Jaguar for Australia

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Jaguar for Australia
Volkodav 8/14/2009 7:06:31 AM

During the late 60's and early 70's the RAAF used Avon Sabres as Lead In Fighter Trainers for the Mirage fleet. From this a requirement arose for a supersonic advanced trainer to replace the Sabres in this role. CAC developed the CA101 concept and the RAAF also looked at the SEPECAT Jaguar for the job with it being reported in Flight Magazine at the time that an order for 100 Jaguars was imminent. Assuming the RAAF got its 100 Jaguars for use as LIFT, Strike and Recce platforms what would this have done to the structure of the RAAF and what would the follow on effects have been through to today? My first thought is the RAAF would not have needed to specify a multi role fighter to replace the Mirage.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Aussiegunneragain 10/11/2009 7:56:24 AM

Again I agree but I could see the UK going for new build FA2 Jags in the early 90's instead of F/A-18Cs. I think parochialism would have won out. Alternatively it could be called supporting local industry and facilitating exports.

Where this whole idea is going is the RAN acquiring examples of these carriers and, the RAN FAA, Jags to fly off them.

Given such "great" decisions as turning an excellent interdictor in the Tornado into a lousy interceptor I'm afraid to say that I can imagine that too. Doesn't make it a good idea though.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/12/2009 6:49:58 AM

Something I have read, but can't confirm, is that India has managed to significantly reduce the RCS of the Jag through a variety of measures, including fitting screens in the intakes to shield the engine faces.

I'd say it's optimistic. you aren't going to reduce reflected RCS from a jet fan by using inlet screens. you'd bugger up the airflow, rate of flow etc... then you have to deal with angles for reflection, refraction etc.... plus, the indians don't have the facilities to measure it etc.....

Didn't the F-117A use intake screens to reduce RCS?

Could the Jaguar solution have been developed and tested by BAE of maybe Israel?

Not arguing, just asking.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/12/2009 7:06:58 AM

Given such "great" decisions as turning an excellent interdictor in the Tornado into a lousy interceptor I'm afraid to say that I can imagine that too. Doesn't make it a good idea though.

I'm not suggesting it would be an SU-27 swatting wonder plane, just that it would have been more capable in strike and interception than the Sea Harrier, Harrier GR-9, AV-8B Plus, Super Etendard, or Skyhawk.

If the UK screwed up and the carrier was too small to operate anything bigger than the Jag the Bug, SH and F-35C may not be an option. This would also rule out a navalised Typhoon, or Raphael. In that case the Jag may have given way to a navalised Gripen, or the F-35B.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/12/2009 8:08:17 AM

Didn't the F-117A use intake screens to reduce RCS?

yep, but look at the design of the inlet, then factor in the actual design intent of the overall platform. you just can't retrofit sig management onto a coarse design of that generation and expect it to turn out competitive.

Could the Jaguar solution have been developed and tested by BAE of maybe Israel?

can't see the israelis doing it. it would have been far more useful for them to flog the indians weasel mods for the jag 2 seaters. the amount of effort to try and reduce the signature would make you question it from the start. far easier to wiz it up and make it useful. OTOH, BAE were caught nicking DSTA developments from the suspension mods made, so the Indians didn't exactly have them on their christmas card list. unless BAE decided to do a mea culpa and atone by helping out. again, I can't see anyone deciding that it was cost effective and a battlespace changer. a good parallel is AIP for subs. we tested it, discovered that the marketing material didn't convert literally to expectations, found that out doctrine negated some of the claims and left it out. as an engineering process, I would imagine that some bright spark would have done the sameif approached and told to hotrod the signature on the jag. is it do-able? probably. is it worth it? no VFM and EVM ticks in the evaluation box that I can see. :)

Not arguing, just asking.

:) I know.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/12/2009 8:22:58 AM

unless BAE decided to do a mea culpa and atone by helping out. again, I can't see anyone deciding that it was cost effective and a battlespace changer.

Well improved relations could help the BAE sponsored Gripen get up in the MRCA comp, just a thought.

On reflection it does seem a bit of a stretch, especially as some of the MRCA candidates have a level of signature reduction that the Jag could never hope to achieve. Why rejig an old platform when a new one is around the corner.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 10/13/2009 7:59:34 AM

Given such "great" decisions as turning an excellent interdictor in the Tornado into a lousy interceptor I'm afraid to say that I can imagine that too. Doesn't make it a good idea though.

The Bug is has about the same dimensions as a Jag when the wings are folded, though it has about a 50% greater empty weight. However, it also has over twice the thrust, a far lower wing loading and superior low speed handling so I suspect that it would be able to operate off any platform that a Jag could.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/15/2009 7:24:21 AM

Another thought that comes to mind is the Gripen, SAAB has been pushing a carrier based version for years. It sort of gets off the track of an Australian Jaguar though.

Quote Reply

Volkodav Jag stealth mods 12/27/2009 9:31:27 PM

Latest edition of Air International has a write up on the Indian Jags including a short bit on the stealth mods and future plans to keep them in service until the mid 2020's.

The article mentioned coatings and air intake mods for a 70% reduction in (frontal?) RCS.

Future mods include a multi mode radar for the entire fleet, not just the M's, and re-engineing for more thrust and superior medium altitude performance to go with the new plug and play stores system they are currently being fitted with to handle modern (US) ordinance i.e. Harpoon, Maverick, JDAM etc.

As an aside, Janes reported that SAAB are offering a carrier capable Gripen to Brazil and India, possibly with the development of the type being the corner stone of the industrial offsets India requires as part of the MRCA comp.

If they can make Gripen a viable aircraft for the proposed small Indian carriers then I wonder if it could operate of something as big as the Canberra's?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 12/27/2009 11:28:10 PM

The article mentioned coatings and air intake mods for a 70% reduction in (frontal?) RCS.

my BS meter is going off here.

have a look at the aircraft wet and dry

can it be achieved against a dry aircraft - very very remotely possible. wet? no way. if its dry then its a woftam

the biggest transmitters are not the reflected returns coming off the engines "signal visible" within the inlets - and the easiest way to deal with that is not via RAM coatings anyway

the average percentile of RAM applique to a frame is in the order of 20% and that assumes basic platform sympathy anyway

the only way to remotely achieve any of it is a complete nick and tuck using composites - and on an old airframe with a short sustainment career? highly unlikely.

there's a bit too much colour and movement at the expense of technical truth here....

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 12/27/2009 11:31:21 PM

Latest edition of Air International has a write up on the Indian Jags including a short bit on the stealth mods and future plans to keep them in service until the mid 2020's.

out of academic curiosity would you mind listing their claims on what mods have been done?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT