Basically, exploring the ways of extracting the most from the whole Jaguar program, whether in cooperation, or as British-only or French-only development. Like perhaps installing more capable radar sets vs. what was one on Jaguar International, plausible engine improvement, do the F-5 > F-20 thing on the Jag, wing improvement like the suggested big LERX etc. Perhaps the high-up cockpit so a really good radar is easier to install? The navalized Jaguar was certainly an interesting idea, but it will need both political supprt and much better engine power, plus radar so it can lob Exocets and similar.
Getting the best mileage from Jaguar program?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Mk.104 Adour ASAP. Larger wing. Radar-wise, what fits an Etendard (Aida) or S.E ( Agave / Anemone) should fit a Jaguar nose.
Problem is Dassault hated the Jag while on the British side the 1970's were hell on Earth and repeated economic meltdowns.
Problem is Dassault hated the Jag while on the British side the 1970's were hell on Earth and repeated economic meltdowns.
D
Deleted member 2278
Guest
Careful everybody, the world's 14th biggest Jag fan is watching......
Can you say 'Tornado with fixed wings'?
Already one 'normal' engine (Avon, Spey, RB.199, 'pass-though' Pegasus) gives a better thrust-to-weight ratio, compared with two Adours. The RB.199 is, from the British point of view, probably the best choice - logistics are there wrt. Tornado, it is a more modern engine, light and of modest size. More than 600 kg/1300 lbs can be saved with RB.199.
Avon is a tad too late, unless the work is started rather early (early 1970s at latest). Otherwise it is a mature engine, that might be easier to get the export permission. Not too big nor long. Fuel consumption will go up noticeably vs. two Adours.
With reheated Spey on board, a major power increase is to be had. It will take a more substantial change to the fuselage, though. Increased weight will require bigger wing and stronger undercarriage.
Installation of the non-afterburning Spey might be much easier to do; low power, though.
Pegasus is interesting - bulky it was, but it was also powerful.
Already one 'normal' engine (Avon, Spey, RB.199, 'pass-though' Pegasus) gives a better thrust-to-weight ratio, compared with two Adours. The RB.199 is, from the British point of view, probably the best choice - logistics are there wrt. Tornado, it is a more modern engine, light and of modest size. More than 600 kg/1300 lbs can be saved with RB.199.
Avon is a tad too late, unless the work is started rather early (early 1970s at latest). Otherwise it is a mature engine, that might be easier to get the export permission. Not too big nor long. Fuel consumption will go up noticeably vs. two Adours.
With reheated Spey on board, a major power increase is to be had. It will take a more substantial change to the fuselage, though. Increased weight will require bigger wing and stronger undercarriage.
Installation of the non-afterburning Spey might be much easier to do; low power, though.
Pegasus is interesting - bulky it was, but it was also powerful.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,623
- Reaction score
- 1,901
Lots of these ideas seem to be making a worse Tornado...
Keep the same tactical strike role set and simplicity but make it better: expand the "fighter" bit for when you encounter MiGs at low altitude over the battlefield.
Keep the same tactical strike role set and simplicity but make it better: expand the "fighter" bit for when you encounter MiGs at low altitude over the battlefield.
- Big strakes as per ACT and FCS to increase agility. Maybe canards instead of the strakes.
- Earlier ASRAAM / Taildog etc. HOBS weapons
- Helmet mounted sight
- Maybe a bigger Carbon wing
- Adour Mk 104s
Wasn't there an experimental Jaguar with FBW and canards, at some point ?
"Le Jaguar décolle car la Terre est ronde"
"Jaguar take off only because the Earth is round".
In 1986 French Jaguars with Mk.102 Adours took off from Tchad N'Djamena hot and dry airstrip, carrying massive AS-37 Martel anti-radar missiles.
How they took off in the first place, I have no idea... they surely needed all 3000 m of runway, like a freakkin' B-52 or An-225.
"Le Jaguar décolle car la Terre est ronde"
"Jaguar take off only because the Earth is round".
