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

What about RAFG?

Actual Situation on 30th June 1957
56 Meteor night fighters in 4 squadrons of 14
70 Venom D.F/G.A. in 5 squadrons of 14
112 Hunger F.4 and F.6 in 8 squadrons of 14
32 Swifts FR 5 in 2 squadrons of 16

48 Canberra Interdictors in 3 sqyadrons of 16
40 Canberra MRPR aircraft in 4 squadrons of 10
16 Meteor SRPR aircraft in one squadron of 16

Total 374 aircraft in 27 squadrons​

Planned force for 31st March 1963 at 27th September 1957
16 Swift F.R.5 in 2 squadrons of 8

48 Canberra Interdictors in 4 squadrons of 12
38 Canberra MRPR in 3 squadrons of 10 and one squadron of 8

Total 102 aircraft in 10 squadrons​

Actual RAF Germany at 31st March 1964
32 Javelin F(AW).9 in 2 squadrons of 16
16 Hunter F.R.10 in 2 squadrons of 8

48 Canberra Interdictors in 4 squadrons of 12
30 Canberra MRPR in 3 squadrons of 8

12 Whirlwind HAR10 in one short range transport squadron

Total 138 aircraft in 12 squadrons​

However, there was a squadron of 10 MRPR Canberras at Malta, which was to have been part of RAF Germany in war. That would bring RAFG up to 136 fixed wing aircraft in 12 squadrons on 31st March 1964 instead of the 102 in 10 squadrons. The difference being 32 Javelins in 2 squadrons and 2 MRPR Canberras.
 
Last edited:
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.

The 7E Sparrow weighed 197kg, Red Top 156kg, 9E Sidewinder 75kg and Falcon 61kg. So the Red Top is double the 9E weight but ~80% of a Sparrows weight.

The warhead of the Sparrow was 30kg, RT 31kg, 9E 4.5kg, Falcon3.4kg. The same size warhead as Sparrow and 6 times the 9E and 9 times the falcon.

The Sparrow body was 3.7m x 203mm, RT 3.4m x 230mm, 9E 3m x 127mm, Falcon 2m x 160mm. Shorter but fatter than the Sparrow, much more body volume than the 9E.

Sparrow speed was mach 4, RT m 3.2, 9E m 2.5 and Falcon m 3. The RT has a hefty speed advantage over the Sidewinder.

These stats will dictate the range envelope of the missile, and give a better indication than some number on paper with no reference to launching speed or altitude or off boresight angle etc. Given the size similarities of the RT and Sparrow and the big gap to the Sidewinder the kinetic performance of the RT is much closer to the Sparrow than the Sidewinder.

As for the RTs problems, it could lock onto a supersonic target from head on due to airframe heating, giving it a much greater array of launch options than the 9E, much closer to those of a Sparrow. Not to mention the massive and well documented problems with both sparrow and sidewinder in combat in Vietnam, RT is certainly no worse.
 
Last edited:
The Lightning was built for one purpose - to gain height as fast as possible and intercept Russian nuclear bombers. To sell 1000 of them you would somehow need to proliferate that particular kind of threat. For how many countries is that credible?
 
The Lightning was built for one purpose - to gain height as fast as possible and intercept Russian nuclear bombers. To sell 1000 of them you would somehow need to proliferate that particular kind of threat. For how many countries is that credible?

Maybe if UK considered export possibilities from the start and instead of developing a single role twin-engine interceptor decided to develop a single engine plane with mutlirole possibilities, a la F-104, Draken or Mirage III?
 

Pangur

Donor
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.

I have seem this come up before,. It was something along the lines of the Luftwaffe wanted a fighter that could climb ad climb fast to combat the WP. Why they did not pick the Lightning, I dont know. So maybe have a deal where the German aircraft is built in Germany?

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.

This may be the answer however the Indonesian Confrontation may not bethe war you want. The middle east perhaps?
 
IIUC the story with the Lightning, and the rocket-jet SR177, was that they were interim supersonic fighters to allow the RAF to go from subsonic to supersonic without the transonic phase. The definitive fighter was to be met by the F155 project. IIRC the Wet Germans were interested in the SR177 but then changed their requirements from high to medium-low altitude interception, although the SR177 was expected to meet this requirement as well.

The 1957 Defence White Paper cancelled the F155 but allowed the SR177 to limp along a bit longer with RN and West German until cancelling it in 1958.

The Lightning was further along than the SR177 so survived this cancel-fest and had quite a bit of development potential both realised and unrealised.
 
