SEPECAT Jaguar: The Cat with Claws. From the Cold War to the Gulf 

I dont know exactly what it is but it looks sooooo good

That was the Jaguar's trademark n

It is an aircraft

4:01f nice story the aircraft was under powered Tornado IDS was much better

A shipmate of mine on the USS Ranger in the early '80s witnessed a Jaguar of the Sultan of Oman's air force fly BELOW the level of the angled flight deck as it passed the carrier. That would have put him approximately 20-25 ft above the sea surface. That requires a very good pilot, and a very stable aircraft.

He also said the De Lorean was a great car with a big future

Absolutely, a low-cost fighter jet.

Still operated by the Indian Airforce

how long is the take off roll? 😀

The Lightning had those too.

Till 2035.

I think more an A5 Sky hawk. Not the IDF camel back

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Thanks for watching

If it’s a AN52 then yes

Here are a few facts, and food for thought: The biggest mistake is thinking that Whittle was not fully aware that axial compressors would eventually change aviation forever, but when in 1929, he presented his brilliant project to his sole judge, A.A. Griffith (for the record, he was the author of a fundamental seminal paper on axial compressors as early as 1926 when Von Ohain did not have the slightest clue about turbojets), Whittle opted to ditch an axial solution because he was absolutely brilliant. He realized that his country could have a proper interim turbojet ready in a few years. Griffith dismissed (disgracefully) Whittle, delaying and defunding his project for at least six years, until in mid 1935 a friend helped him find minimal funding to create his engine, and that took him less than two years! In the meantime Whittle could not renew his patent for lack of money in 1934 (£4 that is), and since thanks to Griffith the British government could care less about his brilliant projet, they did not even protect it with secrecy. What happened next is that Germany copied Whittle's publicly available work, and distributed it across German universities, landing on the desk of (you guessed it!) Hans Von Ohain and his assistant. Von Ohain tried to minimize the impact of those documents, but his assistant confirmed the extent of the use and inspiration it gave them in the mid-30s. Turns out that the 1939 flight you are mentioning casually used a mix powered engine, also incorporating Whittle's invention... What a shocker that is, considering that the He 178 was responsible for getting government grants by impressing the Nazi leadership. As rightfully predicted by Whittle, the German turbojet was a complete operational disaster, so much that it took the French government (the only country truly interested in those engines at the end of WW2), 120 Nazi engineers, eight endless years to make it operationally proper, but not before radically modifying it and seeking help from a U.S. company as well. You might not know that Metrovick also had an axial turbojet during WW2, but like the German ones, it was so unreliable that despite being superior in performance, it was not considered for operational purposes when pitted against Whittle's engine (and that would be for another decade as well). Whittle engine kickstarted the turbojet era in the U.S. as well, as it was gifted to G.E. in 1941, becoming the first turbojet engine to power an aircraft on U.S. soil (Bell XP-59 in 1942). It also powered the first operational U.S. jet fighter designed by Kelly Johnson (Skunk Works), the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star, which was also briefly deployed during WW2 for testing in Italy and made it all the way to the Korean War, where it proved to be inferior to the formidable MiG-15, also powered by Whittle's engine of all things (reverse engineered by the Soviets after the British government stupidly sold them 25 units of the RR Nene/Whittle engine), and forcing the U.S, to deploy their first operational axial turbojet powered jet fighter, the F-86 Sabre, but that engine was not derived from those German flawed ones. What you consider Von Ohain's achievement was more than anything a strategic mistake, which is also why, together with Heinkel, he eventually tried to propose the use of a centrifugal turbojet during WW2, which was (stupidly) rejected. Whittle's project was right on the money, and would have given Britain the perfect engine at the time in the perfect place, and that could have happened easily between 1933 and 1935. Britain would have had a reliable and easy-to-develop turbojet before the beginning of the war and not a disastrous engine at the very end, like Nazi Germany had. Obviously, that would have also accelerated the development of Metrovick/Griffith, etc. axial turbojet, which had been put on the side at times, to concentrate on other priorities, going as far as issuing R&D moratoriums. The original sin is Griffith's, and the German sin is to have believed in an engine that they were not able to develop properly, and despite what is commonly said (materials were th eonly problem) that wight years it took the French to make a proper engine is a testament of how bad it was. I have also to add that there is no comparison between Von Ohain's vision and Whittle's. The British inventor had an understanding of the future of turbojets and aviation that Von Ohain could only dream about. Von Ohain was mostly clueless to the true benefits, whereas Whittle understood them and went beyond even as a student in the mid 20s. All you need to do is read his brilliant thesis as a student, and all you need to do is understand how behind von Ohain was (and that is why he had to tap into Whittle's project). Here are the long-lost interviews with Von Ohain; I urge you to watch them, as they are very rare to come by. I don't think you will be very impressed, or at least not as impressed when comparing him to Whittle. Hans Von Ohain’s exclusive lost interview:
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BTk_8GCwuzk.html Frank Whittle’s series of exclusive lost interviews:
Part 1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-crRbwtWquvw.html Do not confuse true brilliance (Whittle) with tactical blunders (Nazi Germany); they are not the same thing.

@@Dronescapes my point was one and simple , declaring only Whittle as the brilliance or inventor of jet is not correct , at least some mention of the other inventor is necessary too . Only because of a bad and failed regime , the efforts of a genius can't be underestimated . Thus all these information ( excellent info ) are of no need as no one is questioning the capability of Whittle !!! if using centrifugals are tapping into Whittle's project ! then tapping into Ohains project also happened by the use of axials at similar times .

The French wanted a carrier jet and the rest didn't