event of the Warsaw Pact rolling west.

How many Jaguars could you buy for the price of a TSR2?

Hard to tell seeing it was 9 years and a lot of inflation between the TSR2 being canned and the first Jags armed with WE177s. The Jaguar tactical strike idea was first mooted in 1967 in government circles, however no Jag I believe came off the production line as nuke capable.. That was modifications that were installed and remove once in service. It is amazing that a trainer designed (sic) aircraft to train pilots for the TSR 2 and other advanced project, became the TSR 2.. However the Jag wasn't designed to carry out that role and in reality was only a stop gap until UKVG/MRCA/Tonkas came into service.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2012, 03:43:50 pm »
Hard to tell seeing it was 9 years and a lot of inflation between the TSR2 being canned and the first Jags armed with WE177s.


Not that hard, inflation calculators exist and the WE.177 mod would be relatively inexpensive (so you could strip of a number of years), the biggest problem is the fact that no final unit cost for TSR-2 was ever properly established, there were numbers used for analysis but it seems to have been widely accepted that these were guesses, best approach would be to just take the last one used. An interesting point of consideration is that the Jaguar was well known for being cheap to operate- its one of the reasons it survived so long after the end of the Cold War.

Quote
However the Jag wasn't designed to carry out that role and in reality was only a stop gap until UKVG/MRCA/Tonkas came into service

Not really, that was the ramshackle collection of Buccaneers and Vulcans that the RAF operated until Tornado arrived. Jaguar became a fleet in itself and three squadrons survived until the 2004 Defence White Paper (even then their retirement was about two years earlier than previously planned). In reality, in fleet terms, Jaguar was a replacement for the Phantom F-4M, which was itself a replacement for the cancelled P.1154 programme which was intended to replace the Hunter FGA.9/FR.10. Jaguar is a totemic result of the chaos of the UK military aircraft procurement programme in the 1960s.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 01:09:10 pm by sealordlawrence »

Offline toura

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1188
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2012, 11:19:55 pm »
DASSAULT-BREGUET advertasing as at "Le Bourget"
1981

Offline alertken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 512
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2012, 02:17:04 am »
AR #18: ECAT's pedigree from Taon to Shamsher does not deserve denigration. It was 1970s' politics of international collaboration that confined AdlA and RAF production offtake to c.200 each. France chose to move much of the E to Alphajet, much of the AT to Mirage F1; UK ditto to Hawk and Tornado not on grounds of any operational issue. The type was combat operational in NATO to 2007, in India till lord-knows-when: this is a boy, conceived in 1954, who done well, growing from combat apprentice to combat proven.

Offline Alber Ratman

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
  • Big Cat man
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2012, 03:46:06 pm »
My post on the attributes of the Jaguar are stated as its orignial design use as an advanced trainer. The attributes come from official documents on the development of the aircraft from 65 to 74 that can be read at the national archives. As a low level ground attack aircraft, it was exceedingly good compared to its competition when it entered service (especially the RAF S with the navwass kit), but the aircraft did have some vices that wouldn't forgive if you made a mistake. The aircraft would suffer massive trim changes on changes of power setting and with application of flaps/air brakes. True, there were systems set up to negate these by the auto stab system, but pilots I know have told me of times were they have had to put in major inputs to negate the effects. This would be true of many high performance FJs. The aircraft might have been better still with the big wing envisaged by BAE in the 70s, but who knows.
Other aspects of the orignial joint requirement of 65 did serve the aircraft well, it was easily the most servicable aircraft of RAF FJ fleet. I was on a Jag det once with F3s.. We had a 94% servicability rate, theirs was 43. It was adored by pilots and engineers alike, the aircraft and people gelled. The last Jag sqn commander wrote of the aircraft, could do with more power, bigger wing and a radar but we knew our limitations and would always play hard to our strengths. It is little known that the RAF Jag could have lasted a little longer in service.. bar the fact that the 106s wouldn't take the wick being turned up.. That led to the end coming sooner.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2012, 02:46:42 am »
94%?!!!


OH 'serviceability', so not availability then?


Interesting though.

Offline Alber Ratman

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
  • Big Cat man
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2012, 01:56:04 pm »
Servicablility rate..   ;)  Number of sorties flow against planned accounting for aircraft falling down from the first crew walking to cease flying.

Offline Alber Ratman

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
  • Big Cat man
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2012, 10:36:07 am »
AR #18: ECAT's pedigree from Taon to Shamsher does not deserve denigration. It was 1970s' politics of international collaboration that confined AdlA and RAF production offtake to c.200 each. France chose to move much of the E to Alphajet, much of the AT to Mirage F1; UK ditto to Hawk and Tornado not on grounds of any operational issue. The type was combat operational in NATO to 2007, in India till lord-knows-when: this is a boy, conceived in 1954, who done well, growing from combat apprentice to combat proven.

