The carrier-based SEPECAT Jaguar M a missed opportunity

There was a very real problem – but the whole reason that people were up in arms about the selection of the Super Etendard was that the problem was one which arose when the Jaguar had lost an engine. As a single-engined aircraft, the Super Etendard’s capabilities with an engine out were even less impressive.

Yeah, but assuming that both engines are equally reliable, a twin-engine aircraft actually has higher odds of suffering an engine failure on any given sortie than a single-engine aircraft. If it can’t land safely on one engine, the twin is actually going to suffer higher losses due to engine failure.

I’m surprising no one post pics for Jaguar-M or Jaguar Marine ?!
here some pics:

http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/jaguar/photo01.htm
http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/jaguar/photo02.htm
http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/jaguar/photo03.htm
http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/jaguar/photo04.htm

The problem with the Jaguar M was in the single-engined overshoot case – and not in the case of a normal ‘bolter’ with both engines operating.

There was no ramp strike (the aircraft was not lost), but the lack of engine out performance was exactly the reason for the development of Part Throttle Reheat.

There was a very real problem – but the whole reason that people were up in arms about the selection of the Super Etendard was that the problem was one which arose when the Jaguar had lost an engine. As a single-engined aircraft, the Super Etendard’s capabilities with an engine out were even less impressive.

As Fedaykin mentioned in page 1… the Jag was not well suited for carriers.
The prototype now lay in rochefort Aeronavale museum (they need help, aircrafts are in danger since the storm of december 1999, which damaged their hangar).

According to the website already mentioned, two aircrafts were also considered, the Mirage F1 and Mirage G.

This seem curious, as these two were fighters rather than attack aircrafts… I’m asking if the Aeonavale didn’t want to replace the Crusader by a sole multirole aircraft.

The service already had examined the idea in the late 50’s with the Etendard IV, which was supposed to take interception duties as well… but due to its transsonic performances the Etendard shifted to gound attack when Crusaders entered service in 1965.

I must say I agree fully with Feydakin. The Jaguar M was not fit for carrier use and attempts to blame Dassault are just lame, especially for french people that have readily access to material in french on internet.

Well…

The Jaguar-M was far from ready to operate from an aircraft carrier, and it would have required much efforts to have it so. But other (non-French) solutions were also available but, Dassault manage to place its Etendard which, by far, was not an optimal solution.
Remember that Dassault always tried tu sell its Mirage F-1 over the land-based version of the Jaguar and therefore blockaded many attempts for export, at the expenses of its British partners of the time.
So, blaming Dassault is not “lame”, since this firm has always been very good at lobbying the various French governments…
________
SMOKING KILLS

But you ignore the fact that Anglo-American pride will not accept any explanation other than “French double-dealing” for the failure to buy either the Jaguar-M or the A-7. 😀

Personally, I think the French could have done better… but since all options (including a better SuE) would have cost significantly more, it is hard to fault the decision made.

And I think you completely dismiss all the important points just to focus on the less important. Whatever the choice of the Aeronavale, purchase 2 seaters or not, a series of aircrafts would have been devoted to training. These would have lacked to front line flotilles. With the number and the cost of the modifications to make the Jaguar M a viable aircraft, the number of airframes that the Aeronavale would have been able to buy would have been too low.
I don’t understand why people can’t take the reality: the Jaguar would have required too many modifications to fit on carriers. And with no guarrantee of success. I wonder if making Dassault appear evil might have too much appeal for a number of people …
BTW I didn’t overstate any of those facts, I just took words from CCV Pierre, Jaguar M test pilot.

To alleviate these problems the Jaguar M would have necessitated extensive modifications: a new wing + new reactors + new weapon system (essentially a new plane), resulting in an expensive and risky test program ; in addition to the modulated PC that was developped and subsequently fitted to land based Jaguars. All this had to fit within the program cost for just 100 planes. And you still had to buy ~20 Jaguar E for training, that could not be embarked on carrier.

With the same money you could buy ~80 SEM or ~30-40 A7 Corsair II. If the Corsair had been selected, with attrition reserve and training aircrafts, that would have left maybe 20 airframes for equipping the carrier.

The choice was probably not difficult.

I think you are overstating the problems encountered. The fundimental truth is that the Jaguar would have been available a bit too early as an Etendard IVM replacement, and was relatively expensive for an aircraft of its size and performance. The MN could afford to wait.