In 1986 French Jaguars with Mk.102 Adours took off from Tchad N'Djamena hot and dry airstrip, carrying massive AS-37 Martel anti-radar missiles.
How they took off in the first place, I have no idea... they surely needed all 3000 m of runway, like a freakkin' B-52 or An-225.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,074
- Reaction score
- 6,188
If the Buccaneer was the Canberra replacement the RAF should have had from the mid 60s, the Jaguar was the Hunter replacement it should have had from 1969.
The RAF of course thought it knew better and left to its own devices would have just relied on the F4 Phantom in its original US version with GE engines.
The UK was lucky with both aircraft and a case could be made that a combination of upgraded Bucs and Jags with better electronics and weapons and other stuff would have been better value than Tornado.
The RAF of course thought it knew better and left to its own devices would have just relied on the F4 Phantom in its original US version with GE engines.
The UK was lucky with both aircraft and a case could be made that a combination of upgraded Bucs and Jags with better electronics and weapons and other stuff would have been better value than Tornado.
Could India also join this, they are still flying the Jaguar as of today.
Bingo. A 'Jaguar +' might've been a strong contender for the licence production n India.
Bit of historical revisionism going on here.
What the RAF wanted was a Hunter successor for Ground Attack, and MRI. They didn't want to spend cash on a nuclear capability for Hunters.
NMBR.3 was to fulfil this need, and even after it's collapse, the P.1154 continued. Precisely because it met needs.
Which if we look beyond the V/STOL aspects was a single engined, supersonic system based around new INS, moving map display and a radar. Doing away with the need for a dedicated Navigator in a second seat.
In the aftermath of that cancellation, a temporary fix of the RAFs preference Fighter, the F4 could deliver but at too high a cost. Especially operating costs.
So to the rescue came the Anglo-French Supersonic Trainer.
And in turn to make everything fit and work, off went the radar.
What the RAF wanted was a Hunter successor for Ground Attack, and MRI. They didn't want to spend cash on a nuclear capability for Hunters.
NMBR.3 was to fulfil this need, and even after it's collapse, the P.1154 continued. Precisely because it met needs.
Which if we look beyond the V/STOL aspects was a single engined, supersonic system based around new INS, moving map display and a radar. Doing away with the need for a dedicated Navigator in a second seat.
In the aftermath of that cancellation, a temporary fix of the RAFs preference Fighter, the F4 could deliver but at too high a cost. Especially operating costs.
So to the rescue came the Anglo-French Supersonic Trainer.
And in turn to make everything fit and work, off went the radar.
@tomo pauk The Jaguar was draggy because of its twin engines, which made area ruling more difficult. As evidenced by the low attainable mach compared to the Mirage F1, despite each aircraft having essentially the same thrust & weight.
The Jaguar’s wing was screwed up because it was over-optimized for supersonic straight & level flight, rather than maneuverability. For example the wing shape prevented fitting full span leading edge slats. And overwing pylons are always worse than wingtip pylons.
The Jaguar was however said to be easier to maintain in the field (i.e. accessibility of key systems), offset by the extra costs of maintenance for the twin Adours over the single Atar.
The Jaguar’s wing was screwed up because it was over-optimized for supersonic straight & level flight, rather than maneuverability. For example the wing shape prevented fitting full span leading edge slats. And overwing pylons are always worse than wingtip pylons.
The Jaguar was however said to be easier to maintain in the field (i.e. accessibility of key systems), offset by the extra costs of maintenance for the twin Adours over the single Atar.
Last edited:
Roger that.
Copying the F-5 -> F-20 idea is now even more apealing - we get both better thrust/weight ratio, and shave some drag.
addition: Mirage F1 have had variable cross-section intakes, well suited for high speed flight - not the case with Jaguar.
The over-wing pylons were retrofit; I'd also rather have the wing-tip pylons. And LERX, not that we're talking about the wings.
