Naval Jaguar

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
MDP78	Naval Jaguar	Lead	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 9 (16-Mar-2009 21:28:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Had the RN managed to pursuade the government to go for a naval Jaguar, together with a smaller carrier, what would we have ended up with? i) Hermes remaining in the conventional carrier role into the 1980's? ii) A much smaller CVA01 (for aurguments sake an updated Hermes)? iii) What roles would the Jaguar have done - would it have been an FRS? Or would we have had something else to do the F? iv) If yes to most/all of the above, would a fleet of say 2-3 light carriers carrying say, 12-16 Jaguars have been more of a force to rekon with than the Invincible/Sea Harrier force we did get?
frogGB		#1	[-]
Posts: 553 (16-Mar-2009 21:47:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"iv) If yes to most/all of the above, would a fleet of say 2-3 light carriers carrying say, 12-16 Jaguars have been more of a force to rekon with than the Invincible/Sea Harrier force we did get?" That'dd probably depend onto the type of EWAC the RN get...
Obi Wan Russell		#2	[-]
Posts: 476 (16-Mar-2009 21:50:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	the Jag isn't a big aircraft, so a Hermes sized carrier can accomodate about 30 plus helos and AEW aircraft. As a way of providing fixed wing carrier strike capability at reduced cost compared to CVA-01 the argument has merit, but it arrived several years too late to make a difference. And yes, aradar equipped FRS type Jag would be my choice too.
Obi Wan Russell		#3	[-]
Posts: 477 (16-Mar-2009 21:52:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	frogGB wrote: "iv) If yes to most/all of the above, would a fleet of say 2-3 light carriers carrying say, 12-16 Jaguars have been more of a force to rekon with than the Invincible/Sea Harrier force we did get?" That'dd probably depend onto the type of EWAC the RN get... Cheapest solution? Turbo Tracker with Searchwater radar, Updated Gannets with Searchwater radar, or sea Kings with Searchwater radar. You may detect a bit of bias here...
MDP78		#4	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 10 (16-Mar-2009 21:57:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'd have throught that the Gannets would have had a bit more life in them. And what about an updated version to replace them? Would we have got anywhere with an Anglo-French project?
Obi Wan Russell		#5	[-]
Posts: 478 (16-Mar-2009 22:14:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	44 Gannet AEW3s were built, most only flew for ten years, 12 became donor aircraft for the Shackleton AEW2s and seven were retained for Ark Royal in the seventies (3 with HQ flight and four with B flight). That leaves quite a few low mileage airframes which could have been upgraded. Westlands did propose a Gannet AEW7 to follow the AEW3 for CVA-01, this would have had a Hawkeye style rotodome above the fuselage, but the project didn't get off the drawing board. The feeling seems to have been a larger airframe would mean a higher performance radar could be carried, though the subsequent miniturisation of electronic technology from the 70s onward would mean the Gannet could remain viable (ie large enough to carry a better radar).
BenRoethig		#6	[-]
Posts: 2043 (17-Mar-2009 00:25:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Honestly, its role would be a good question. Unlike the U.S. and French Navies, the RN really never had a light attack role.
Obi Wan Russell		#7	[-]
Posts: 479 (17-Mar-2009 00:37:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well if you have Buccaneers, what more could you want? The RN's problem wasn't attack aircraft, it was fighters. If you can adapt the Jag successfully to the AD role then the smaller RN carriers remain viable, even down to Centaur. I think the jag could fill the role, but would require some serious redesign (new cockpit/nose section with radar, new wing for greater endurance on CAP/ greater carriage of weapons and more powerful engines?) beyond the basic Jaguar M. Where there's a will, there's a way.
HK		#8	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 44 (17-Mar-2009 00:40:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think a naval Jaguar would have been viable starting circa 1977. Prior to that, the initial Jaguar versions simply weren't mature enough in terms of engine thrust and avionics (no radar). Uprated Adours Mk 104s (+10% thrust) and the French Agave radar became available in 1976-1977. Waiting until 1980 would have allowed the use of the Blue Fox radar and Adour Mk 811 (additional +5% thrust), but the slight performance improvements probably wouldn't have been worth a 3 year delay. Another required change would have been a larger wing, which the French had already designed but not tested. These improvements would have not only corrected the marginal launch & recovery performance which plagued the French Jaguar M prototype, but also improved "fighter" performance by a fairly significant amount. The bigger problem is that by 1977 Hermes had already been converted to a helicopter carrier, with its catapults stripped out, and HMS Invincible was under construction. So the decision to go with a naval Jaguar would have had to occur by 1968 at the latest, before Hermes was converted and Victorious scrapped. Under this alternative timeline, Hermes & Victorious could have operated alongside Ark Royal until 1977, cycling through conventional/assault carrier duties. Naval Jaguar would have been tested in 1972-74, with orders for production models in 1975 (instead of Sea Harrier) and deliveries in 1977, at which point Ark Royal would have been decommissioned as in real life. The Jaguar is quite big though, due to the lack of folding wings (about 135m2 spot factor vs. 96m2 for the Buccaneer and 139m2 for the F-4). By my count, a typical airgroup aboard Hermes and Victorious would have been about 16 Jaguar N, 4 Gannet AEW and 4 Sea Kings, for a total spot factor of 2,650m2. Alternatively, a mix of 10 Jaguar & 8 Buccanneers would have been possible instead of 16 Jaguar Ns. Last Edited By: HK 17-Mar-2009 00:47:02. Edited 2 times.
