Topic: Why have they retired the Jaguar?

Why have they retired this aircraft?
The only RAF aircraft with the helmet mounted sight, combined with the datalink modem
the Jaguar is a formidable aircraft. Admittedly slightly underpowered but not drastically.

The RAF in Afghanistan were described by an army major as utterly, utterly useless.

This is taken from the AI magazine.
In a recent exercise in the UAE, the Jaguars practised their target acquisition capabilities.
Against a range of targets such as Toyota landcruisers and inflatable scuds.
The Jaguar Pilots proved able to find a target and strike it with four aircraft with in three minutes.
In more complex terrain or where target identification is more difficult you can allow an extra minute
to permit a voice description of the target and its surrounding features.

As well as hitting the target quickly, the Jaguar can attack targets with arguably the most appropriate airborne weapon
for asymmetric warfare and for close air support the gun. Strafe is the attack option of choice it is both accurate and discriminatory. No other RAF aircraft can come close to this sort of capability against time sensitive targets.
A capability that is extremely relevant in current theatres.

This troubles me greatly, the Bacton gas terminal is less than one minutes flying time from the former
RAF Coltishall home for so many years of the Jaguar. We now have no close aircover for this prime target.

Regards Phil G.
Coltishall

I appreciate that it's an emotove and personal issue Phil, but I'm afraid that really is a bunch of tosh! The Jag is underpowered and at the end of it's upgradability. It's a 1960s aeroplane with the mission systems, avionics and flight systems of that era, and to upgrade that would cost FAR more than can be afforded now.

The Jag couldn't possibly operate out of Kandahar with any significant stores load because the runway is too short and the environment is too hot & high. In fact the Harrier GR9A is currently the only fast jet in the RAF inventory that can. The Jag's a maintenance-intensive aeroplane with a huge logistics footprint even when new (as an aging aircraft this only gets worse), and the footprint is made even worse still by its short range in typical mission configuration (requiring heavy in-flight refuelling support).

The Jag can't carry a mixed load of rockets, guided missiles, smart and dumb bombs, so it has top be loaded for a specific mission - the Harrier GR9 (fregsample) carries an assortment of weapons and flies patrols waiting to be called down for support tasks, giving it a time-to-task of a few minutes rather than an hour or so for a Jag. The Jag's stores management systems, nav systems and sensors are all pretty archaic and would cost upwards of a billion quid to replace, and the result would simply be an underpowered aeroplane that was better equipped (but still underpowered).

Some years ago the RAF took a long hard look at their fleets and their needs. The decision to scrap Jaguar and Sea Harrier to fund the expansion of the Harrier GR9 upgrade and the Tonka F4 was not taken lightly, but the Harrier GR9/9A is a FAR more capable and flexible tactical/CAS platform than the Jag could ever become.

Oh yes - finally:

"The RAF in Afghanistan were described by an army major as utterly, utterly useless".

This is quite a famous extract from a quote. In the remainder of the quote it became clear that the incidents he was refering to all involved american A-10s (for instance he frequently refered to being strafed by the RAF, when the Harriers in question haven't had operational guns for many years). It also related to the Talliban's first switch to pitch-battle tactics (which caught the army by surprise) and a battle in which the army got itself surrounded in such a way that NO air support could really help them out because the bandits were too close and too intermingled with the friendlies. The Army in Afganistan are currently full of praise for the RAF support - especially since the GR9 was given the Sniper pod which gives the man on the ground a direct view of what the pilot is looking at, and the ability to mark targets on the pilot's cockpit displays from his handheld unit.

And finally, finally, how does a bomber/CAS aircraft provide air cover for the gas terminal? Air cover is provided by fighters - Jags can only attack ground targets with any great ability. There are perhaps 10 airfields in the UK where Fats jets will be stationed at any one time, with only five of these at most having fast jets explicitly tasked with air-defence. So it will never be possible to provide every town with its personal fighter squadron. But scrambled Typhoons can get to more or less anywhere in the UK within 30 minutes, and that's good enough for most air threats that we consider likley.