Last edited:
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,623
- Reaction score
- 1,901
I think it does depend on "when" you're answering this question. e.g my punt is more a minimum mods towards AST.396 and then 403 by mods to the existing Jaguar airframes. Obviously doesnt come close to meeting in entirety but the point is to try being reasonable rather than the crazy real life schemes to fit lift engines, variable geometry wings, twin RB.199s etc. ...
The nice small wing on the Jag is good for gust response at low level and hence pilot workload but is an obvious trade off with sustained turn rate. But greater agility from FCS and earlier HOBS SRAAMs and HMS more than make up for this in the types of air combat you're going to actually have
BLACK_MAMBA
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 17 July 2019
- Messages
- 377
- Reaction score
- 854
I feel like this thread has devolved into essintially building another Tornado type of sorts. Jaguar evolved as advanced trainer into a strike aircraft. Comparing it to the F1 that was designed as an interceptor-fighter is hardly fair. Especially as they evolved into different roles from different beginnings. All Jaguar really needed was the more powerful Adour mentioned and maybe the big wing upgrade proposed. That will already result in a vastly improved basic airframe fit for future upgrades. Sticking RB199 into it will require quite the redesign (Adour and 199 are very different in size!) Essentially we'd result in a mini Phantom of sorts? Nothing wrong with that, but hardly a modification of the already existing Jaguar - the premise of this thread...
A good point.
I have finally got my books back so will reread the relevant sections.
Thing is Jaguar was a back door means to get what was wanted. A sound maneuver, since the front door options got knocked down by political issues. But looking elsewhere we see it wasn't repeated.
And it's successor ultimately became Typhoon.
D
Deleted member 2278
Guest
Yeah, strakes, LERXs & avionics are all fair game IMO but there is wholesale re-airframing afoot here. When is a Jaguar not a Jaguar?
@BLACK_MAMBA I'm going to outsource all my posts to you from now on. Please remember to water the house plant!
@BLACK_MAMBA I'm going to outsource all my posts to you from now on. Please remember to water the house plant!
The Jaguar and Mirage F1 evolved from different starting points but ended in the same place in terms of size and missions.
So it should be fair to compare the Jaguar vs. F1AZ in air-ground, or the Jaguar vs. F1CR in reconnaissance, or the Jaguar International vs. F1E in anti-shipping (for example).
Last edited:
Aaaanndd immediately we hit the problem.
F1 isn't what was wanted.
F2 was, which is essentially a fixed wing Flogger.
Unsurprisingly when you strip out V/STOL from the P1154, guess what you get......
F1 isn't what was wanted.
F2 was, which is essentially a fixed wing Flogger.
Unsurprisingly when you strip out V/STOL from the P1154, guess what you get......
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,074
- Reaction score
- 6,188
The Jaguar was the closest the RAF could get to a P1154 without the misery of VSTOL.
Perhaps if Hawkers had designed a CTOL version it might have been very similar to Jaguar.
Like the Buccaneer, the Jag was not what the RAF ever asked for, but it was the best deal they ever got.
Not only did it equip the three UK based mobile force squadrons for thirty years or so but it enabled the F4 to move to Air Defence before Tornado arrived.
It was never going to get much investment because the money was needed for Tornado.
Whether the Harrier squadrons should have had Jags instead is worth asking. I know about the Falklands but...
Perhaps if Hawkers had designed a CTOL version it might have been very similar to Jaguar.
Like the Buccaneer, the Jag was not what the RAF ever asked for, but it was the best deal they ever got.
Not only did it equip the three UK based mobile force squadrons for thirty years or so but it enabled the F4 to move to Air Defence before Tornado arrived.
It was never going to get much investment because the money was needed for Tornado.
Whether the Harrier squadrons should have had Jags instead is worth asking. I know about the Falklands but...
