Talk:SEPECAT Jaguar/Archive 1

Better combat radius than Su-30 ?!
Tellis must have been talking through his hat or the contributor is sorely mistaken about what he read. the su-30 has an unrefuelled combat range of 3000 km which translates to a combat radius of around 1400 km, a little under double that of jaguar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonk11 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that India does not use the Su-30, but the Su-30MKI, a domestically build and redesigned version. It would not be beyond comprehension for all the added bolt-ons, extras, upgrades, and design changes, or maybe even deliberately inserted range reductions per some sort of diplomatic agreement, to have changed the aircraft's range. The Su-30, and the MK version, are quite differing beasts, as are most exported planes verses the 'home' operator's fleet. Under the principle of Verifiability, not truth, we state what can be authenticated by established authors rather than anonymous 'truth'; if formal citation can be gathered that can overrule Tellis, then he can be replaced as mistaken, but under the principle of Verify we assume that he is correct until verified as wrong. You're welcome to look up the issue formally in your spare time. Do note, that information on both the abilities and specifications of the remanufactured Indian Jaguars is limited, as is information on the Su-30MKI; it could be, and likely is the case, that there are differences, and in some places major deviations, from the base specifications of either aircraft's original base model for the types, and is poorly cited and documented elsewhere as a result. One final thought: Do consider that it may not just be range at the optimum, absolutely tip-top perfect altitude, but getting down and dirty outside of either aircraft's 'eco-friendly' flying manners, the Su-30 has much lower performance at low altitudes, while low altitudes was what the Jaguar was designed to thrive in; thus dramatically changing the comparitive performance. Kyteto (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Background section
Under the section "background" it says "and hardpoints were fitted for an external weapons load of up to 10 lbs."

This is horridly incorrect, nothing useful in the way of Air ot Air or Air to ground weapons is 10lbs, and I am sure it can carry more then 10lbs on its hardpoints, but I dont know the exact numbers, so I wont change it. But someone who does, should 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems thats been fixed rz350 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Added overwing pylon info. Note that they were initially tested with the Mantra R550 Magic, only later did they qualify the AIM-9 for use with the overwing pylons. -- Adeptitus 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This article says the overwing pylons are unique but I believe that some Lightnings had overwing pylons. Anyone agree? --213.121.151.138 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick search takes me to Vector site on the EE Lightning and I agree. the F.53 with the Saudis had them and not just for fuel tanks.GraemeLeggett 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand Harriers have made use of overwing pylons too - or at least have the capability to do so. 84.92.80.169 17:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone make sense of this for me? How can a requirement for more ferry range be satisfied by putting more powerful but thirstier engines on an aircraft? A longer, higher aspect wing, perhaps. A higher bypass engine, yes. A SMALLER engine, yes. A heavier wing AND more power so as to be able to carry more fuel, yes. A bigger engine alone? Nonsense!

I think the Jaguar is an important design and I wish to understand it's trade-offs better. Could someone shed light on this seeming contraction of needing a bigger engine to increase ferry range?

TVMIA Solidpoint (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

falklands
It seems that the Jaguar would have been ready for the falklands but isn't listed as having been used. At a guess, I'd say that this was because it couldn't operate from the available aircraft carriers. a)is this right? b)should mention of it be made incase anyone else is thinking the same thing? 82.13.83.244 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Jaguar was not used in the Falklands (I presume you are talking about the 1982 activities) as the Harriers and Sea Harriers were perfectly capable of providing a ground attack platform, and they were carrier qualified. No need to mention it or the many other aircraft that didnt operate in a variety of wars. MilborneOne 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Jaguar wasn't used because until the capture of the airfield at Port Stanley there was nowhere to operate the land-based Jaguar from nearer than RAF Ascension Island.


 * That said, the limited nature of the conflict, and the relatively small number of potential targets available, would probably not have justified the logistical effort in getting them down there if an airfield had been available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Variants and Upgradation by India
Indian air force fields different variants of jaguar like the marine attack variant and the ground attack variant. i don't have the technical details, but the article doesnt seem to mention any variants though t talks of variants A to E. Also there seems to be  further production and an upgrade of jaguar by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and is going to remain in IAF for sometime to come. This is not mentioned in the article. 220.227.207.36 07:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jaguar MAX has been integrated by me...see the updated article Wikijnan (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jaguar logo.JPG
Image:Jaguar logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg
Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg
Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