The 7E Sparrow weighed 197kg, Red Top 156kg, 9E Sidewinder 75kg and Falcon 61kg. So the Red Top is double the 9E weight but ~80% of a Sparrows weight.

The warhead of the Sparrow was 30kg, RT 31kg, 9E 4.5kg, Falcon3.4kg. The same size warhead as Sparrow and 6 times the 9E and 9 times the falcon.

The Sparrow body was 3.7m x 203mm, RT 3.4m x 230mm, 9E 3m x 127mm, Falcon 2m x 160mm. Shorter but fatter than the Sparrow, much more body volume than the 9E.

Sparrow speed was mach 4, RT m 3.2, 9E m 2.5 and Falcon m 3. The RT has a hefty speed advantage over the Sidewinder.

These stats will dictate the range envelope of the missile, and give a better indication than some number on paper with no reference to launching speed or altitude or off boresight angle etc. Given the size similarities of the RT and Sparrow and the big gap to the Sidewinder the kinetic performance of the RT is much closer to the Sparrow than the Sidewinder.

As for the RTs problems, it could lock onto a supersonic target from head on due to airframe heating, giving it a much greater array of launch options than the 9E, much closer to those of a Sparrow. Not to mention the massive and well documented problems with both sparrow and sidewinder in combat in Vietnam, RT is certainly no worse.

I didn't suggested that Red Top was equivalent of Sidewinder, but that it was not equivalent of Sparrow.
Asking from incoming bomber to speed up beyond Mach 1 so we can have misslie lock will not go well down the Soviet chain of command. A western- or central-european weather will play havoc with infra-red guidance system. We'd have Lightnings that have the incoming bogey on radar screeen, while Red Top (or Sidewinder, or AA-2, or Magic) unable to lock on it.
Let's not dismiss the range figure either. The Red Top will have problems catching a fleeting Mach 1 target beyond 8-9-10km, Sparrow will not. Or fleeting Mach 2 target that is 5-6-7 km away.
 
My two takes on ALT Lightining.
- The 'Lightning +': engines are one aside the another, fuel tank above them and after pilot. Two Adens, 4 missiles, can also carry 2 drop tanks, later bombs. Shape similar to Jaguar/F-4, or 'short Su-15'
- 'Lighting lite': one Avon, size & weight no greater than MiG-III/Draken, one Aden, 5 hardpoints.
- 'Lightning 1': big engine (Gyron, Olympus), sorta big Mirage F1, or faster Vought F-8.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Having the engines one over the other has the advantage of being able to turn down one engine without stability problems
 
Having the engines one over the other has the advantage of being able to turn down one engine without stability problems

Were the problems with engine-out situation that dangerous on Tornado/Mitsubish F1/Orao, F-4/14/15/18, Su-15/27, MiG-25/29/31? How many times people were shutting down another engine on purpose?
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Sorry between my english and my phone I wasent able to explain myself. The advantage of the peculiar engine arrangament of the Ligthtling was in increased loitering time by turning one a engine. Much like the Nimrod turned down two of its Speys.
 
...
The advantage of the peculiar engine arrangament of the Ligthtling was in increased loitering time by turning one a engine.
...

I'd again try to look for a confirmed information on how many times that feature was used on the Lightning, and how bad/good were the other types, listed above, conductive for the idea.
 
I didn't suggested that Red Top was equivalent of Sidewinder, but that it was not equivalent of Sparrow.
Asking from incoming bomber to speed up beyond Mach 1 so we can have misslie lock will not go well down the Soviet chain of command. A western- or central-european weather will play havoc with infra-red guidance system. We'd have Lightnings that have the incoming bogey on radar screeen, while Red Top (or Sidewinder, or AA-2, or Magic) unable to lock on it.
Let's not dismiss the range figure either. The Red Top will have problems catching a fleeting Mach 1 target beyond 8-9-10km, Sparrow will not. Or fleeting Mach 2 target that is 5-6-7 km away.

I suggested that the RT is closer to a Sparrow than Sidewinder, not that it was equal to a Sparrow; it is a medium sized AAM with performance at the higher end of the 1965 AAM spectrum.

The Tu22 was the perfect target for the Red Top; it was big and supersonic and somewhat prone to aerodynamic heating, ideal to be tracked from maximum range by the AI23, with the missiles cued to the radar for IR lock-on for a head-on shot. For read quarter shots it had a bigger off boresight angle than its IR contemporaries and with its larger size and high speed would be able to attack under more conditions than other IR AAMs.

As for the other stuff, well that's hardly unique to the Red Top. The Sparrow was virtually a dud in USN service, and only marginally effective in USAF service with all sorts of real world limitations, 97 hits and 59 kills from 612 launches. The sidewinder wasn't a hell of a lot better, with 80 kills from 456 launches, and the Falcon was virtually a dud as well.
 