Attachments
BLACK_MAMBA
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 17 July 2019
- Messages
- 377
- Reaction score
- 854
It has by now been well documented that fighters make better bombers than bombers make fighters... Weight and thrust are just two metrics that define an aircraft's performance albeit two important ones. A wing designed for stable high speed flight down low isn't going to be well suited to turning and burning... Design priorities in an era where computers couldn't let one airframe do it all at the throw of a switch let them focus on a particular area. Focus for the F1 was elsewhere. Short sighted from SEPECAT maybe, but I don't see that as a poor design in the Jag. Area ruling was by then understood well enough. Stuffing an RB199 into there is really going to mess with the area ruling ala Spey and Phantom though!
Jaguar isn't the ideal solution to the strike role yes, but there where fixes or rather options available as highlighted in this thread as mentioned. The F1A and F1CR had much better starting points yet in their actual role I don't think they were that superior to the Jaguar if at all... They could defend themselves better but that is it. Give Jaguar the mods mentioned here and you have the same ability I would think.
The Jag was decent - but like most British aircraft in service there was options available that would have made big improvements that weren't implemented usually due to costs namely uprated engines and the big wing. We keep France out of it due to them having multiple types in the role. I bet India would have enjoyed the mods discussed here. Jag seems to serve them well... Very well.
It's a fair question I think.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,620
- Reaction score
- 8,609
Not really, I take tomo pauk's original question more being about later upgrades rather than the initial versions.
Jaguar was probably as good as it was going to get before improved Adour and avionics came on stream in the 1980s/90s. India have taken it a step further with radar provision for the anti-shipping role, the RAF would never have done that.
But AST.396 nearly became a Super Jag and its not impossible to imagine a BAe programme might have come about to produce one in the late 80s/early 90s.
I agree making a BVR fighter out of Jaguar is highly unlikely and undesirable. Even a Blue Vixen/Sea Eagle equipped Buccaneer replacement would be less than ideal given Tornado can do better.
AST.396 Jaguar studies 1972 under designation P.69
Options examined in report:-
1. Modified avionics to existing Jaguar.
2. Uprated Adours Stage 1 or 2
3. Stage 2 Adours, uprated airframe, rocket booster for additional 10,000lb thrust for short duration......think about that one for moment.....
4. Version 3 with redesigned wing
5. Redesign of fusilage and undercarriage for twin RB.199 or YJ-101 turbofans.
The conclusion was the most worthy improvement was thrust increases up to AST.396 levels.
It is clear use of RB.199 would not make this a direct competitor to Tornado. But would bring engine commonality.
HSA report covered Harrier, Hawk, Jaguar, Dassault Mirage F1, and SAAB Viggen. The two foreign options involved re-engining.
Jaguar option based of S Version. Either with uprated Adours of 9,550lb each in reheat, or RB.199s.
It was ironically the Buccaneer that actually could meet ASR.396....that and Tornado.
And a single RB.199 version of Jaguar.
With great relief AST.396 was dropped in favour of ASR.403 with primary emphasis on air-to-air.....which led to ACA, Eurofighter, ultimately Typhoon.
Options examined in report:-
1. Modified avionics to existing Jaguar.
2. Uprated Adours Stage 1 or 2
3. Stage 2 Adours, uprated airframe, rocket booster for additional 10,000lb thrust for short duration......think about that one for moment.....
4. Version 3 with redesigned wing
5. Redesign of fusilage and undercarriage for twin RB.199 or YJ-101 turbofans.
The conclusion was the most worthy improvement was thrust increases up to AST.396 levels.
It is clear use of RB.199 would not make this a direct competitor to Tornado. But would bring engine commonality.
HSA report covered Harrier, Hawk, Jaguar, Dassault Mirage F1, and SAAB Viggen. The two foreign options involved re-engining.
Jaguar option based of S Version. Either with uprated Adours of 9,550lb each in reheat, or RB.199s.
It was ironically the Buccaneer that actually could meet ASR.396....that and Tornado.
And a single RB.199 version of Jaguar.
With great relief AST.396 was dropped in favour of ASR.403 with primary emphasis on air-to-air.....which led to ACA, Eurofighter, ultimately Typhoon.