landings
A section should be put about the Jaguar's superb landing capabilities, in that it could land on grass and even use motorways, roads etc. I don’t say it was easy, but it was surprisingly not as hard as I thought.--GhostShipRed (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Jaguar was designed for 'rough field' operation which pretty much means what it says. At the time it was being designed the customer (in effect NATO) was worried about a Warsaw Pact nuclear strike wiping out the runways from which NATO aircraft operated. So aircraft designed for Ground Attack from the early-to mid 1960s, e.g., Harrier, etc., had undercarriages able to operate from fields and other unprepared areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Accidents
I remember reading - although I don't remember where - that the Jaguar's crash record in RAF service was poor during the 1970s and early 1980s. This was presumably not so much because of a deficiency with the aircraft, but because the nature of its role meant that the majority of its training flights took place at high speed and low level. Are there reliable figures on the internet of Jaguar losses in RAF service? - Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Operational Service during Gulf War
I seem to remember hearing about a RAF Jaguar crashing during the build up to the Gulf War. Also the aircraft which were deployed in the region presumably took part in the conflict? Aftoor (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Replacement
"It has been replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon in the RAF." This is completely incorrect. The Typhoon is not yet qualified for air to ground despite the retirement of the Jaguar in 2007. The strike duties were assumed by the Tornado GR4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spampman (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Typhoon Block 5 production (T3/FGR4) introduced a preliminary air-to-ground capability (Paveway II LGBs), and these aircraft entered service with the RAF in 2007 with Paveway released to service in November 2007. See this useful website for more details. Letdorf (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Other sources (Martin Bowman)
I was down the local library and saw Martin Bowman's book Sepecat Jaguar (Pen & Sword) on the shelf. I thought about getting it out to see if could add anything on French use (there was a chapter on it) - but I hadn't cleared my overdue fines and I wasn't sure the system would let me take it out. What's his (or his publishers) standing as a source? He's seems to have written a few books and the publisher's blurb is generous. I had another of their books out Kept in the Dark which was about intelligence and Bomber Command and that struck me as a rather POV piece.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The handful of reviews I looked at seems positive; and the work focuses on the Operational History of the Jaguar. It would likely be useful. If you're concerned about his work being POV, we can avoid including anything that might be controversial and stick with what is tame and relatively safe in terms of verifiability. That's my view on the issue, but do what you're comfortable with. No objections here. Kyteto (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really worried out his POV it was more checking the imprint was good, and I was hoping it had content that wasn't already covered - overly cautious on my behalf? If it's still on the shelf when I pay off the rest of the dues, I'll give it read. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pen & Sword are quite variable - some good, some bad. It's not a gold standard by any account, but nor is it simply a refuge for dross, so you may as well take the chance... Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I got it out (along with the Haynes Lancaster book for lighter reading) soon find what nuggets it holds.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for editorial changes
1. In the "Gulf War" section little (if any) information applies to both UK and French Jaguars. I think the information should be transferred to the UK and France sections (which already contain info on use in Bosnia etc). It is unclear, however, whether the "Typical targets ..." sentence refers to UK, France or both.

2. Should the "Operational history" section list countries in alphabetical order (as per "Operators" section in other aircraft articles) ?

3. In the "Variants" section "T.Mk 2"/"GR.Mk 1B" probably should be "T Mk 2"/"GR Mk 1B" (correction) or "T2"/"GR1B" (for consistency with rest of article etc). However if (could somebody check?) this is the format used in the cited documents I'm not sure whether it should be changed.

DexDor (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * RE 1. The Gulf war is the first use of the Jaguar in a shooting war and there are elements (background etc) that apply to both services use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure - Western Sahara War says "The French Air Force deployed SEPECAT Jaguar jets to Mauritania in 1978 ..., which repeatedly bombed Polisario columns ..." ? DexDor (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think GraemeLeggett was referring to a war where the Jaguar was in a real wartime situation, the operations in Chad and Mauritania were kind of one-sided compared with the Gulf War, where they faced an opponent with a sizable airforce and ground missiles capable of effectively knocking them out of the sky if they played their strategy wrong. In my opinion, I would say the Gulf War was the biggest and most intensive use of the Jaguar, as there was so much information on it and it was a core event, I spun it out into a section of its own. The Bosnian situation was not as big (in terms of Jaguar usage! Not trying to make a political statement there) for the usage of the aircraft, authors write less of its activities, and there was nowhere near enough to consider spinning that off. Kyteto (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I bare a large part of the responsibility for the Operational History layout, so I should probably explain how it has ended up the way it is as of now. Originally there were three sections, France, United Kingdom, and Other Operators. As research and building of the article continued, it was clear that India could be its own section, and a good wealth of material emerged on the Gulf War, so they became sections in their own right. I never considered reordering them, apart from the principle of keeping the three big operators at the top of the section. It seems odd to cover Other Operators before the section's end. That's my take on it, but I wouldn't oppose restructuring. Kyteto (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept the argument that having a large block of text (or a subsection) about the Gulf War in the UK section would not be neat (I hadn't thought it through), but logically the info does belong in the UK section - anyone reading just that section would think the RAF Jaguars did nothing notable in the GW. I think the solution is for the UK/France sections to refer to the GW section - I've made this change. DexDor (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. The WP:AVIMOS article style guide suggests having both "Operational history" and "Operators" sections. The former has no prescribed structure.
 * 3. There is no one single "correct" format for these mark numbers, all of the above variations are valid, though I agree one format should be used consistently throughout the article.
 * Regards, Letdorf (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC).


