PDA

View Full Version : OT: RAF Jaguar to be withdrawn next week



WilhelmSchulz.
04-24-2007, 07:49 PM
The RAF will be retiring its faithfull Jaguar(Im guessing that the Euro Fighter will replace it).

Source (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5491068355)

Celeon999
04-25-2007, 02:59 AM
Yes , the Typhoon will replace the Jaguar.



I know that Jaguar was a british-french joint venture but it has some resemblance to the Harrier... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Perhaps, both planes came out of the same development series ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Especially the tail-section

Or just a coincidence ?



Jaguar (This is a french one)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Jaguar_A_French.jpg/800px-Jaguar_A_French.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Harrier.av8b.750pix.jpg

klcarroll
04-25-2007, 07:42 AM
Hmmmm......

Lots of "Hardpoints"!!!!

*

Celeon999
04-25-2007, 08:10 AM
Talking about the Harrier......


Did you know that Germany was once leading in V/STOL airplane technology during the sixties ?

ONCE... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Until the "thats much too expensive" politicians strangeled the projects to death http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


The EWR VJ 101 was revolutionary. Unlike models like the Harrier or the X-35 it turned the entire jetengines instead of diverting the exhaust.

This brought the cool side-effect of being able to perform unmatched avionic manouvers , for example when turning each engine counterwise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Although it had its obligatory crashes during test flight the tests seemed success promising and in terms of manouverability it was superior to any fighter the soviet union had to offer in the 60/70ths


Well, at least now it looks good in a museum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/EWR_VJ101.JPG/800px-EWR_VJ101.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Aircraft_VJ101C_RH.jpg/800px-Aircraft_VJ101C_RH.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Aircraft_engine_RR_RB-145_LH.jpg/800px-Aircraft_engine_RR_RB-145_LH.jpg

geoffwessex
04-25-2007, 12:34 PM
Oddly enough, the Jaguar development, as far as the UK was concerned, was part of the ongoing search for a replacement for the Canberra bomber. Among the first mooted replacement projects was an upgrade to the Blackburn Buccaneer - the company had designs ready but the RAF didn't want an aircraft that the Royal Navy had used successfully. Ironically, once the Navy's conventional fixed-wing carriers had been retired, the RAF took over the Buccaneers and were able to carry out missions in the Gulf in 1991 that the USAF couldn't handle. The main contender, though, was the ill-fated, badly managed, but brilliant design known as the TSR2. Again, the UK government had interfered and made three or four companies merge to form one government-backed company, British Aircraft Corporation. The problems of merging the companies added to the design confusion. Only one flew but in 1965 the project was cancelled and the UK RAF was forced to go for the over-expensive and inferior F-111 from the USA. Even that project failed, as far as the UK was concerned, when the prices spiralled - though Australia had to struggle along with them. Amid rumours of the UK requiring assistance from the USA for getting a loan from the IMF, the UK finally got the not-very-good F4 Phantom, but wanted some British involvement, so had Rolls-Royce Spey engines put in - great engine but not the right one for the Phantom, so the UK were again left with no replacement for the Canberra. So they went for the Panavia Tornado and the SEPECAT Jaguar - (it helped politically that they were other EC nations involved) both of them much better than the Phantom and F-111 but still not what was required to replace the Canberra. That's more or less how it still stands until the Eurofighter comes in.

Mention of the Harrier, above, also remeinds me that, in the 1960s, while the UK government supported the development of an early prototype, the P1127, it backed out of support for the vastly better version, the P1154. Had that been developed it could still have 15 years life left.

An original TSR2 (designed about 1960) is at the IWM Duxford.....

http://home.cogeco.ca/~gchalcraft/tsr2.jpg

WilhelmSchulz.
04-25-2007, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/EWR_VJ101.JPG/800px-EWR_VJ101.JPG
[IMG]
That looks like our(U.S) Ospry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

PhantomKira
04-25-2007, 12:54 PM
I find it surprising that it's lasted this long, being radarless and all. But I suppose if there's nothing else that can fit the bill for the mission, then it works.

Celeon999
04-25-2007, 12:55 PM
That cockpit section of the TSR2 is a strange design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Is that a window ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Was the weapons officer sitting behind the pilot and doomed to look through that little thing or otherwise beeing blind ?


That looks like our(U.S) Osprey.


Yes, both planes are based on exactly the same design. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just the usage is different.

