Talk:SEPECAT Jaguar

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SEPECAT Jaguar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Shimgray | talk | 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some comments from a first pass through, in order:

Lead:

• The lead is quite short for an article of this size; it could easily be three or four times the length. It currently just lists operators, and doesn't mention anything about development, role (beyond "ground attack" - nothing about, eg, the nuclear role), operational history, etc.

Addressed this, is it satisfactory? Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. The last note about the Indian MRCA isn't in the article, though. Shimgray | talk | 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Development:

• "short field performance" - is this takeoff from a short runway, or short-range operations?

Removed, as the ref did not mention this issue. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "the technical collaboration between BAC and Breguet went well..." - did the engine collaboration also work okay?
• The "Replacement" section of development seems a bit awkward - we leap straight from 1973 to 2007 without anything in the middle. I can see why this is here, but this section might be better moved down to go with the section on operators, broken up to the UK and India seperately.
• What happened to the Germans? They showed interest in it as a strike aircraft in ~1967, but are never mentioned again.

The interest they showed encouraged those enthusiastic for the project that it was not a dead end with nobody whatsoever with a hnt of interest in it, and may have been a factor in the decision to continue with development, but the German interest next amounted to anything useful in final purchases or formal discussions for purchasing. The source material was as blunt and short, with no further information upon what happened next with the German aspect. We do know that they sourced the Alpha Jet in a joint venture with France, which almost certainly killed the window for the trainer-Jaguar and a small ground-attack-variant-fleet package deal. Kyteto (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've reworked this a little bit to hopefully flow better. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Design:

• The start of "Design" has tense confusion - "The Jaguar is ... It had..." - this should probably be made consistent, or have some comment like "As originally designed, it had..."

Think I've sorted this out. Grammar is always a complicated issue. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks clear now. Other than the overwing pylons (!), did the overseas models have any significant change in armament? Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)#

Actually, one quick problem - I think we've accidentally put it all into the past rather than the current! It talks of the more modern MiG-27 and Su-30 as contemporaries, which strongly suggests it's talking about the aircraft as currently used by India. Shimgray | talk | 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worth including a couple of sentences on the engine here?

I think so, I'll get on it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Operational history:

• France - is it possible to include a little more detail on why they were retired? The text also implies they remained in the nuclear strike role until the 2000s, which seems a bit odd - surely this would have been handed over to newer aircraft at an earlier date?

This is complicated and informal on my part, but here goes my explaination: The Jaguar was never a 'nice fit' into the Franch Air Force. It wasn't the mainstay of the nuclear-delivery fleet, it was a decent ground-attack jet but amongst all-french rivals such as the more modern Mirage 2000. But what pushed it out was a mixture of its outdated avionics (not a death sentence, but an expensive redesign and refit), the introduction of the Rafale as France's new mainstay fighter in general, and the want to keep the Mirage 2000 in production as long as possible. It was politically better to dump the Jaguar and get Mirage 2000s in their place, as Dassault hoped that India would choose the Mirage 2000 for their next big fighter purchase, worth billions and years of production, if France was still making them and introducing them it shows the buyer that they're still being purchased and are still adding useful capability even in bulk numbers.(the last thing they'd want to show is the French Air Force turning their nose up at it and letting the production shut down) Thus, Jaguar binned due to political convinience, a lack of a necessary role, in need of an overhaul, and loads of Mirage 2000s being brought online at the same time as the big Rafale project. As the Rafale still comes in, many of its abilities shall complete development and come online, I'd imagine the clutter of Mirage 2000s will have to be slimmed down and buyers sought to aquire the redundant airframes. This is my interpretation, and may be flawed, certainly uncitable. Kyteto (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Some info added about end of nuclear role - which was in 1992, with withdrawal of the free-fall bombs.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• UK - this all seems pretty clear, though it might be worth noting at some arbitrary point (say 1990) how many squadrons still remained. I'd also bring in the retirement notes from above, here. Two questions: They were equipped with air-to-air capacity - was this ever used?And what were the Boscombe Down aircraft doing through late 2007?

The Qinetic aircraft at Boscombe Down were test aircraft, and had been for several years. I don't recall any instance of the air-to-air abilities being used in the reading I've made for this article; I'll try and choose that abitrary point and read my sources for that last bit of information.

It's not strictly needed, I think, but it gets a little confusing without it - we start with so many squadrons, then some close, then some more close, and you need to read quite closely to figure out how many were left. (Four, I think, by 1992). Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Gulf War - I'd raise this up by one level so it doesn't look like an RAF-specific topic, given the French operated more aircraft! Did any of the Omani aircraft see service?

