[2020] Jaguar GR.1

If the bug reports have been filled for all the issues you mentioned, the please send them to me and I can raise them again.

You mean the Lynxs that technically have more weaponry than they ever fielded in reality with the Army and have things they were only tested with?

Lynx was given a very long and wide list of weaponry far beyond what it operationally had. We were extremely lenient with it.

The aircraft is still in development and not even fully out of testing yet. I have already forwarded the point about Sidewinders, but baring in mind its Pylons and stores are non functional at the moment.

Is there any source to back up that its a G and not D? Since G needed a radar that Jaguar didn't have.

That was for Phantom not Jaguar and as a I said, Jaguar lacks the radar to use AIM-9G. AIM-9L is not AIM-9G. We are aware of that.

Where are the sources showing it was the 1980s and AIM-9G?

So far guys this is a lot of guess work and no definitive sources on anything here.

A pilots testimony on a modeling website is not a sufficient source im afraid.

Guys none of this is helping to speed up the process here. Im trying to pass the information forward to get this resolved before the aircraft gets to a later stage. So far nobody has provided anything definitive that shows AIM-9G. Right now its looking more and more likely that its AIM-9D.

Source on this please?

Sources on this please? Again, nothing credible is being presented here that I can raise to actually help the matter.

No. Thats WIP.

Yes proof of AV8-1 with it which is useful and ive forwarded. Still nothing solid on the aircraft in Question here. Jaguar.

I would also appreciate if you could at least be a little mature about this since im here trying to help get this resolved. Not play a childish game of HAHAHA GOTCHA.

You dont need to buy anything, im asking for where the information being claimed comes from so I can pass it on.

Im not the one making these decisions. Im the one here trying to get the right info forwarded on before the aircraft happens, so please tone back the hostility.

Please read what I posted on the previous page. Going round in circles is not helping. Claims are being made and im trying to pass the info on before it becomes too late.

Im relaying on the info I have from the developers.

Its all been forwarded on thank you. So far I have been told that AIM-9B was indeed preliminary and at a minimum it will have AIM-9D. They are now looking into AIM-9G. Any extra info is always appreciated.

Phantom has Radar so no thats not the problem. AIM-9D was actually used on Phantoms and Ive already posted the sources for that long ago.

Just overlook they had AIM-9D before anyone had AIM-9J and SRAAM which was dominant for several patches. As well as the fact they are also getting AIM-7 now. But lets ignore that )))

Nobody is resisting, the devs are are just trying to get it right.

AIM-9L is far ahead of anything right now in terms of short range. So AIM-9L wont happen from the get go.

Thanks. Im also in contact with RAF Hendon over some bomb clarification.

We raised it again.

It will get a c*ckpit, but I cant speak of which spesific features it will or wont have at this stage.

Thats not actually why so we would be grateful if you didn't mislead people. We could have just added it as a standard GR.1 and no air to airs at all and it would be been correct

No they do not. More than enough was complete and ready for its introduction in a historical manor. It was going to get AIM-9D as a minimum regardless.

These wont be on the GR.1 we are getting as far as im aware.

It was more prolifically used on GR.3, so perhaps if we ever get that model. Yes.

Well I can now say that Jaguar GR.1 will have AIM-9G

We dont have any cluster bombs right now in game.

The patch is called Raining Fire due to the CAS focus for aircraft.

Im sure the talented folks at WT live can fulfil your wishes for such camos

Im hoping someone will cover XX764, which is currently under restoration

Or the 41 Sqd special

British Jaguar GR.1s never had Magics.

As I already said on the deb blog today, we are getting GR.1 right now. The devs have confirmed from several sources that Sidewinders were tested and capable of being fired from GR.1 and thats why they have them. There is no reason to strip them of that.

GR.1A with its better engines, overwing pylons, fares and everything else is better suited to a later upgrade or separate aircraft rather than trying to make this variant something its not.

Sources would be useful in bug reports for any incorrect loadouts. As was the case with the AIM-9G situation.

Such as?

Reports please?