The Osprey is meant to be a faster and higher flying helicopter while the VJ 101 was simply meant to be a jetfighter that needs no runway (or at least only a very short one). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/V-22_Osprey_tiltrotor_aircraft.jpg/800px-V-22_Osprey_tiltrotor_aircraft.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Aircraft_VJ101C_LH.jpg/800px-Aircraft_VJ101C_LH.jpg

WilhelmSchulz.
04-25-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
That cockpit section of the TSR2 is a strange design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Is that a window ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Was the weapons officer sitting behind the pilot and doomed to look through that little thing or otherwise beeing blind ?
The thinking was that the WO was just to look at the radar screen and through the bom sight. I even think the windo was more for comfort(ie seeing the outside) I mean just look at the SR71 Black Bird
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Sr71_1.jpg/764px-Sr71_1.jpg

Realjambo
04-26-2007, 11:59 PM
I was lucky enough to be at a Farnborough Airshow when I was younger when the SR-71 took off to return to the US. Incredible sight and WHAT a noise! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

You can now download the flight manual for it - Here (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/)

Celeon999
04-27-2007, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Realjambo:
I was lucky enough to be at a Farnborough Airshow when I was younger when the SR-71 took off to return to the US. Incredible sight and WHAT a noise! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

You can now download the flight manual for it - Here (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/)


Ah yes. I remember seeing the russian translation of it in a docu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Liddabit
04-28-2007, 01:27 PM
I think the sr-71 may be the most beautiful plane ever :P

wm4668
04-29-2007, 05:05 AM
Ah, the good old Jag. I spent 3 very happy years at RAF Coltishall 1978-1981, serving on 41 Sqn, the PR Sqn in the Wing. I even managed to get to fly the Jaguar Simulator. The Building was approximately the size of a small Hangar, mainly because the terrain was a huge model overflown by a camera (no CGI in those days). Even then, the in-joke was that Jaguar was an acronym (Joint Anglo-Gallic Universally Acknowledged Relic). Sorry to see the old girl go - I wonder how many will be preserved in an airworthy condition.

Celeon999
04-29-2007, 05:42 AM
(Joint Anglo-Gallic Universally Acknowledged Relic).



LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLL
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Celeon likes that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://foren.ludomaniac.de/smileys/wee.gif

M0ttie
04-29-2007, 03:07 PM
The German VTOL......Someone bolt the engines to a starfighter using universal joints. Not a lot of room for gas either by the look of it.
I spoke with several pilots who flew the 'Buccaneer', all agreed if the avionics could be upgraded it would be the best low level attack plane at that time, this was a good few years ago now mind.
They reckoned it was as tough as old boots and could take a real 'buffeting' at low level yet remain solid as a rock.
I've sat in both a Buc and a Jaguar and didn't fit in either very well!, it'd have to be a Herky Bird for me not fast jets unfortunately. I've no doubt some airworthy Jaguars will be snapped up and continue to fly.

wm4668
05-01-2007, 12:25 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Celeon999:
That cockpit section of the TSR2 is a strange design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Is that a window ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Was the weapons officer sitting behind the pilot and doomed to look through that little thing or otherwise beeing blind ?

[QUOTE]

You shoud see the Navigators compartment in the Sea Vixen, a 1950's FAA fighter. The Nav was in a completely enclosed section of the fuselage next to the pilot. I had the chance to climb into one at RAF Halton while doing my Weapon Tech training in the 70s - claustrophobia on wings. See this link

DH 110 Sea Vixen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Sea_Vixen)

Celeon999
05-01-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by wm4668:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Celeon999:
That cockpit section of the TSR2 is a strange design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Is that a window ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Was the weapons officer sitting behind the pilot and doomed to look through that little thing or otherwise beeing blind ?

[QUOTE]

You shoud see the Navigators compartment in the Sea Vixen, a 1950's FAA fighter. The Nav was in a completely enclosed section of the fuselage next to the pilot. I had the chance to climb into one at RAF Halton while doing my Weapon Tech training in the 70s - claustrophobia on wings. See this link

DH 110 Sea Vixen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Sea_Vixen)



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Thats indeed frightning. It seems that the nav was not supposed to be able to fly the plane by himself at all.

I mean in case the pilot gets out of action for whatever reason.

This leads me to two questions :

1. Ejection seat ? Did the nav and pilot had one at all ?

2. Why ? I mean why not giving the nav a second canopy or making a bigger single one. It seems that there is enough space.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M0ttie
05-02-2007, 02:05 PM
I once saw a Canberra at RAF Cosford apprentice school. The pilot sat in an offset fighter style cockpit on top and the entire nose section swung open to reveal, if I recall correctly, 2 side by side seats bolted to the aircrafts bulkhead. Once the nose was in place there were 2 portholes about 6 inches in diameter to look out of, one either side and that was it!.
Not for me thanks, dont mind being flown around but shut in there with what must be zero vision in such a cramped space...........