PDR

What he said..... and besides, the RAF is way overdrawn on it's current account. How else can we pay for a huge fleet of shiny, pointy jets that are largley redundant in todays operational remit? By all means bin the Jag, but for God's sake, don't spend the money on so many Typhoons! Buy helicopters, transports, armour, guns, kit we need! 

Don't worry Phil. Marham is only a 5mins flight away for bacton with a tornado. We'll send them your way 

Steve

I appreciate that it's an emotove and personal issue Phil, but I'm afraid that really is a bunch of tosh! The Jag is underpowered and at the end of it's upgradability. It's a 1960s aeroplane with the mission systems, avionics and flight systems of that era, and to upgrade that would cost FAR more than can be afforded now.

etc. etc.

A lot more eloquent than my version, "cos it's a pile of sh1te"

Phil

Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Have seen formations of 4 A10's over Norfolk today, probably looking for a nice big ground target to attack........Bacton would be quite tempting, particularly if they painted a nice big union flag on it.Gordon brown wants to get the union flag flown more frequently, perhaps they could fly one over 10 Downing Street and our friendly allies could attack that too!!!

having listened to some ranting about the Union flag today on the radio i kinda like it how it is, it's there, but really gets flown on special events.

keep it for best, you'd get to used to it if we went yank style.

Dear Pat
How are you, I bet Ivan is pleased to see the A10's.
I went down to Lakenheath the other day to see them.
Six of them took off.

I am a bit fed up we can't make it to Cosford or Bruntingthorpe with the EE Lightning due to a band booking.
And we can't get the Ziroli P38 to Duxford for flying legends due to the owner going on holiday.

The Bacton thing really does worry me, something like 70% of our gas supplies come through that terminal.
Can you imagine an aircraft crashing into it.

I hope to see you soon.
Regards Phil G.

While I don't doubt PDR when he says that the Jaguar is past it's use by date. What I don't understand is an aircraft which, as I understand it, doesn't have guns being used in a CAS/COIN role. Wasn't the lesson regarding fighters having cannons learnt during the 60's ?

Steve

Careful, you put the words lesson and learnt in the same sentence there

Wasn't the lesson regarding fighters having cannons learnt during the 60's ?

There may have been a lesson to learn at the time, but does it actually apply today? Can you use something as inaccurate as a cannon in the close air support role safely.. or do you end up shooting at the wrong people and having to blame it on the RAF *cough* A-10 *cough*

I am sure that a lot of lessons from Malaya (which we won) and Vietnam (which the US lost) are being relearnt at the moment. 'Hearts and minds' and 'allowing the enemy base areas' spring to mind immediately.

Can you use something as inaccurate as a cannon in the close air support role safely..

Read 'Flying Black Ponies' (ISBN 1-55750-521-7). While the author is doubtless biased, it remains an interesting statement as to what can be achieved using forward firing ordanance (guns and rockets) in a COIN role.

Steve

A10 I am in love    what a beautiful aircraft  both in looks and useage . looks and does what it says on the tin !  Best warbird ever in my humble opinion   ,pity its flown by idiots ,again in my opinion .

The Jag is underpowered

PDR

How can a small aircraft with two reheated engines be underpowered?  Or are you speaking in relative terms 
  After all, the Hawk uses the same (Adour) engine, albeit not reheated, and only one, and they are not underpowered for their purpose.

A10 I am in love    what a beautiful aircraft  both in looks and useage . looks and does what it says on the tin !  Best warbird ever in my humble opinion   ,pity its flown by idiots ,again in my opinion .

Thunderbolt II   

How can a small aircraft with two reheated engines be underpowered?  Or are you speaking in relative terms 
  After all, the Hawk uses the same (Adour) engine, albeit not reheated, and only one, and they are not underpowered for their purpose.

But the hawk doesn't carry the ordinance and has a decent wing

Jaguar throttles, variable noise selectors.

The only reason the Jag got airborne was because of the curvature of the earth !

Phil

Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Have seen formations of 4 A10's over Norfolk today, probably looking for a nice big ground target to attack........Bacton would be quite tempting, particularly if they painted a nice big union flag on it.Gordon brown wants to get the union flag flown more frequently, perhaps they could fly one over 10 Downing Street and our friendly allies could attack that too!!!