You also fail to appreciate that the MN has never required conversion trainers – or even high performace flight deck trainers to replace the Fouga CM.175 Zephyr. In fact, the French never bothered to procure the two-seat variant of the F-8 and never developed a two seat Etendard.

Forget about two-seaters in MN service – this is pure fantasy.

I must say I agree fully with Feydakin. The Jaguar M was not fit for carrier use and attempts to blame Dassault are just lame, especially for french people that have readily access to material in french on internet. With a 10sec search on google, I could find a site that gives the history of the Jaguar M, including an interview with one of the test pilots stating the objective reasons for the cancellation of the project; and a comparison between the different aircrafts in competitions:
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/jaguar_fr.htm
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/daniel-pierre_fr.htm
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/concurrents.htm

Among the technical reasons for Jaguar M cancellation you can find:
– heavier than the land based version => reduced performances
– heavier => greatly underpowered
– underpowered => higher use of PC => low range
– primitive navigation and weapon system
– necessity to modify the carrier (longer catapults, water-cooling the anti-blow screen, reinforcement of the flight deck)
– plane suffered extensive structural damages due to the accelaration during catapult launch
– corrosion problems with the NIDA material employed in the plane structure
– aging problems were foreseen

To alleviate these problems the Jaguar M would have necessitated extensive modifications: a new wing + new reactors + new weapon system (essentially a new plane), resulting in an expensive and risky test program ; in addition to the modulated PC that was developped and subsequently fitted to land based Jaguars. All this had to fit within the program cost for just 100 planes. And you still had to buy ~20 Jaguar E for training, that could not be embarked on carrier.

With the same money you could buy ~80 SEM or ~30-40 A7 Corsair II. If the Corsair had been selected, with attrition reserve and training aircrafts, that would have left maybe 20 airframes for equipping the carrier.

The choice was probably not difficult.

Adour variants (more non-ab not listed):
mk 102 (Jaguar) 5,110 lb (6,930 lb) [1972]
mk 104 (RAF Jaguar) 5,200 lb (7,305 lb) [upgraded mk 102, 1975]
mk 804 (International Jaguar) 5,320 lb (8,040 lb) [1976]
mk 811 (IAF Jaguar) 5,520 lb (8,400 lb) [1981]
mk 861 (Hawk 50) 5,710 lb [1981]
mk 871 (T-45 GosHawk as F405-RR-401) 5,900 lb [1990]
mk 951 6,500 lb [2002]

[QUOTE As far as Im aware the main modification was to the reheat system allowing selection of full reheat all at once (Im no expert at reheat systems and welcome some clarification on this).[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that the problems with Jaguar M were addressed by the introduction of part throttle reheat. PTR allows you reheat without being at 100%+ on the engine. This is especially useful on approach. I believe the M suffered a ramp strike during trials that resulted in this development, used successfully in production land based aircraft.

Another point to bear in mind, the current Adour 106’s in RAF aircraft have around 1000lb ( 15% ) more thrust each than the original ones in the M………..

I’m surprised no one tried to buy any of the British carriers axed by Denis Healy, as they were all withdrawn well before their time. Eagle was was only eight years out of a five year SLEP refit which should have seen her fit for service into the eighties. Victorious likewise had recieved an eight year SLEP 1950-1958 and still had ten years ‘on the clock’ when paid off. If France had bought Eagle in 1972 they would have had a ship able to operate not only their existing a/c but also the option of ordering larger more powerful types. Centaur and Albion also went before their time, and also the Canadian Bonaventure was paid off at 13 years of age, just three years out of her mid life upgrade, a bargain for any nation looking to join the carrier club. The RN would be very pleased if more nations, including Argentina bought carriers, as it justifies retaining our own capability even more.:D

Do you have any idea how expensive it would have been to operate Eagle?

Eagle literally had about 4 times the machinery (160,000shp) as a Colossus/Majestic class carrier (40,000shp)! Even Centaur (80,000shp) had twice the propulsion plant of a Colossus class carrier. In other words, think about massive increase in crewing and bunkerage.

No foriegn navy in the 1960s could afford to operate large, aging RN fleet carriers. Even France would have lacked the resources to operate HMS Eagle in addition to the two Clemenceau class carriers. In any event, Eagle was less economical, and less operationally efficient that either of the two domestically built French carriers. Warbuilt British carriers didn’t feature the best build quality to begin with, and Eagle had a very short flight deck for her massive displacement.

In any event, the aircraft carrier proliferation that did occur – mostly from obsolete Collosus/Majectic class – didn’t strengthen the case for retaining the RN’s own carrier fleet.