They occurred later in GR.1s life close to GR.1A. As I said, its planned to have GR.1A in some form later on, so it makes to no sense to make a clone of it now when what we have is correct for a GR.1.

GR.1 had no flares. That came with GR.1A. Its not incorrect.

As I said above. Its known that the 104 came before GR.1. But that was a later in life upgrade closer to GR.1A and as I also said, as we have potential plans for the GR.1A, it make no sense to just make the GR.1 a clone of GR.1A when its already planned.

It never had flares as GR.1.

GR.3 is a whole separate variant. As I said above, we have plans for the Jaguar in the future, so we are not going to mash GR.1/1A/3 into one.

XX723 began as a GR.1 and thats what we have.

Ive already said twice its engines are correct as they are for a GR.1. We are well aware of the later engines, but they can come on the GR.1A.

Links to any reports are something I can use to actually help here. Repeating the same things said and not reported on the last few pages isnt going to help the situation.

We have this document already. Its already been passed.

It really does nothing in terms of the models or spesific bombs aircraft should have. It details that bombs were indeed changed, but not on what aircraft, what ones specifically (model wise) and everything else.

The document is useless in this regard.

Please link any of them?

A single photo is not something I can really use.

Once again, if we had the correct reports. Right now this topic and several others have descended into multiple screaming "this is wrong, thats wrong" and nothing of any substance in terms of reports that I can actually forward is being presented here.

Yes we can and will indeed make changes if there is something properly reported as it should be. Throwing a practically worthless document that doesnt help anything or an odd photo of a bomb here or there does not help.

We are going around in circles here. I have already explained why we are keeping the Mk 102. Its not incorrect as it is and we intend to save the Mk 104 for a later upgrade.

The engines are correct as they are for GR.1.

Thats for the FGR.2 and in queue.

Nothing to do with this here and not of use here.

I understand the reasoning and I have passed that to the developers but it does not change the fact its not incorrect as it is.

This topic is now becoming almost impossible to keep track on so im trying to focus on actual issues / bugs missing things that need to be properly reported whilst we still have time to do so.

Without proper reports on those issues then yes the chances are very low. Since people seem more intrested in spending time bashing the devs and game here than using 1/3rd of that time to report the issue correctly.

Thank you to those of you here that have reported issues correctly.

Trailed in the mid 70s before the engine upgrade in Germany. XX731 was never converted to GR.1A either.

The CASTOR is too modern and used only in the 21st century. WDU-5002/B FAT (Flechette Antitank) is too modern and was operated on GR3 or even GR1A, it was operated in 93-94.

Yes, whilst we are here, lets remove Spitfires Mk. V - 24 and just add all the features of them all onto Mk 1a. Because thats how things work?

Please stop acting like the Jaguar is unique and needs to be the first aircraft with all variant slammed into one because you dont want to research 3.

The French one is not multiple variants merged into one and the French community are fine with that. We are starting with GR.1.

We have already explained this.

Both the French and British are starting out with the first variant they had. We have plans to add GR.1A in some form later on. This jet is not "supposed" to receive AIM-9L at all. AIM-9G is what was used and trialed on it and entirely historically correct.

Jaguar is a strike aircraft and everyone is just trying to make it a pseudo GR.1A so it can be closer to T-2K. Britain already has several capable top fighters and we are not going to make the Jaguar something its not.

Thats part of the fuselage and early GR.1s did not have flares.

You can see by the photos of the Sidewinder trials in Germany flares were not mounted.

This is a SEPECAT Jaguar International. An different variant of the aircraft.

As I have already explained, we have a GR.1 with its correct sidewinder mounting. Overwing Pylons, later engines and the later upgrades will come in a future variant (GR.1A).

At the moment there are not any plans for this.

Early Lightnings would be even worse, with the exception really of the F.3 which has better performance, but trades that for a complete lack of any guns and only 2 missiles.

Then there are also the Frankenstein F.2 variants which could technically have up to 4 ADENs in some configurations, but an extreme lack of fuel..

So thats why F.6 as its the definitive variant.

Jaguar International is a separate variant entirely for the export market based on a GR.1, but is not a GR.1. We have an RAF GR.1 variant as it was during the 1970s. Jagauar International =/= GR.1.