Those four  A10s came over king's lynn a few days ago too.. Haven't seen them for ages.. awesome sight..

Dear PDR
I thought you might reply to this post.
Lets hope we can have a debate without name calling etc.
I don't think we are going to get off to a good start, as in my opinion your post is factually incorrect.

With the RAF hamstrung in Afghanistan by it's shortage of useful air to ground assets, and by the capability gaps
 in those platforms that have been deployed, anyone naive enough to believe that defence policy is driven by military need might have been surprised that the versatile and increasingly capable Jaguar was being retired at all, and not being refurbished for another five or ten years of service. Augmenting the more expensive and gunless Harrier, and the rather less deployable, more expensive and more maintenance intensive Tornado.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Raf's air to ground platforms would know that a Jaguar squadron is cheaper to run than any other type of fast jet unit, that a Jaguar squadron can deploy more quickly, with less logistics footprint and can sustain a higher sortie and availability rate. They would know that while lacking payload/range capability, the aircraft does offer an unmatched ability to deliver accurate discriminatory close air support very quickly.

Ironically the decision to retire the Jaguar will not save significant amounts of money and may lead to a long term loss of experience and currency, in particular in air to ground capabilities. The knock-on effect on the already overstretched Tornado force and on the Harrier force (which already looks unlikely to reach it's planned OSD without major structural work) will cost far more money than could ever be saved.

Deployment
Many have erroneously assumed that the Raf's failure to deploy the Jaguar during recent conflicts (from 2003's operation telic to more recent operations over Iraq and Afghanistan) reflect some inherent problem with operating the aircraft in hot and high conditions. Oman, India and Ecuador have all proved that the type can be operated successfully in high ambient temperatures and from high altitude runways and especially after the Adour Mk106 engine, the RAF Jaguar has been a far more capable and powerful machine than it was when it first came into service, when concerns about hot and high take off performance had some validity.
In fact while the Harriers STOVL capabilities are impressive, and while nothing can beat a Harriers short field performance, there are ways in which a Jaguar is a more deployable aircraft. There have been examples of airfields that the Harrier's can not use (those massive intakes make it something of a FOD hoover) that the Jaguar can, while the Jaguar can deploy quickly with less support and with a smaller logistics footprint.

No 6 Squadron brought home all seven of the aircraft it deployed to the UAE earlier this year with no external support. In two consecutive days of three hops, the unit returned without leaving it's jets scattered all over the Mediterranean and the seven aircraft landed at Coningsby on time and serviceable.

Afghanistan
The option to send the Jaguars to Kandahar was looked at very seriously before political considerations were taken into account. The Harrier force badly needed some breathing space and it was widely felt that the Jaguar could have made a useful contribution in Afghanistan, shouldering some of the load.
The absence of any radar or air threat in theatre meant that the Jaguar would not have needed to carry over wing missiles and could have also dispensed with the underwing ALQ 101 ECM pod and phimat chaff dispenser.
With two underwing tanks, the Jaguar could still have carried a centreline TIALD or JRP and two CRV7 rocket pods or 1000lbs on the outboard underwing pylons, plus 150 rounds of 30mm HE ammunition for the Aden cannon.

The only modifications needed for the Jaguar to operate in Afghanistan were trialled on one aircraft. These involved the carriage of BOL-IR decoys in the overwing launch rails and the provision of a secure radio. The cost of such mods would have been insignificant because as a mature platform the Jaguar could have been upgraded with out the expensive input of the design authority as the original J96 and J97 upgrades proved.

Once the Americans repaired the airfield at Kandahar the runway length available increased to 10,000 feet.
That is more than enough for the Jaguar, even in Afghan conditions. After looking very carefully at the Jaguars performance it was established that the aircraft could take off and accelerate away safely from Kandahar (3300 amsl) even at 45C. A Kandahar take off was actually simulated by climbing straight to 6,000 feet from take off, slowing down to take off speed again and selecting the airbrakes out to replicate stores drag. The jet accelerated away fine from this simulated take off.
It was calculated that the aircraft would be able to take off with two tanks and two 1,000lbs bombs at temperatures of up to 35C and could carry two tanks and a pair of CRV7 rocket pods at Oat's of up to 45C and this was trailled successfully.