I suggested that the RT is closer to a Sparrow than Sidewinder, not that it was equal to a Sparrow; it is a medium sized AAM with performance at the higher end of the 1965 AAM spectrum.

AT the high-end of 1965 AAM spectrum there were Sparrow and 2 Soviet missiles (AA-4, -5). With Sidewinder and similar on the low-end, the RT was perhaps at middle of the spectrum.

The Tu22 was the perfect target for the Red Top; it was big and supersonic and somewhat prone to aerodynamic heating, ideal to be tracked from maximum range by the AI23, with the missiles cued to the radar for IR lock-on for a head-on shot. For read quarter shots it had a bigger off boresight angle than its IR contemporaries and with its larger size and high speed would be able to attack under more conditions than other IR AAMs.

Even the Tu-22 was not cruising above Mach 1 IIRC. It will also require for those to fly at clear sky so the missile has reasonable chance to lock. Main Soviet startegic bomber was the Tu-95, non-supersonic type.

As for the other stuff, well that's hardly unique to the Red Top. The Sparrow was virtually a dud in USN service, and only marginally effective in USAF service with all sorts of real world limitations, 97 hits and 59 kills from 612 launches. The sidewinder wasn't a hell of a lot better, with 80 kills from 456 launches, and the Falcon was virtually a dud as well.

Let's chek out terrain type(s), target type and behavior. All countries were making sophisticated and (on paper) capable missiles that were supposed to kill a big bomber at 35000 ft. No ground clutter to mess with on-board radar and missile's radar guidance. Target is as good as not maneuvering.
Now let's switch to plenty of ground clutter since the targets make unsporty dives on a sight of trouble. Ground clutter is a major problem for 1960s radars. The targets also, again in unsportly manner, make evasive maneuvers. Some even try to escape from the A/C that launches missiles, other try to fight back. Clouds and mist interfere with IR guideance system of Sidewinders. No wonder the hit- and kill-%s are low.
Applying the above to Lightning/Red Top combo will mess with practice range experiences. Or, conversely, using Sparrow in no-clutter enviroement, against non-maneuverable targets is bound to improve hit & kill chances substantially.
American missiles at least made kills.
 
I suggested that the RT is closer to a Sparrow than Sidewinder, not that it was equal to a Sparrow; it is a medium sized AAM with performance at the higher end of the 1965 AAM spectrum.

The Tu22 was the perfect target for the Red Top; it was big and supersonic and somewhat prone to aerodynamic heating, ideal to be tracked from maximum range by the AI23, with the missiles cued to the radar for IR lock-on for a head-on shot. For read quarter shots it had a bigger off boresight angle than its IR contemporaries and with its larger size and high speed would be able to attack under more conditions than other IR AAMs.

I wonder the usefulness of Lighting as an interceptor in defending the UK in 1960's, as Tu-22, for example, primarily employed 600km range Kh-22 (AS-4) as the main attack weapon. The missile itself had speed of Mach 4,6 and in land attack mode most probably flight altitude of some 27km, well above service ceiling of a Lightning.

Interceptor wasn't that great idea for 1960's contra SAM's as far as defence of UK goes, air policing duties expected, but they could have been carried out by, say, Hunters. Was there really any need for Lightings at all? The small amount of aircraft for RAFG could have been purchased from abroad, several suitable types were available.

Having wrote that, I would say the Tornado ADV / Tomcat style concept would seem to be far more useful with it's long range radar and missiles, but that's 1970's, earliest. And of course this will have to be supported by AEW aircraft to be fully effective. Of course, isn't this what RAF basically already did with Shackleton AEW's and Phantoms during 1970's?
 
Last edited:
My two takes on ALT Lightining.
- The 'Lightning +': engines are one aside the another, fuel tank above them and after pilot. Two Adens, 4 missiles, can also carry 2 drop tanks, later bombs. Shape similar to Jaguar/F-4, or 'short Su-15'
- 'Lighting lite': one Avon, size & weight no greater than MiG-III/Draken, one Aden, 5 hardpoints.
- 'Lightning 1': big engine (Gyron, Olympus), sorta big Mirage F1, or faster Vought F-8.
To me they read like single and twin engine developments of the Fairey Delta 2.

IIRC from Charles Gardner's history of BAC what really let it down was that the firm didn't design a multi-role version of it quickly enough.

IIRC BAC only got the Saudi order for Lightnings because the American Government wouldn't allow the sale of aircraft they really wanted. Is that true? Or have I mixed that up with the Saudi Tornado purchases?
 