Please see my earlier posts. We intend to add GR.1A in some form later, so there is no reason to make GR.1 a clone of GR.1A with all the features better suited to that model.

GR.1 is correct as it is with its Sidewinders how they are.

The Phantoms are top tier aircraft and superior to Jagaur. Comparing them to the GR.1 and saying "but they are better" is meaningless.

No we are not stripping Jaguar of its historical air-to-airs and even then it would not go to 9.7.

Once again, with this logic, why should we add any aircraft below 10.3?

Why would anyone that owns a FGR.2 want to play a new WW2 aircraft thats added, or a new postwar aircraft, or a new jet of any kind?

The answer is because its a new iconic aircraft. Its not always about being top dog and Britain have 3 of those right now with the 2 Phantoms and Lightning.

This kind of argument is basically saying "just dont bother adding any new jets unless they are top BR competitive".

GR.1 as its being introduced is not a “pseudo” GR.1A, but correct for a GR.1. We have plans to introduce GR.1A later in some form and are not going to make this aircraft into a "quick fix" GR.1A and slam everything on it now because people want the best immediately and make the Jaguar something it was not.

Perhaps you should have looked into the aircraft more and found out it was the RAFs main strike / CAS aircraft and not an "agile fighter" and adjusted your expectations accordingly?

Jaguar was not and never will be a pure fighter or air superiority aircraft. It was a strike aircraft with the means to defend itself. It was never supposed to go toe-to-toe with a Phantom. So when you put in that regard, of course is going to be disappointing. Its like putting a Firecrest and a Sea Fury in a ring together and saying "but I thought the Firecrest would be better at this".

Because the initial French version was better?

Perhaps compare the number of French jets in game to British ones and then reconsider that its hardly a crime France gets another good one maybe?

They will come at some stage.

Its a little more complicated than just saying "they look the same, so add them both". I appreciate people want both, but its not possible to introduce both at once and certainly not possible to rush the GR.1A to completion now because a few people are unhappy with the GR.1.

GR.1A will come in time in some form, but for now we have GR.1 which is better than no Jaguar at all.

All of this summed up is absolutely nothing to do with the Jaguar. But the BR range and its current maximum peak at 10.3, which we explained within the last Q and A: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6818-qa-answers-from-the-developers-en

Incorrect, it was a GR.1, then a GR.1A then a GR.3.

Once again, nothing to do with this topic or the Jaguar, but a matter of the BR range which was answered in the last Q and A.

There are not enough aircraft or players at this range to do this and maintain a balanced population, queue time and team composition.

Ive already explained why it wont have Chaff initially. Early GR.1s didn't have it. It will come on GR.1A.

Thats not how it works. "It might be", "it may be" are not how decisions are made. Facts and data are used and right now they are clearly showing its not possible to fence of both 9.7 and 10.0.

I dont believe we have received a report on the bombs yet. CVR-7 is under review with the devs. Additional warhead options may come, but certainly none of the 1993/4+ options that were being discussed in some places.

Please put all of the bombs into singular reports. So far we have just too much flying around here to keep track of.

No aircraft in game has a modeled HUD in the form you are asking. Its not just Jaguar.

In the future, its possible will add it for as many aircraft that had it as far as can be done. But not for now.

They are planned to come on a later variant.

As I said, its known. Jaguar wont be getting many of the later warheads discussed, but its possible its going to get some of the early ones on this variant of the aircraft.

Hate to break it to you, but Britain has its 2 most meta aircraft for a very long while already in the FGR.2 and FG.1.

Britian's had a new jet for the last 3 major updates in a row as well new top tier equipment across the board.

Again, we dont only add meta aircraft and not everything is supposed to go toe-to-toe with a Phantom and win.

Thats an entirely separate topic and nothing to do with the Jaguar. The BR range is currently at its maximum possible. Jaguar is a CAS/strike aircraft. Even if there were double the amount of BRs it would still be within the Phantoms range.

This entire topic is coming less and less about the Jaguar and more about other, wider areas of the game.