The only reason the Jaguar did not deploy to Afghanistan was that to do so would have made it impossible to retire the aircraft without awkward questions being asked.

Training
Retaining the Jaguar offered the UK forces a number of important advantages even if it did not deploy.
the Jaguar has been largely responsible for training Army FAC's over the last 18 months and when the Army needs CAS training, the Jaguar has often been the platform of choice. The Army knew that they would turn up and give them first class service, and not ring up an hour later and say the jets broke.
The Army has already started to feel the impact of the Jaguar's sudden withdrawal.
No 6 squadron had to pull out of exercise Neptune warrior which would have provided operationally vital training for soon to deploy FAC's who had not yet undertaken any live control of fast jets.

Cost

According to figures published in Hansard a Jaguar was the cheapest fast jet to operate, and a Jaguar squadron's annual running costs were a fraction of other types. And as mentioned earlier the Harrier is unlikely to make it to it's planned OSD (which will almost certainly slip as a result of delays with the F35) without major structural work. This will be so costly as to have made the retention of the Jaguar look like a bargain.

Don't get me wrong I love the Harrier, Tornado and the Typhoon and we need them all.
To axe the tried and tested Jaguar seems strange to say the least, particularly when our forces are stretched like never before.
The axe had to fall on the Jaguar sometime but it seems premature to me.

Regards Phil G.
PS. Regarding protection of the Bacton gas terminal, the Jaguar was capable of carrying two AIM Sidewinders missiles which are air to air weapons. Correct me if I am wrong.

Those four  A10s came over king's lynn a few days ago too.. Haven't seen them for ages.. awesome sight..

They were doing attacking runs over sculthorpe this evening, running in low over my house. they are amazingly quiet.

Steve

The Bacton thing really does worry me, something like 70% of our gas supplies come through that terminal.
Can you imagine an aircraft crashing into it.

I hope to see you soon.
Regards Phil G.

Phil no point in worrying what will be will be, we got GCHQ (UK's Pentagon) building over this neck of the woods and the local airport approach to landing yep you guessed it as good as straight over the top, as if you could get near the Pentagon, as to the Jag issue yes sad to see them go but a very interesting point put forward by PDR cheers Pete, so i guess its time to retire them though would be nice to see some kept for airshows

lozza

Phil just read your latest post, very interesting, awaiting Petes reply

lozza

Dear Lozza
Nice to hear from you, I hope you are well.
I have noticed that you are getting hooked on the jets now, good luck with that.
I must admit when I fly my Brother's Lightning and Euro they scare me half to death.
Hope to see you soon.

Regarding the A10's apparently they are from Spangdahlem in Germany.
They are at Lakenheath while there runway is being repaired.
It is nice to see them again, they used to come over nearly every day when they were at Bentwaters.

Regards Phil G.

Dear PDR
I thought you might reply to this post.
Lets hope we can have a debate without name calling etc.
I don't think we are going to get off to a good start, as in my opinion your post is factually incorrect.

In respect of Kandahar ops my post was based almost entirely on the briefing we received last week from the FJWOEU pilot (and sniper project pilot) who had literally just returned from his third Kandahar tour three days before. From the sounds of it you would be in a position to look him up and confirm the views given. My understanding of the ground position is based on a couple of eveings with the comrades of my boss (a former AAC Major - the comrade is a Lt Col who's recently come back from ops in Afganistan).

As to costs, as I understand it the figures given in Hansard [etc] are only first line costs. Jag costs are not compared against the same baseline to other types because almost all rectification is performed beyond first line due to its modular nature, with most first-line work being simple LRI removal and replacement. When the total support footprint is analysed it swings very much the other way because this support architecture needs to be spares-rich to keep the pipelines primed.

And as mentioned earlier the Harrier is unlikely to make it to it's planned OSD (which will almost certainly slip as a result of delays with the F35) without major structural work. This will be so costly as to have made the retention of the Jaguar look like a bargain.