CVA02		#9	[-]
Posts: 455 (17-Mar-2009 00:44:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The naval Jaguar was considered by the RN in the brief period between the cancellation of the CVA-01 and the decision to abandon all future conventional carriers. In hindsight, the RN's cancellation of the naval Jaguar was the right decision, judging by the later MN trials.
Obi Wan Russell		#10	[-]
Posts: 480 (17-Mar-2009 00:51:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Jag didn't need folding wings, like a skyhawk it was pretty compact as it was. Squar metreage can be misleading, and a Jag wouldn't have taken up that much more space than the Buccs (folded). When you park them 'herringbone' fashion (ie pointing at an angle to ships axis) they slot together quite well. Your figures imply the Jag takes up about the same deck space as a Phantom, which itself took up about the same space as a Sea Vixen, so transferring the numbers across, I stand by my count of 30 for a Hermes/Victorious sized carrier. That's including those in the hangar at any given time. Also if carrier aviation is retained post 66 then Eagle is in the mix also, probably until mid 80s
MDP78		#11	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 11 (17-Mar-2009 01:04:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	So assuming the initial weaknesses of the Jaguar M are ironed out and you get a reasonable FRS out of it - is a carrier forced carrying a mix of Jaguars, fixed wing AEW (Gannets for aurguments sake) and ASW helicopters more of a worthwhile investment than a fleet of harrier carriers?
Zen9		#12	[-]
Posts: 4198 (17-Mar-2009 01:26:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Had the RN managed to pursuade the government to go for a naval Jaguar, together with a smaller carrier, what would we have ended up with? That depend on more than your scenario gives. i) Hermes remaining in the conventional carrier role into the 1980's? Possible, but it depends on various factors. ii) A much smaller CVA01 (for aurguments sake an updated Hermes)? Theoreticaly do-able on a two shaft setup some 90,000shp using the same boiler and machinary sets as CVA-01. Likely no SeaDart and 909 TIRs but possibly the 988 set is still onboard, with SeaCat and later SeaWolf. iii) What roles would the Jaguar have done - would it have been an FRS? Or would we have had something else to do the F? FSR more likely or FGR. Issues are the Navalised Jaguar as trialed by the French threw up a number of problems that needed fixing, from thrust to the visibility on approach. But quite where the Jaguar fits in a doctorinal sense is less clear. Its not as capable as an F4 or for the fighter role the F8 for comparison. Its payload is medium to low, its range short to medium and its speed is rather less that whats desired in the period. There is just no comparison for either the A7 or the Buccaneer S2. Dassault produce a much better potential machine in the Mirage G, more range, endurance, speed and lower TO and L speeds for operations from the carrier.
Zen9		#13	[-]
Posts: 4199 (17-Mar-2009 01:28:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	So assuming the initial weaknesses of the Jaguar M are ironed out and you get a reasonable FRS out of it - is a carrier forced carrying a mix of Jaguars, fixed wing AEW (Gannets for aurguments sake) and ASW helicopters more of a worthwhile investment than a fleet of harrier carriers? Difficult question. Bar the issue of higher speed what does the navalised Jaguar bring that the Sea Harrier does'nt have?
HK		#14	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 45 (17-Mar-2009 01:59:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Obi Wan Russell wrote: Jag didn't need folding wings, like a skyhawk it was pretty compact as it was. Squar metreage can be misleading, and a Jag wouldn't have taken up that much more space than the Buccs (folded). When you park them 'herringbone' fashion (ie pointing at an angle to ships axis) they slot together quite well. Your figures imply the Jag takes up about the same deck space as a Phantom, which itself took up about the same space as a Sea Vixen, so transferring the numbers across, I stand by my count of 30 for a Hermes/Victorious sized carrier. That's including those in the hangar at any given time. Also if carrier aviation is retained post 66 then Eagle is in the mix also, probably until mid 80s No. Hermes & Victorious never operated more than ~20 Buccs & Sea Vixens, which both folded up much more compactly. So even if the Jaguars could have been fit snuggly in herringbone fashion in sucha way that this negated the non-folding wings, where do you fit the extra 10 Jaguars? I'll give you 20 Jaguars maybe, but not one more.
