AHC: have 1000++ EE Ligtning-equivalents produced & sold

The English Electric lighting was one of over-performers of a day, with exceptional rate of climb and competitive speed. Unfortunately, it's commercial success didn'f follow that.
So - the task is to have a high performance British jet fighter in 1950s-60s that also sells, both at home and abroad. Pull a Dassault or Lockheed if needed. (throwing Sandys under the bus is a worn off theme)
 
Have some incident in the mid 1950's that proves without doubt the value of manned fighters and interceptors, thus enabling proper development of the Lightning into a more capable aircraft with longer range.

Or have some event that drags the post-war british aerospace industry kicking and screaming into the modern era and making them more efficient.

Have Fairey not subject to ridiculous insurance restrictions and able to test their deltas in the UK rather than France, thus not directly influencing Dassault and the Mirage III, and then go on to develop their own small delta fighter.

Enable development of the proposed supersonic Hunter.
 
Have BAC's sales department actually be good at their jobs. Possible buyers for the early ones were Germany and India. Austria was interested in the F6 (or possibly the ex-Saudi aircraft). Nigeria and Egypt have also been linked.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
West Germany apparently were interested in the FD2, any chance of them taking the Lightning as a substitute instead? It would be nice to get the Lightning itself to over a thousand sales, rather than just an equivalent aircraft.
 
Firstly, have HMG decide to really support the Lightning and the RAF buy more than OTL and develop their ground attack capabilities somewhat.
Secondly, have the Lightning see some action in the early 60s, perhaps in the Indonesian Confrontation and other colonial flare-ups. Ideally a Lightning might score a kill in the air, but even a few attack missions in the early 60s would do its reputation the world of good.
 
Re-write the spec from the ground up? It was a high performance fighter capable of carrying a tiny radar and a pair of obsolescent IR missiles as far as the nearest tanker. In terms of actual usefulness it wasn't actually all that great.
 
Re-write the spec from the ground up? It was a high performance fighter capable of carrying a tiny radar and a pair of obsolescent IR missiles as far as the nearest tanker. In terms of actual usefulness it wasn't actually all that great.

Virtually none of that is true.
  • The belly tank Lightnings had a flight endurance of about 1 1/2 hours, about the same as a Mirage III and much more than a Mig 21.
  • The AI23 radar had a 21" dish and a range of 40 miles for a bomber sized target, compared to 15" for the Cyrano II with a range of 30 miles for a bomber sized target.
  • The Red Top was, if not the best AAMs in the world in 1965 the 2nd or 3rd best, it even had head-on homing capability.
It is true that the Lightning had high performance, very high!
 
Firstly, have HMG decide to really support the Lightning and the RAF buy more than OTL and develop their ground attack capabilities somewhat.
Secondly, have the Lightning see some action in the early 60s, perhaps in the Indonesian Confrontation and other colonial flare-ups. Ideally a Lightning might score a kill in the air, but even a few attack missions in the early 60s would do its reputation the world of good.

The last 'operational' use of a Spitfire was to test the Lighting if Indonesia got out of hand. The Spitfire playing the part of a P-51. Even if the Lighting shot down one, or more, "It's just a P-51." and might not be seen as the big a deal.
 
Virtually none of that is true.
  • The belly tank Lightnings had a flight endurance of about 1 1/2 hours, about the same as a Mirage III and much more than a Mig 21.
  • The AI23 radar had a 21" dish and a range of 40 miles for a bomber sized target, compared to 15" for the Cyrano II with a range of 30 miles for a bomber sized target.
  • The Red Top was, if not the best AAMs in the world in 1965 the 2nd or 3rd best, it even had head-on homing capability.
It is true that the Lightning had high performance, very high!

It still only can carry two IR AAM’s (4 for later models), that’s not great for the price tag.
 
Not a great fan of the Lightning...

...I would have preferred a supersonic development of the Hunter, maybe with a wider swept wing. Or go for an updated Javelin.

Like so many on AH.com, I remain a fan of the Avro Arrow and wish it was in service. Failing that, a swing-wing Hunter with better radar, cannon pod, missiles and some stealth features like a dorsal engine intake.
 
Virtually none of that is true.
  • The belly tank Lightnings had a flight endurance of about 1 1/2 hours, about the same as a Mirage III and much more than a Mig 21.
  • The AI23 radar had a 21" dish and a range of 40 miles for a bomber sized target, compared to 15" for the Cyrano II with a range of 30 miles for a bomber sized target.
  • The Red Top was, if not the best AAMs in the world in 1965 the 2nd or 3rd best, it even had head-on homing capability.
It is true that the Lightning had high performance, very high!
If you're comparing it to the Mirage III, you've got a serious problem - the Lightning was more than twice the weight and installed power of the Mirage III, at which point you'll never sell huge numbers. In cost and complexity terms you're really up against the F-106 rather than the Mirage III - it's only a competition due to the Falcon missile being pretty much useless.
 
If you're comparing it to the Mirage III, you've got a serious problem - the Lightning was more than twice the weight and installed power of the Mirage III, at which point you'll never sell huge numbers. In cost and complexity terms you're really up against the F-106 rather than the Mirage III - it's only a competition due to the Falcon missile being pretty much useless.

True, the Lightning was a big aircraft, so how do these two stack up?