I guess we have different opinions here, and I really hope I'm right on this one for many reasons, not the least of which being that in January (when HPAC gets under contract) we will be betting our corporate shirt on our ability to sustain the GR9 fleet on a fixed-price, guarranteed availability basis until the OSD (which is no longer 2018 BTW - it's already moved and is expected to move again!). As it happens I'm up a Wyton on Monday participating in the HPAC Scenario Testing (one of the final steps towards price/solution freeze) so I hope were right!

The fleet are all extensively surveyed during the HMP3 (GR9 Cap A upgrade) programme, and those which need it will be given the replacement rear fuselage option which is available. I'm not at that end of the operation, but I think it's something like eight aircraft (all original GR5s, rather than the new-build GR7s that you chaps usually call the "Gucci jets"!) that are believed to require this.

The remainder we can't really debate here. Perhaps over a beer sometime - if you get to Cott much I'm usually doing an overnight or two there at least once a month.

PDR

though would be nice to see some kept for airshows

That is unlikely to ever be a feasible option because it requires a full support infrustructure to be retained for a tiny fleet. The costs of this are huge! It's hard enough doing it for relatively simple types like the BBMF aircraft and the Navy's Sea Fury & Sea Hawk. Just keeping pilots current on a type like a Jag would be a large financial burden!

PDR

Dear PDR
Thank you for your reply.
Of all the characters on this site, of which there are many you are the one I would like to meet the most.

I did not know that the OSD for the Harrier had already slipped.
My point regarding it, is that it is being asked to do more and more and something has to give.
I have seen the kit in the Jaguar demonstrated and it would have still packed a punch.
I just don't like to think our forces are being deprived of anything.
When they are putting their life's on the line they should at least have good kit and enough of it.

Regards Phil G.

anyone naive enough to believe that defence policy is driven by military need might have been surprised that the versatile and increasingly capable Jaguar was being retired at all, and not being refurbished for another five or ten years of service.

From that Phil, do I take it that you consider yourself naive? 

Of all the charactors on this site, of which there are many you are the one I would like to meet the most.

...and of all the characters on this site I am probably the one most in need of a good Salman Rushdie impression! Thankyou for the kind though, but be very careful about feeding my ego - it has a voracious appetite and no known limits to its growth potential (unlike the Jag ).

I did not know that the OSD for the Harrier had already slipped.
My point regarding it, is that it is being asked to do more and more and something has to give.
I have seen the kit in the Jaguar demonstrated and it would have still packed a punch.
I just don't like to think our forces are being deprived of anything.
When they are putting their life's on the line they should at least have good kit and enough of it.

I'll respond to that by PM - with apologies to the spectators.

PDR

From that Phil, do I take it that you consider yourself naive? 

Dear Dizz
Very

why would you draw something out of service that can do the job it's asked to do, when they still fly the Nimrods which are falling the pieces around the poor sods picked to fly them

why would you draw something out of service that can do the job it's asked to do, when they still fly the Nimrods which are falling the pieces around the poor sods picked to fly them

The Jags were falling apart 25 years ago, and are very maintenance intensive, so that simple component replacements takes a long time to do.

If you read Phil's post further up, he states what a Jag could carry, but you'll notice there's a lot of mentions of the word 'or'.  That means it can carry a lot of different things, but as it has a very low payload capability, so if you put one weapon on it, it can't carry anything else.

The one thing it's good for is target practice, just ask anyone from, IIRC, 29 sqn


Mark.

The one thing it's good for is target practice, just ask anyone from, IIRC, 29 sqn

A significant fraction of RAF air to air kills since WW2 I believe 

It is a shame that they have retired the Jaguar however I can see why they have done it. There are always going to be aircraft that get retired that people want to see kept flying. Take the Vulcan, all those years of walking the walk and finally when it got to prove itself by bombing the Falklands it only did so whilst on death row.
I believe it is more important to see the historic airfileds kept alive, RAF Coltishall had the distinction of being the only WW2 fighter base in service from WW2 til the Jaguars left, Phil G will correct me if I am wrong, these airfiields are our history as much as the aircraft that were based there.
Whilst we are sad to see the passing of the Jaguar we can hopefully have our spirits raised by the imminent flight of the mighty Vulcan XH558, cant wait to hear its banshee wail again.
Phil, get another fly in organised at Colt whilst still feasible and lets enjoy the base whilst we can.

we were only just talking about if more modern aircraft would be available to keep flying once the forces were done with them.
if the fairly simple ( so far as i can tell ) Jag isn't doable then theres not a lot since that will be :(

I believe it is more important to see the historic airfileds kept alive, RAF Coltishall had the distinction of being the only WW2 fighter base in service from WW2 til the Jaguars left, Phil G will correct me if I am wrong, these airfiields are our history as much as the aircraft that were based there.