 * If "Gulf War" was moved to the top of "Operational History" it'd be less likely to be missed, but whole article probably reads better as is (GW below France). DexDor (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Variants as a table ?
The GA review commented on the Variants section "...it's quite spread out. Would it work better as a a table?". How about the following format? DexDor (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks ok! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks even more spread out than it was previously to me.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's neater as a table (even if no shorter), but I've a couple of reservations - (1) the conversion to table (unless citations are checked) makes it less clear what exactly each citation refers to and (2) I haven't seen any other aircraft articles with variants listed as a table. DexDor (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No better as a table. A bulleted list (or similar) form is easier to add to. Tables can be useful for setting out certain specifications that change between variants eg Avro Vulcan but that's not the case here. The bulleted list also shows variants of variants better. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Image request: French Jaguars
It appears findin decent images of Jaguars in French service is hard to come by, compared with RAF and Indian records. I'm leaving this message as a long term note/request to those editors who come across it, and that if they are looking for improvements to make to this article, an image hunt on this topic would be benefitial. Kyteto (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RAF Maintenance/Instructional Airframe Jaguars
I don't know if relevant to mention - you'll soon tell me! The main article lists Jaguars as all retired from RAF service - however, I understand that a large number of Jaguars (50+) are in use as instructional airframes at the RAF Cosford DSAE facility. See http://www.demobbed.org.uk/aircraft.php?type=631 for a list of RAF Jaguar survivors. Andywebby (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Operational is usually taken to mean flying and available for deployment.--KTo288 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a line and the pic to the article proper, flying is the glamorous part of the RAF, but no pilot is going anywhere without trained ground crew to look after the aircraft. The Jaguars are still serving an important function as instructional airframes.--KTo288 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SEPECAT Jaguar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620024938/http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/jaguar.html?L=1 to http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/jaguar.html?L=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720012458/http://www.cesa.air.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/RHA1_1992.pdf to http://www.cesa.air.defense.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/RHA1_1992.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305170836/http://www.cesa.air.defense.gouv.fr/DPESA/PLAF/PLAF_N_6.pdf to http://www.cesa.air.defense.gouv.fr/DPESA/PLAF/PLAF_N_6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

why a 'trainer'
designed as a 'trainer' appears to be full size

109.157.75.97 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They weren't designed as trainers, and trainers don't have to be small.
 * They were first thought of as "trainers with ground attack capabilities", similar to what later became the BAe Hawk. However they grew during design and development, becoming instead a ground attack aircraft with abilities as a trainer too. They also acquired twin engine and supersonic features, neither of which are usually affordable for trainers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The original Breguet design was for a relatively-simple two-seat advanced jet training aircraft however the UK customer (RAF) wanted an aircraft with full combat capabilities, e.g., TACAN, guns, external stores, etc., (all RAF fast jet training aircraft are combat-capable whereas the Armee 'd Air ones are/were not) and so the design morphed over time becoming more complex until it was eventually too-complex and expensive to use as a trainer. That is why IIRC the single-seat aircraft entered service first, training by then having - if you'll pardon the pun - taken the back seat.


 * BTW, RAF (and other) aircraft operating within the NATO area had/have to possess certain operational equipment that French air force aircraft operating outside of NATO do not, e.g., TACAN, IFF, etc., hence the RAF version was likely to be more complex (mostly in the avionics and electronic fitment) than the French required anyway, France having withdrawn from NATO at some point in around 1968 IIRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.janes.com/article/86852/hal-showcases-upgraded-jaguar-max-combat-aircraft. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)