Siberia
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 24 August 2012
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 99
Do we know what the operating costs were? I'd be curious to see what they were for the F-4 and Jaguar.
At some point I want to try and track down the operating costs for the Hunter, Buccaneer, F-4M, and Jaguar across the same time point or as close as possible.
The Active Control Technology (ACT) demonstrator looks to have modified one with fly-by-wire (FBW) and leading-edge root extensions (LERX).
Lovely question!
Someone produced something similar of relevance a bit.
Siberia
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 24 August 2012
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 99
Coming back to this whilst fly-by-wire (FBW) apparently improved the Jaguar's performance might it be a bit too advanced? As I understand things the Jaguar was built with reliability and simplicity in mind such that you could carry out most maintenance short of a full-on engine tear-down whilst forward deployed. If something goes wrong with the FBW system whilst out in the field would it end up being too complex to fix there?
I am always a little bemused by the idea of alternative or extended Jaguars, for the simple reason that the Jaguar was carefully and uncompromisingly designed to be what it actually was: a simple, low-level, fair-weather, ground-attack airplane, armed with either a French nuclear weapon or dumb conventional weapons (bombs, cluster bombs, and rockets). It was never meant to be a fighter, all-weather strike system, anti-shipping aircraft, or anything remotely similar.
Its alleged limitations were strengths, given its intended role. A small wing gave it optimal gust-response at low-level. Twin Adour engines gave it the desired high-subsonic performance at low level, relatively low cost, and suitability for the advanced trainer role as then envisioned (for the RAF, it also gave eventual engine commonality with the Hawk).
One can argue that the original Anglo-French, combined trainer/attack idea was flawed, if only because it was never realized. One also might argue that designing so tightly to the specification limited the type's adaptability to other roles and/or limited its longevity/relevance. But it was what it was. Accept that, and I think that getting the best mileage out of the Jaguar was a matter of using it as-is/was until the underlying requirement was no longer valid, and then retiring it.
Its alleged limitations were strengths, given its intended role. A small wing gave it optimal gust-response at low-level. Twin Adour engines gave it the desired high-subsonic performance at low level, relatively low cost, and suitability for the advanced trainer role as then envisioned (for the RAF, it also gave eventual engine commonality with the Hawk).
One can argue that the original Anglo-French, combined trainer/attack idea was flawed, if only because it was never realized. One also might argue that designing so tightly to the specification limited the type's adaptability to other roles and/or limited its longevity/relevance. But it was what it was. Accept that, and I think that getting the best mileage out of the Jaguar was a matter of using it as-is/was until the underlying requirement was no longer valid, and then retiring it.
That exactly what the French did: by some random luck the damn thing did wonder in Africa because it was simple and cheap to maintain; and this, despite the weak engines in the worst possible climate (very hot and very dry), - including dragging ultra very heavy AS-37 Martels to be thrown into Ugly Gaddhaffi SAMs in Chad.
Djibouti temperatures were no more helpful, 50°C average day...
In Gulf war 1... not so well.
Although a bizarre advantage was found after January 17, 1991 losses or near-losses of French Jaguars vs British Tornados...
The Jaguar was easier to change from "tree-tops - and "death by intense small arm fire" to "a little higher and safer": because the main sensor and flight control was... the pilot. As soon as French Jaguar pilots flew a little higher and safer they took no more close-calls nor losses.
Tornados designed from 1969 onwards for "tree tops with JP-233" had to switch to "standoff" and "LGBs"... with Buccaneers coming to the rescue. They kept taking losses, total six of them (AFAIK).
Djibouti temperatures were no more helpful, 50°C average day...
In Gulf war 1... not so well.
Although a bizarre advantage was found after January 17, 1991 losses or near-losses of French Jaguars vs British Tornados...
The Jaguar was easier to change from "tree-tops - and "death by intense small arm fire" to "a little higher and safer": because the main sensor and flight control was... the pilot. As soon as French Jaguar pilots flew a little higher and safer they took no more close-calls nor losses.