There are no desert camos for the Jaguar A.

These are all suggestions for other areas of the game, which whilst entirely welcome, should be presented as proper suggestions and topics.

They have nothing to do with the Jaguar itself as an aircraft.

Apparently something that slipped past me entirely

Likely because its a very niche system the devs were not aware was on the base model GR.1. It will need some more investigation to confirm its correct once we forward it.

Its something to be considered if the Jaguar is not performing particularly healthy in battles. But right now its too early to call.

They apply more to a classifaction that does not really exist yet in game as we are only just entering the era where dedicated CAS / Strike jets existed.

Even without its missiles, it doesn't automatically down to 9.7 and certainly not 9.3.

The developers are conducting further research. When its possible to add more it will be done.

Hi guys. On review, we had an updated response from the developers on the Jaguars: "The Jaguar A and Jaguar GR.1 currently featured in the game have incorrectly modeled supports for the installation of the Tracor AN / ALE-40 flare units, which were installed only on later aircraft modifications. This will be fixed in a future update. The French version had its own Matra-Philips ARAL 1A / 1B Phimat system with a different mounting method. It will also be modeled in a future update. On the British Jaguar GR.1 (not to be confused with the later version 1A that was not presented in the game), in reality it was possible to install hanging containers with countermeasures, but the question of adding them to the game has not yet been finally resolved."

It is, but thats because it generally was. The French A had Magics and flares in streamline pods. Jaguar GR.1 only got Sidewider Gs later on and as we mentioned above, its countermeasures have to ocupy a pylon spot, so its counterintuitive and still being decided upon. This was of course improved in later models like the GR.1A.

Yes, this is most likely the one Jaguar A will get.

No new news so far.

Nothing on the ordinance so far.

Well as we already mentioned, at least 1 more is in current plans in some form. But that can always change. We cant give details right now.

Not at the moment, since we dont have cluster bombs of any kind in game.

Thats an... imaginative.. use of them for sure. I certainly did not expect to see that.

All be it rather unsuccessfully yes as they were dropped pretty quickly.

The aircraft model in game was never fitted with flare dispensers at any stage. The mounting points are there by error on both models, neither of which used them there.

Jaguar GR.1A and GR.3 was the only variants to use this type of flare location.

The models will be updated at some stage and these mounting points removed.

The French one used an entirely different form of countermeasure and as we said in a previous Q and A, they are planned to come in the future.

If/when new vehicles are announced, it will be done via the dev blogs or dev server/streams. We cant release details on them right now

Not by removing the GR.1.

It will come in some form, but its undecided if it it will be an upgrade for the GR.1 or more likely a seperate aircraft entirely.

The developers have plans for a GR.1A variant in some form in the future. As such, the aim is to keep some reasonable differences between them to make them more distinct whilst also representing the different stages of the aircraft. The Jaguar GR.1 how we have it now is entirely correct for an early version. Indeed aircraft are generally implemented with their best possible configurations, but also with considerations to future additions. In this case, the GR.1A.

The sidewinder upgrade is possible for any Jaguar GR.1. Its not tied to the engine upgrade.

We don't tie weaponry directly to dated configurations like that when future variants are in consideration.

Weaponry is entirely separate. Thats why the Naval FG.1 has access to its entire service life weaponry, because we don't plan future variants as they were all just FG.1s.

We have a GR.1 in game representing the early GR.1 airframe. We have plans for a later GR.1A in some form, so in order to keep differences between them we are not going to give the GR.1 all its entire service life worth of upgrades that basically bring it closer to a GR.1A. It has sidewinders b

You misunderstood the point of my post. I was referring to the fact it contains the weaponry from its service both in the Royal Navy and RAF with the gunpod being the key example. Its entire service lifes worth of weaponry is open for it. I did not say they are all in game, but the point being it has the most meaningful weapons from its whole service. We have already answered about AIM-9G.

I was not referring to the weapons it could have that are already reported as suggestions. If there are more for other aircraft you wish to suggest feel free.

As for some of the weap

GR.1 never had these flares. Its an error that it has them on the dev server. They will be removed.