I can see the desire, but the *defence* budget can't afford it and can't justify cutting other stuff to keep museums open. If this is to be done in needs to be funded by someone else - Eglish Heritage or perhaps the National Trust.

PDR

I believe it is more important to see the historic airfileds kept alive, RAF Coltishall had the distinction of being the only WW2 fighter base in service from WW2 til the Jaguars left, Phil G will correct me if I am wrong, these airfiields are our history as much as the aircraft that were based there.

Stand corrected then because Halfpenny green airport is still up and running and played a role in WW2 . I know this as its 10 mins from my doorstep and people keep banging on about its history 

Dear All
Can I thank you for making this a sensible debate, rather than open warfare.
I posted a similar thread on a so called fullsize site. War broke out in short order.

I am compiling factual  replies to some of the posts that need it.

The easiest one for me to answer is Pat M's.
Pat you can find all you need to know about Coltishall in the booklet you were given at last years Battle of Britain event. Yes I am looking into holding another Battle of Britain at Colt. It will have to be agreed with defence estates however.

Coltishall was, until 1st of April 2006 the only continuously operational Battle of Britain fighter station.
Raf Coltishall was declared fully operational by it's first station commander, Wing Commander W.K. Beisiegal at 0001 hrs on 23 June 1940. It's last operational station commander was Gp capt G.A. Wright, now Air Commodore Wright.
It still retains it's "C" type WW2 hangars. Just about every ace of WW2 at some time or other was stationed there. No 66 Sqn while at Coltishall registered the first kill of the Battle of Britain. Sergeant F.N. Robertson flying a Spitfire Mk1 W3035 shot down a Do17Z of II/KG3 of winterton on July 10 1940.

It also retains it's cold war blast pens which are scattered all over the airfield.
The pans at each end of the runway are where two EE Lightnings would stand with their Pilots strapped in at two minute readiness.

As much as I would like to see Coltishall retained in it's current state, I have to (on this occasion) agree with PDR that no public money can be used. The chances of the national trust, lottery etc getting involved are remote to say the least.

Pat your part regarding keeping an aircraft  because I like it, is not my point.
I believe that the Jaguar is still a very useful asset to augment the very over stretched Harrier.
I will post shortly regarding the avionics suite of the Jaguar.

Regards Phil G.

As much as I would like to see Coltishall retained in it's current state, I have to (on this occasion) agree with PDR that no public money can be used.

On a point of order. I never said that no public money should be used. What I said was that the cost of preserving national heritage could not be borne by the DEFENCE budget. There are many other public budgets - perhaps the money that we seem able to spend on the new anti-smoking gestapo or a few per cent of the overspend on the olympics...

PDR

if the fairly simple ( so far as i can tell ) Jag isn't doable then theres not a lot since that will be :(

Don't confuse old and less capable with "simple" or "cheap". Keeping aging aircraft flying is extremely expensive because (among other things) all the parts, materials and consumables go obsolescent. Even simple stuff like oils, greases and hydraulic fluids cost millions to qualify in a particular aircraft when the original goes out of production. Never mid the bleedin' avionics - most of the components used in 1970s avionic gear went out of production 20 years ago and can't be had for love nor money, so when you run out of spares you have to find alternative equipment and certify it onto the aeroplane. The starting proce for certifying a simple bit of avionic kit onto a fast jet is £10m, but in most cases it's in the range £25m-£150m.

PDR

Aaaaanyway be that all as it may there's some really great pics of the last few Jags here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69856&page=2


So who's gonna do a scale job with the jaguar print paint job?