I guess its good the never got an “Essex”, or tried to buy “Victorious”……..

I’m surprised no one tried to buy any of the British carriers axed by Denis Healy, as they were all withdrawn well before their time. Eagle was was only eight years out of a five year SLEP refit which should have seen her fit for service into the eighties. Victorious likewise had recieved an eight year SLEP 1950-1958 and still had ten years ‘on the clock’ when paid off. If France had bought Eagle in 1972 they would have had a ship able to operate not only their existing a/c but also the option of ordering larger more powerful types. Centaur and Albion also went before their time, and also the Canadian Bonaventure was paid off at 13 years of age, just three years out of her mid life upgrade, a bargain for any nation looking to join the carrier club. The RN would be very pleased if more nations, including Argentina bought carriers, as it justifies retaining our own capability even more.:D

I often think that the carrier-based SEPECAT Jaguar M was a missed opportunity, when it was cancelled in favor of the far less capable and obsolete design, the all French Dassault Super Etendard.

I often wonder how the French Navy must have really felt about giving up an opportunity to come into the modern carrier jet aircraft age. To give up supersonic capability, a far better and useful offensive weapons load (almost double that of the Super Etendard), that could be carried to a more useful range! (I think I would have opted for upgraded McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk’s, rather than Super Etendard’s!)

Could the Jaguar have not replaced both the F-8 Crusader and Super Etendard aboard the French carriers in the fighter-interceptor & strike roles?
If the Jaguar M, had have been put into service, I wonder if the Indian Navy may have used it from its carrier, seeing they are so fond of the Jaguar and its capabilities?
Or could have Argentina and Brazil have been able to replace their Skyhawk’s with it?
Could the ‘Majestic’ Class CVL’s used by India, Argentina and Brazil have handled the likes of the Jaguar M?

Does anyone have pictures and specifications/technical data of the Jaguar M?

Regards
Pioneer

the Super Etendart is a very capable aircraft for naval ops.

IMO a better A/c for the Aeronaval than the SuE or the Jag would have been a navalizes Mirage F1……..

I often think that the carrier-based SEPECAT Jaguar M was a missed opportunity, when it was cancelled in favor of the far less capable and obsolete design, the all French Dassault Super Etendard.

Why the feeling that you never heard of it’s performance over Bosnia/Serbia ? 🙂

I guess its good the never got an “Essex”, or tried to buy “Victorious”……..

Dont know about the Govt. response but the 1SL and the rest of the Admiralty would do somersaults with glee.

A tangible threat we could use to keep hold of our O&M budget and, if it ever came to it, a wonderful kill opportunity for a T or A class SSN skipper looking at the existing state of Argentine Navy ASW!!.

Oh yes we’d like that!!!!

To be fair, I quite like the Clemenceau design, a lot of punch for a little ship and I think it is a shame a new owner couldn’t be found for Clemenceau herself. Back in the eighties I remember predicting that she and her sister ship woud end up with Brazil and Argentina, and if the Argentine economy had been in better shape this may well have happened. A lot of flat tops have had their careers cut short when they still had a lot of useful life left to them, and in this respect Clemenceau joins a long and distinguished list.

It would have been interesting to have seen what the British reaction would have been had Argentina made a serious offer for Clemenceau.

I’m not saying they would be more reliable, but that many of those who purchase used warships might not do so if they have to pay the start-up costs for new manufacture of parts that were last made 20 years earlier, rather than just refurbish currently existing ones.

After all, if they could afford new, why not the whole ship new? That would really lower maintenance costs!

As for the propellors, are you not aware that the propellors on De Gualle were made by the only such manufacturer in France… who ceased manufacture of propellors after they made those… and then suffered a mysterious fire after the propellor broke… which destroyed all records pertaining to them, just as the government was about to investigate whether there were design or manufacture errors?

There were no spare propellors, and no engineering drawings left for the broken ones, so De Gualle would have been immobilized for the 2+years it actually took for another company to design & build the new ones she eventually got. That is why France installed Clemenceau’s old props… despite the lower performance… it was better than having their brand new nuke CV immobilized for 2+ years!

I agree than ideally it would have been nice to have both still in service… but reality intrudes… the UK is not the only nation where the Treasury has as much (or more) to say about what is bought as do the Military “Heads of Service”.

all, Argentina could really use Clemenceau for “El Conflicto Segundo por Las Malvinas”… 😀