France realised the Jaguar was far too advanced and expensive to their ECAT requirement as the British realised that the same for AST 362, but operational issues of FE@R for NATO requirements was the major reason why the RAF wanted the government to change the order. As for confining the RAF and AdlA to having 200 aircraft each, true the governments had placed the orders in late 1968 and contractually it would have been more expensive to back out, but the RAF did buy more that 200, 208 to be accurate.. To hold up the numbers of aircraft FE@R to NATO until an envisaged date of 1984.. When Tornado came on stream in RAFG.. You can argue as much as you like that, but I have copies of the official RAF documents on the matter, photographed from Kew, I might know a tad more.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2012, 01:27:39 pm »
You can argue as much as you like that, but I have copies of the official RAF documents on the matter, photographed from Kew, I might know a tad more.


So give us the reference numbers for the documents so we can check them out ourselves, or if you have photos upload them as JPEGs or PDFs, then we can make our own determinations, but stating simply that "I might know a tad more" does not sit well.


1984 as a provisional out of service date on the assumption of a new aircraft entering service is not at all unreasonable and in no way suggests the Jaguar was a stop gap. Indeed in 1969 that would give a 15 year service life which by RAF estimations of the day was pretty reasonable, in fact about the same as the first generation RAF Harriers. Displacing aircraft from one part of the RAF and consolidating them in a smaller number of squadrons was not uncommon in the 80s, in fact it was done to Buccaneer (from 5 to 2 squadrons) and Phantom (7 to 4) as well as the Jaguar (8 to 3), and those aircraft then became the ones to be replaced by what became Typhoon. The Buccaneer was also displaced from RAF Germany by Tornado, whilst the Phantom would have been displaced from UK Air Defence duties had it not been for the decision to increase the UK AD squadrons from 7 to 9 by retaining 2 Phantom squadrons in Britain in addition to the 2 in Germany. Indeed the same thing had been done to the Lightning in the 70s when it went from 9 to 2.

Offline Alber Ratman

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
  • Big Cat man
Re: Jaguar
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2012, 05:54:08 am »
AIR 20-12229 Jaguar papers Air Historical Branch part 1

Document is AF/S 212/8  The Jaguar Force. Dated late June 1970. This document was drafted while the decision to add PTR facility to the Adour to allow single engine landings possible was still under discussion with the customers and SEPECAT/RRTM.

I won't post the images as they need the resolution taking down.. however the last section of this document reads as follows..word for word.

Conclusions

25. It is concluded that the front line is seriously short of close support aircraft. The formation of 4 more Jaguar squadrons would do much to relieve this shortage. The current planned force of 5 Jaguar squadrons could be increased to 9 squadrons through switching the major part of the planned order for Jaguar trainers to the operational version.

26. The current plan to use the jaguar in the flying training organisation is not the most cost effective method of undertaking fast jet training. The aircraft is unnecessarily expensive and sophisticated in relation to the training requirement. It would be more economical to introduce a new jet trainer to take the place of the Jaguar trainer for fast jet training, extending Gnats and Hunters until the new trainer is available. This would enable the Jaguar order to be altered to 24 B and 176 S version aircraft, which would enable a front line of 108 aircraft to be supported.

27. The cost of this proposal has been assessed as a net variation of an additional 12.3M against present plans,

Recommendations

28. It is recommended that the board should approve the addition of 4 x 12 UE Jaguar Squadrons to the front line, for which provision has already been made in the 1970 long-term costs as an alternate assumption.

29. The board is recommended to agree the introduction of a new jet trainer in place of the Jaguar for fast jet training

30. It is finally recommended that the board should approve the reduction of the original requirement for 226 Jaguars to 200, which is the total recognised as the UK requirement in the Anglo French agreement, and agree that the mix should be revised to 24 B and 176 S version aircraft.


Of course the mix was later revised to 165 S and 38 B and the 9 mentioned Squadrons were in reality, cut down to 8. (2(AC), 6, 14(F), 17(F), 20, 31, 41(F) and 54(F)).

Lots of the ex Germany aircraft went into storage on the stand up of the designate Tornado units, and became maintenance-training airframes (although the life used on them was way under the finite fatigue of the frames, some as low as 1500 hrs) long before the type was retired in 2007 (most, even before the Jag GR1B/96/97 programmes were envisaged). Stop gap might have been the wrong term to use, but not far off the truth, however wastage due to losses of airframes in the early years was very high, due to the low level operational training environments the aircraft was used in and its unforgiving nature to mistakes.. A famous aviation artist who flew the Jag in the BFG days, recently told me his photo collection from Bruggen in the air to air shots was very small, he was too busy keeping himself alive.