Last edited:
(throwing Sandys under the bus is a worn off theme)
I couldn't resist this.

This is from Draft Plan L dated 15th January 1955 covering the period from 31st December 1954 to 31st March 1960

Actual Fighter Command on 31st December 1954

168 All-Weather Fighters in 9 squadrons
44 Meteor NF.11 in 2 squadrons of 22
16 Meteor NF.11 in 1 squadron of 16
44 Meteor NF.12/14 in 12 squadrons of 22
48 Meteor NF.12/14 in 3 squadrons of 16
16 Venom NF.2 in one squadron of 16​
380 Short Range Day Fighters in 20 squadrons
176 Meteor F.8 in 8 squadrons of 22
32 Metor F.8 in 2 squadrons of 16
44 Sabre F.4 in 2 squadrons of 44
16 Swift F.1/2 in one squadron of 16
64 Hunter F.1/4 in 4 squadrons of 16
48 Hunter F.2/5 in 3 squadrons of 16​
TOTAL FRONT LINE AIRCRAFT FIGHTER COMMAND 548 aircraft in 29 squadrons
2 Sycamore HR.14 in 1/8 of a Short Range Search and Rescue (SRSAR) squadron
3 Neptune for A.E.W. (VANGUARD FLIGHT)​
TOTAL NON-OPERATIONAL AICRAFT FIGHTER COMMAND 5 aircraft in 1/8 squadron and one flight

By 30th September 1956 the front-line was to have increased to 576 aircraft in 36 squadrons of 16 - half all-weather fighters and half short range day fighters. By 31st December 1955 there would have been a full SRSAR squadron of 16 Sycamore HR.14.

Planned Fighter Command on 31st March 1960
288 All-Weather Fighters in 18 squadrons of 16
144 Javelin F.(A.W.)1 in 9 squadrons of 16
48 Javelin F.(A.W.)2 in 3 squadrons of 48
96 F.153 in 6 squadrons of 16​
288 Short Range Day Fighters in 18 squadrons of 16
16 Swift F.7 in one squadron of 16
64 Hunter F.1/4 in 4 squadrons of 16
128 Hunter F.2/5 in 8 squadrons of 16
80 F.23/49 in 5 squadrons of 16​
TOTAL FRONT LINE AIRCRAFT FIGHTER COMMAND 576 aircraft in 36 squadrons
16 Sycamore HR.14 in one SRSAR squadron
3 Neptune A.E.W. (Vanguard Flight)​
TOTAL NON-OPERATIONAL AICRAFT FIGHTER COMMAND 19 aircraft in one squadron and one flight

The Aircraft Production Requirements section showed 169 F.23/49 and 180 F.153 delivered by 31st March 1960.
 
AT the high-end of 1965 AAM spectrum there were Sparrow and 2 Soviet missiles (AA-4, -5). With Sidewinder and similar on the low-end, the RT was perhaps at middle of the spectrum.



Even the Tu-22 was not cruising above Mach 1 IIRC. It will also require for those to fly at clear sky so the missile has reasonable chance to lock. Main Soviet startegic bomber was the Tu-95, non-supersonic type.



Let's chek out terrain type(s), target type and behavior. All countries were making sophisticated and (on paper) capable missiles that were supposed to kill a big bomber at 35000 ft. No ground clutter to mess with on-board radar and missile's radar guidance. Target is as good as not maneuvering.
Now let's switch to plenty of ground clutter since the targets make unsporty dives on a sight of trouble. Ground clutter is a major problem for 1960s radars. The targets also, again in unsportly manner, make evasive maneuvers. Some even try to escape from the A/C that launches missiles, other try to fight back. Clouds and mist interfere with IR guideance system of Sidewinders. No wonder the hit- and kill-%s are low.
Applying the above to Lightning/Red Top combo will mess with practice range experiences. Or, conversely, using Sparrow in no-clutter enviroement, against non-maneuverable targets is bound to improve hit & kill chances substantially.
American missiles at least made kills.

The Tu22 would do a supersonic dash as it neared the target, this was the most challenging target in the early to mid 60s, then the missile carriers took this title. Tu95s and Tu16s would be easy in comparison, the Lightning would have no trouble getting behind for a shot.

I'm not arguing about the effects of clutter, glint, ecm, flares and all the rest, the RT would be as bad or good as any others. My point is that the RT isn't just another cheap IR dogfight missile, to be carried in big numbers and thrown about like cannon ammo. It's a large, capable missile to be expended with more care in a wider variety of situations as a result.
 
Top