Jaguar M vs Entendard

I don’t think Super Etendard had a lot of remarkable performances.

It out-performed the A-4 ( J65 or J52 engined ) in every numerical aspect, sometimes remarkably so ( initial climb rate was nearly double ) and was quite slippy, could pass Mach 1.0 with a gentle entry dive. And it was also a fairly nimble air-to-air opponent.

It also carried about 10% more fuel than the A-4 which compensated somewhat for using late-1940s engine technology instead of early-1950s 🙂

The only significant advantage held by the A-4 was a legacy of its original nuclear role, the centre hardpoint could lift 3,500 lb, and continual avionics upgrades amongst its first-tier users.

I recall the higher cost of the M being cited as a main issue, with sub-optimal handling of the M at lower carrier approach speeds also an issue. The M had slow throttle response and marginal power reserves (common to most/all Jaguars) sub-optimal handling issues around the boat and poor single engine characteristics around the boat (but obviously better than engine out characteristics of the Etendard IV or Super Entendard :D). Fixing these issues would have taken time and money, and Dassault came up with a lower risk and cheaper plan to warm over the Entendard IV into what became the Super Entendard. With a supposedly cheaper selection they could buy more airframes. I imagine the M could have been made to work off the carrier, but again it would have taken time and money, which the Air Force and Navy did not have in excess with several aircraft programs underway.

Perhaps jobs/work share would also be an unstated issue as well. A Dassault product would have a higher French made content (more jobs)

Perhaps Dassaults sales pitch was not unlike the Super Hornet, which was touted as lower risk upgrade which sounds great to the bean counters, but in reality is a significantly different aircraft.

‘The Adour engine has about the same throttle response as most engines during that time (idle to max -2% in 6 seconds).
The problem with the engines was the jump in thrust from max dry to min reheat (about 30%) which caused one development a/c to crash when carrying out assymetric landing trials. The solution was part throttle reheat (PTR) which was introduced to all marks of the type as far as I know,

Nothing to be embarrassed about as far as combat record is concerned.
Sinking a Type 42 destroyer is what made the a/c known to the public. But the Super etendard did a lot of more usual A2G war missions with little advertising.

Yes, and none were ever lost in combat. There is a video somewhere of Etendard IVP making emergency landing after being hit by SAM. They even worked in fighter duties once Crusaders were getting long in the tooth.
Etendard airframe was quite unremarkable even when it was conceived in early ’50s, so it is fairly mind-boggling that it flew (in heavily modified form) as front-line combat a/c until 2016. So maybe it had something going for it after all.

But really, what French should have really done was to build 100 feet longer carriers, that would have enabled them to operate common US types, or at least more capable domestic types like Jaguar M, navalized Mirage F1 etc. without complications. Building small carriers maybe felt like cost saving at the time, but turned other way around later.

France should have ordered A-4, modified it to their tastes, and dumped Super Etendard. Even Bought A-7 fit their ship better for long range strike. Super Etendard was built on an obsolete airframe using long in the tooth engines. A-4 had a pretty good combat record in comparison. If not for the Falklands fiasco against Exocet, I don’t think Super Etendard had a lot of remarkable performances.

Well it did take part in a lot of conflicts:

Falklands war
Lebanon war
Iran-Irak war
Bosnia war
Kosovo war
Afghanistan war
Libya war

Nothing to be embarrassed about as far as combat record is concerned.
Sinking a Type 42 destroyer is what made the a/c known to the public. But the Super etendard did a lot of more usual A2G war missions with little advertising.

In fact it had remarkable performance and records 😉 Systems were nurtured among other more pointy Dassault design. We have posted some good video here. You might want to Search the forum for Super Etendard.

A4 would have been cool otherwise with more range and variety of payload.

France should have ordered A-4, modified it to their tastes, and dumped Super Etendard. Even Vought’s A-7 fit their ship better for long range strike. Super Etendard was built on an obsolete airframe using long in the tooth engines. A-4 had a pretty good combat record in comparison. If not for the Falklands fiasco against Exocet, I don’t think Super Etendard had a lot of remarkable performances.

I recall the higher cost of the M being cited as a main issue, with sub-optimal handling of the M at lower carrier approach speeds also an issue. The M had slow throttle response and marginal power reserves (common to most/all Jaguars) sub-optimal handling issues around the boat and poor single engine characteristics around the boat (but obviously better than engine out characteristics of the Etendard IV or Super Entendard :D). Fixing these issues would have taken time and money, and Dassault came up with a lower risk and cheaper plan to warm over the Entendard IV into what became the Super Entendard. With a supposedly cheaper selection they could buy more airframes. I imagine the M could have been made to work off the carrier, but again it would have taken time and money, which the Air Force and Navy did not have in excess with several aircraft programs underway.

Perhaps jobs/work share would also be an unstated issue as well. A Dassault product would have a higher French made content (more jobs)

Perhaps Dassaults sales pitch was not unlike the Super Hornet, which was touted as lower risk upgrade which sounds great to the bean counters, but in reality is a significantly different aircraft.

The 50 Jaguar M aircraft were part of the the 400 aircraft joint order from the UK/French governments.. They got built as As instead. The M was rubbish off a Carrier.