I've shifted it to be a section on its own merit (I had thought it'd look a little odd out on its own, but as it has grown since my first incarnation of it, and it is arguably the most significant engagement of the aircraft model, it can stand on its own fine enough). I have no information in all that I have read and placed into the Bibliography so far that Jaguars operated by Oman entered the fray, and likely they'd have had to undergo the same modification that the (more advanced) French and British Jaguars had to go through to intergrate into the allied command structure, and I've seen no reference to that either, so I'd conclude they weren't. That's not definative, as I've seen nothing to rule them out, but if they were there nothing seen up to this point says so. Kyteto (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Other operators - India could probably be raised to a separate section here; there's enough content and they're a major operator. Is the comment about the nuclear role here an estimation that they're capable of it, or is it believed they're actually earmarked for this role? In terms of minor operators, it would be good to know when the various countries received them. There's nothing on Nigeria here at all - there's an unsourced number in the "Operators" section below, but that's all - and the Ecuadorian bit is vague on whether they still operate (or indeed own) them.

History on the Nigerian and Ecuadorian sides is vague. Informally speaking, Nigeria appears to have made little use out of the Jaguars purchased, there's very little out there to go on. Also, the Indian Jaguars are confirmed as nuclear-active with an arsenal to arm and deploy as detirmined by their government, they are an active part of their nuclear deterrent. Kyteto (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense - India and weapons of mass destruction was a bit unclear as to whether they're thought to be active or if they've since been relegated to conventional roles (which is what I'd have expected). One oddity has just occurred to me, though - India had done its first nuclear test in the early seventies, but didn't have a missile capability until much later, and the Mirage wasn't sold to them until the mid-eighties. The Jaguar was sold in 1978; I wonder if there was any political concern at the time that the West was selling India an aircraft known to be used in the nuclear role, when they were on the road to deploying nuclear weapons? If so, it'd be interesting to note. Arms sales are always a touchy political issue! Shimgray | talk | 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, this seems to suggest the Jaguar was tried with the first bomb design from 1982-86, but that it was eventually written off as unsuitable and the role was handed over to the Mirages. There's a cite to a 2000 book called Weapons of Peace, but not one I have access to. I'll poke around a little and see what I can find here. Shimgray | talk | 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The current text seems a good compromise - it notes they're nuclear-capable and perceived as such, but doesn't claim they're actively used in that role. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Variants

• All seems fine, though it's quite spread out. Would it work better as a a table?

I've prototyped a table (see discussion), but it wouldn't be much (if any) shorter - and that's without the photos. The article uses the same format as other aircraft types. DexDor (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not personally fond of the "whitespace-heavy" lists here and in Operators, but if they're standard for the topic then fair enough. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Operators

• No sources given for anything here

Specifications'

• All looks fine, though if any of the variants had particularly significant changes, a short paragraph afterwards discussing how they differed might be helpful.

I'll go over it for style and so on tomorrow, hopefully, and see if I can spot anything else. Shimgray | talk | 01:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

• All seem fine except commons:File:Jaguar-ec-3-11.jpg, which has a dubious copyright claim and probably isn't free. Shimgray | talk | 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This one - commons:File:Sepecat Jaguar OS.jpg - might be worth including; it shows a two-seat and one-seat model flying in company. Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the French pic and added the Omani one (nice pic!). DexDor (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Striking, isn't it! Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Style

• I've given this a pass through for some grammatical infelicities, and hopefully it flows a bit better now. (Please feel free to revert if I've made it worse, of course!). One issue that stands out is the use of accents in the French - is it Bréguet or Breguet, Turboméca or Turbomeca, etc? (I had thought the former, but reading a bit more suggests I may be wrong... either way, we should standardise)

Jane's used Turboméca (with the accent) in 1982-83, but the company itself doesn't seem to use the accent any more -see here. Breguet seem not to use the accent.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Almost there...

• I'm a little concerned with the bare image links to nuclear-weapons.info, but the data itself seems reasonable enough.
• "The Decade of the Shamsher: Part Two" doesn't seem to be used anywhere; no other orphans

• • Deleted it - the information in it is adequately covered in the other, ltaer refs on Indian use.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I confess to being a little confused as to which Flight International (etc) articles have gone where - there's some only cited once which are in the bibliography, and some which aren't. Shimgray | talk | 02:22, 22 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?

Manufacturers designation	Customer	Customer designation	Number	Notes	Reference
Jaguar A	French Air Force		162 built (including 2 prototypes)	Single-seat all-weather tactical strike, ground-attack fighter.
Jaguar B	Royal Air Force	Jaguar T2	39 built (including 1 prototype)	Two seat training version capable of secondary role of strike and ground attack.
Jaguar B	Royal Air Force	Jaguar T2A	14 converted from T2	Upgrade similar to GR1A.
...	...	...	...	...	...

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)