Tornados designed from 1969 onwards for "tree tops with JP-233" had to switch to "standoff" and "LGBs"... with Buccaneers coming to the rescue. They kept taking losses, total six of them (AFAIK).
Attached article from the February 1976 issue of the International Defense Review shows that the French thought the Mirage 2000 would not be used for low-level penetration missions and considered "a development version of the Jaguar, with uprated engines and a special avionics fit" instead.
Any artist's impression of this French Jaguar+?
In reality two-seat versions (D and N) of Mirage 2000 were developed to do low-level penetration missions with conventional (D) and nuclear (N) weapons.
Any artist's impression of this French Jaguar+?
In reality two-seat versions (D and N) of Mirage 2000 were developed to do low-level penetration missions with conventional (D) and nuclear (N) weapons.
Attachments
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,800
- Reaction score
- 9,683
If we're doing the F-5->F-20 thing, then my vote is for straight-through Pegasus. Somewhere around 28,000lbs thrust without afterburner (those sharp turns in the gas flow really take a bite out of pure thrust), and probably around 42k with afterburner due to the huge bypass ratio. Gives partial commonality with Harrier. But has an absolutely immense mass flow to deal with, something like 420lbs/sec (~195kg/s).Can you say 'Tornado with fixed wings'?
Already one 'normal' engine (Avon, Spey, RB.199, 'pass-though' Pegasus) gives a better thrust-to-weight ratio, compared with two Adours. The RB.199 is, from the British point of view, probably the best choice - logistics are there wrt. Tornado, it is a more modern engine, light and of modest size. More than 600 kg/1300 lbs can be saved with RB.199.
Avon is a tad too late, unless the work is started rather early (early 1970s at latest). Otherwise it is a mature engine, that might be easier to get the export permission. Not too big nor long. Fuel consumption will go up noticeably vs. two Adours.
With reheated Spey on board, a major power increase is to be had. It will take a more substantial change to the fuselage, though. Increased weight will require bigger wing and stronger undercarriage.
Installation of the non-afterburning Spey might be much easier to do; low power, though.
Pegasus is interesting - bulky it was, but it was also powerful.
RB199 is probably the more reasonable engine option, gives you commonality with Tornado and doesn't have the huge mass flow like Pegasus does.
As far as the other improvements go, I'd want to upgrade to all weather attack capability. Terrain-following radar, FLIR, laser target designator.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reaction score
- 3,001
I do not think that trying to adapt the Pegasus to a CTOL application would have been a sane or efficient route in any case - it's a little bit like trying to convert a helicopter to a fixed wing airplane...
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,800
- Reaction score
- 9,683
Removing the hot nozzles and replacing with a standard tailpipe would be trivial. The harder part would be the cold nozzles.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,623
- Reaction score
- 1,901
It was actively considered in the late 70s into some of the HSA designs (e.g. 1202). Large mass flow meant bigger, heavier aircraft, but it was evaluated to be lower cost due to the lower cost propulsion system (lower temps and pressures)
Since this previous thread, then there's been more info on historical Jaguar developments (e.g. in Gibson's Typhoon to Typhoon), or in what I assume we're the source documents used for this. Variants with a single RB.199 (e.g. EAG8662) looked really attractive in terms of performance (roughly double the range, half the take off distance) and cost (similar UPC to basic Jaguar), and feasibility (potentially just rear fuselage change, built on existing jigs)
This feels like a pretty sensible answer to AST.396 (along with AIM-9L/ASRAAM and later HMS for the A2A side) and about 30 years earlier than Typhoon.
Similar threads
-
-
-
BAE P.120/British EFA in a more tense Cold War- Started by F-2
- Replies: 27
-
Anglo-French RR Spey timeline
- Started by Archibald
- Replies: 116
-
alternate British airforce proposal
- Started by Cjc
- Replies: 0