I think the F106 had a good deal longer range, but wasn't nearly the performer that the Lightning was. The 4-6 Falcon, or 4 Falcon and a gun is pretty bad compared to 2 Red Tops and guns.

What was the F106 radar dish size, what was the performance like? All I know is that during the F106 vs F4 test the Phantom radar was more reliable and had longer detection and lock-on ranges.
 
For what it's worth it looks as if the successors to Duncan Sandys out did him if the September 1957 version of Plan L is to go by. This covered the period from 30th June 1957 to 31st March 1963.

At 30th June the Actual Establishment of Fighter Command was 512 fighters in 32 squadrons of 12. Half were night fighters with a mix of Javelins, Meteor and Venoms. The other half was all Hunter day fighters.

This was to be reduced to 280 aircraft in 20 squadrons (120 Hunters in 10 squadrons of 12 and 160 Javelins in 10 squadrons of 16) by 31st March 1959. The mix of day fighters to all-weather fighters was to remain the same until 31st March 1961. However, between then and 31st March 1963 it would change to 124 all weather fighters in 8 squadrons (7 with 16 each and one squadron of 12) and 156 day fighters in 12 squadrons (3 with 16 each and 9 squadrons of 12), but the grand total was still 280 fighters in 20 squadrons. The S.A.G.W. force o 31st March 1963 was 7 sites with 384 launchers and 468 missiles.

The first Lightning F Mk 1 squadron with 12 aircraft was to be formed by 30th September 1939 and by 31st March 1960 there would be 36 in 3 squadrons of 12. This force was to be maintained until 31st March 1962. However, all 3 squadrons had disappeared from the planned order of battle by 31st March 1963.

The first 2 Lightning F Mk 2 squadron with 12 aircraft each were to be formed by 30th September 1960. The Mk 2 force would reach its peak on 31st March 1962 when there would be a front line of 120 in 9 squadrons (that is 6 squadrons of 12 and 3 squadrons of 16). On 31st March 1963 there were to have been 108 in 8 squadrons (that is 5 squadrons of 12 and 3 squadrons of 16).

4 squadrons of 12 Lightning F Mk 3 fighters were to be formed between 1st April 1962 and 31st March 1963.

Then there would have been a grand total of 156 Lightings in 12 squadrons (108 Mk 2 in 8 squadrons of 12 or 16 aircraft and 48 Mk 3 in 4 squadrons of 12) in RAF Fighter Command, but no squadrons overseas.

Under the Ministry of Supply production programme, dated 3rd Jul 57, and confirmed on 22nd Aug 57 it was planned to procure 318 Lightning fighters (50 Mk 1, 158 Mk 2 and 110 Mk 3) plus an undermined number of Lightning trainers. 276 of the aircraft (50 Mk 1, 158 Mk 2 and 68 Mk 3) were scheduled for delivery by 31st March 1963.

I don't have any information on Plans M, N and O. The next one I have is the March 1964 version of Plan P which covered the period from 31st March 1964 to 31st March 1975.

According to that plan on 31st March 1964 RAF Fighter Command actually had 88 fighters in 7 squadrons. That is 28 Javelins in 2 squadrons of 14, 36 Lightning F Mk 1 and 1A in 3 squadrons of 12 and 24 Lightning F Mk 2 in 2 squadrons of 12. There were no Lightning squadrons overseas. There were only 64 Bloodhound Mk 1 missile launchers at 2 sites and they were due to be disbanded by 30th June 1964, but there were was a training flight of 4 Bloodhound Mk 2 launchers which was to be expanded into a squadron of 12 launchers by 30th June 1960.

So the RAF Fighter Command of the 1963-64 period only had 88 fighters in 7 squadron instead of the 280 in 20 squadrons planned 6 months after Mr Sandys read his infamous White Paper. The S.A.G.W force had only 68 launchers instead of the 384 planned.
 
It still only can carry two IR AAM’s (4 for later models), that’s not great for the price tag.

The Red Top is more like a Sparrow or a (good) R530 rather than a Sidewinder or Falcon, its a big missile with high performance and long range. Few aircraft in the early 60s would carried such big missiles in large numbers.

In addition the RAF didn't really develop the Lightning as much as they could, as you say later versions could have carried 4 AAMs but didn't.
 
So the RAF Fighter Command of the 1963-64 period only had 88 fighters in 7 squadron instead of the 280 in 20 squadrons planned 6 months after Mr Sandys read his infamous White Paper. The S.A.G.W force had only 68 launchers instead of the 384 planned.

What about RAFG?
 
The Red Top is more like a Sparrow or a (good) R530 rather than a Sidewinder or Falcon, its a big missile with high performance and long range. Few aircraft in the early 60s would carried such big missiles in large numbers.

In addition the RAF didn't really develop the Lightning as much as they could, as you say later versions could have carried 4 AAMs but didn't.

It’s still IR guided, that makes it limited to visual range engagement. Compared with the Mirage III (2 IR, 1 Radar) or Draken (4 IR) it’s not that impressive.
 
The Red Top is more like a Sparrow or a (good) R530 rather than a Sidewinder or Falcon, its a big missile with high performance and long range. Few aircraft in the early 60s would carried such big missiles in large numbers.

I don't think that Red Top is in any way comparable with Sparrow. The AIM-7D was another 200 lbs heavier, 32-35 km range, the all-aspect missile. Red Top is rear-aspect-only vs. subsonic targets, and of questionable use in cloudy weather.
 
Top