Zen9		#15	[-]
Posts: 4200 (17-Mar-2009 02:07:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Herringbone is not a good idea unless you leave enough hanger width to move aircraft out of the pattern or past aircraft so stored. However its not just hanger space, but stores and fuel that count, so its possible Victorious could operate some 30 Jaguars. A reletively simple nosefold will help, but the wings really do need to fold as well.
HK		#16	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 46 (17-Mar-2009 02:08:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9 wrote: So assuming the initial weaknesses of the Jaguar M are ironed out and you get a reasonable FRS out of it - is a carrier forced carrying a mix of Jaguars, fixed wing AEW (Gannets for aurguments sake) and ASW helicopters more of a worthwhile investment than a fleet of harrier carriers? Difficult question. Bar the issue of higher speed what does the navalised Jaguar bring that the Sea Harrier does'nt have? IMHO: - Better interceptor performance - Better sustained maneuverability - Better range (45% more internal fuel) - Double the payload (4500kg vs. 2500kg), 50% more heavy stores (3 vs. 2), 7 vs. 5 total hardpoints
Zen9		#17	[-]
Posts: 4201 (17-Mar-2009 02:24:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Better interceptor performance Acceleration is not speed, so this is not that clear a case. Though the wing is better on the Jaguar, neither are in their element at altitude. Better sustained maneuverability Debatable Better range (45% more internal fuel) But a significant portion will be burnt up on take off using reheat and more held back for a bolter. Double the payload (4500kg vs. 2500kg), 50% more heavy stores (3 vs. 2), 7 vs. 5 total hardpoints Can it launch with such payloads though? At least two if those hardpoints are Sidewinder overwing stations, which are not idea from the aerodynamic point of view. Now the F8 has a higher maximum speed than either, and is the cheaper option. Mirage G out ranges, out endures, and outruns all of them. While the P1154 will out run the lot bar the Mirage G and out accelerate all of them too.
HK		#18	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 47 (17-Mar-2009 06:00:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Here's some time-to-climb performance data that I could find from Flight Global . In addition to being directly relevant to interceptor performance, I think this is also a good proxy for acceleration: - Jaguar with Adour Mk 104: 2m30 to 9,150m (30,000ft) - Jaguar International with Adour Mk 811: 1m30 - Tornado ADV: 2m - Viggen: 1m40 to 10,000m (33,000ft) - Harrier GR5 (with 23,800lb Pegasus 11-61, in 1989 record configuration): 1m21 to 9,000m (25,000ft) So the Jaguar's performance seems quite good with the uprated Adours Mk 811, which were available from 1980. The GR5 is comparable with the Jaguar International, but that's probably not a proper apples-to-apple comparison because of the record configuration. In addition, the Sea Harrier only had 21,000lbs thrust, so I think the Jaguar would come out ahead. More generally speaking, the Jaguar with Adours Mk 811 and 23 degree slats was claimed to have "combat performance in the F-5/Mig-21 class". 1978 \| 2098 \| Flight Archive Specifically, sustained turn rate was 30% higher than with Adours Mk 102 and 9 degree slats and combat thrust was 38% higher. As far as fuel consumption, my understanding is that fuel consumption during vertical recovery is quite high, so IMHO that negates the need for bolter reserves on the Jaguar somewhat. Last Edited By: HK 17-Mar-2009 06:03:59. Edited 1 times.
BBe	Picture set	#19	[-]
Posts: 407 (17-Mar-2009 09:43:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
Sunk at Narvik		#20	[-]
Posts: 2397 (17-Mar-2009 11:14:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Fascinating topic. A navalised Jag opens up all sorts of possibilities to keep the RN in the CTOL carrier game into the 1980's. Not only does it mean retaining the Buccs and Gannets, but also a larger number of carriers. The real killer in the 1960's (apart from CVA01 cancellation) was the decision to try and keep up with the USN and go for Phantomisation. Phantoms drove retention of the "big" (in RN terms) carriers Ark and Eagle with their big crews at the expense of a larger number of smaller carriers, ie the Centaurs. Going for a naval Jag and accepting a lesser performance than the Phantom would give the RN the option of retaining the Centaurs, all four of them, and laying up one of the bigger carriers (Eagle?) and scrapping Ark. As a wise man once said, quantity has a quality all of its own, so four Hermes class carriers operating a handful of Buccs, their own AEW and naval Jags would offer a capability that Ark with Phantoms couldn't match. We can then consider the fate of the T82's and Invincibles in a fleet built around four smaller CTOL carriers. You can envisage all four T82's going ahead (one per carrier), early scrapping of the Counties and a build of two Invincibles in the ASW/Commando role, thius giving the RN a far more effective force to deploy either EoS on group deployments or in the Eastlant area as required.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Naval Jaguar

Naval Jaguar

Quick Reply