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

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.

Not entirely a reflection on the quality of the missile though to be fair. Compare the Vietnam performance to the later model sparrow performance in the Gulf War in 1991, where the hit/fired ratio was much better, partly due to weapon improvements, but much more due to better training in using the weapon effectively.
 
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.

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.

My source (book) isn't handy at the moment, but my understanding is that one engine would be throttled back only (not shut down) to increase loiter time on the Lightning.
 
Not entirely a reflection on the quality of the missile though to be fair. Compare the Vietnam performance to the later model sparrow performance in the Gulf War in 1991, where the hit/fired ratio was much better, partly due to weapon improvements, but much more due to better training in using the weapon effectively.

Thats right, but you don't need to fast forward 20 years; the USAF did better than the USN in Vietnam and Israel did better than both in the early 70s. Rough handling on board carriers affected the sparrow as did the general humidity in SEA, plus USAF air combat training and doctrine was a bit more conducive to sparrows. The Israelis, who count the cost of every cannon shell, took advantage of all the US lessons in 6 years of Vietnam with regards to care and use of the sparrow and got better results again: 3 kills from 12 launches in the YK war.
 
Last edited:
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 would guess in early 1960's Il-28N's supported by IL-28REB jammer aircraft would be striking at UK targets rather than Tu-95's and Tu-16's, which probably would be reserved for intercontinental missions, standoff missile strikes OR strikes after IRBM's / SLBM's had hit their targets. But this is mere detail, of course, Il-28 being a subsonic aircraft too, although smaller and more manouverable than Tu-95 or Tu-16.

EDIT: I'd put my money on Yak-28's being potential attackers on UK too during early 1960's. Capable of supersonic dash. Small, manouverable.
 
Last edited:
I would guess in early 1960's Il-28N's supported by IL-28REB jammer aircraft would be striking at UK targets rather than Tu-95's and Tu-16's, which probably would be reserved for intercontinental missions, standoff missile strikes OR strikes after IRBM's / SLBM's had hit their targets. But this is mere detail, of course, Il-28 being a subsonic aircraft too, although smaller and more manouverable than Tu-95 or Tu-16.

EDIT: I'd put my money on Yak-28's being potential attackers on UK too during early 1960's. Capable of supersonic dash. Small, manouverable.

The UK is a long way from the Soviet Union, even Poland and East Germany is pretty far, I don't know if the Il 28 and Yak 28 could reach Britain easily. I think the Soviet counterpart to the V bombers, the Tu 16, would be used against Britain from bases quite deep in WP territory such as Poland and Belarus.

Missiles wouldn't be used until the nuclear threshold had been crossed.
 
The UK is a long way from the Soviet Union, even Poland and East Germany is pretty far, I don't know if the Il 28 and Yak 28 could reach Britain easily. I think the Soviet counterpart to the V bombers, the Tu 16, would be used against Britain from bases quite deep in WP territory such as Poland and Belarus.

Missiles wouldn't be used until the nuclear threshold had been crossed.

Hard to say, of course, and have to take account the flight routes and envelopes too, but in general most of the UK falls within 1000km radius of East German bases, well inside Yak-28 or Il-28 combat radius. That, of course, requires that something is done for air defenses in Northern Germany and Denmark...

As for nuclear weapons, I would think that in 1960's general war it's given that nuclear weapons would be used from the outset, or at very least in stage where UK is under strike. Fortunately we don't know what would have been the case!
 
A non aircraft PoD might be a better-for-the-British Suez Crisis. After OTL Suez Britain pretty much pulled out of a leadership role in the world, but if the crisis played out differently Britain might not have lost confidence and transforms the Empire into a Commonwealth of trade deals, Sterling currency bloc and military alliances.

Out of this might come more package deals like the Saudis with 40 Lightnings, 25 Strikemasters, radars and training and support services. The particular suitability of the Lightning for this or that country's air defence needs would be balanced against broader elements like getting SAMs, trainers, in-country support and all this other diplomatic stuff that matters in military alliances. CENTO countries like Iraq, Iran and Pakistan or SEATO countries like Malaysia or Singapore who also are members of the Sterling currency bloc might find doing these sorts of deals with a Britain which is more assertive as a world leader very useful and the Lightning might get sold more widely.
 
Single engined Lightning? English Electric P.6, which would have had the RR RB.106 engine, apparently named the Thames and supposedly interchangeable with the Avon. Offered to Spec. F155.
 

Pangur

Donor
A non aircraft PoD might be a better-for-the-British Suez Crisis. After OTL Suez Britain pretty much pulled out of a leadership role in the world, but if the crisis played out differently Britain might not have lost confidence and transforms the Empire into a Commonwealth of trade deals, Sterling currency bloc and military alliances.

Out of this might come more package deals like the Saudis with 40 Lightnings, 25 Strikemasters, radars and training and support services. The particular suitability of the Lightning for this or that country's air defence needs would be balanced against broader elements like getting SAMs, trainers, in-country support and all this other diplomatic stuff that matters in military alliances. CENTO countries like Iraq, Iran and Pakistan or SEATO countries like Malaysia or Singapore who also are members of the Sterling currency bloc might find doing these sorts of deals with a Britain which is more assertive as a world leader very useful and the Lightning might get sold more widely.
Not a bad approach (the Saudis went with the Lightnng anyway). The question is mind you how many of the ex Empire states would have had the required combination of having the money and the requirement for the Lightning?
 
Not a bad approach (the Saudis went with the Lightnng anyway). The question is mind you how many of the ex Empire states would have had the required combination of having the money and the requirement for the Lightning?

The 'requirement' is the easiest thing, it's basically a government to government handshake deal with little to no reference to performance stats or whatever. Any country in SEATO, CENTO or the Sterling bloc which bought a new supersonic fighter in the 60s is a potential customer, and all sorts of payment offsets might be used to sweeten the deals.

596610859.PNG

SEATO
bagdad-pact1.jpg
800px-Sterling_zone.png

Sterling Area
 
The RAF bought 160 Hunters rebuilt to FGA9/FR0 standard and operated them in 10 squadrons. What if EE/BAC offered a multi-role version of the Lightning to the RAF to meet the same specification and it won? It's unlikely because it would be more expensive to buy and operate than the Hunter, but it would have greater tactical flexibility (if that's the right expression) for a service that was down to 20 fighter squadrons of all types in 1965.

It also pushes the number of Lightnings built up from about 340 to about 500.

Gardner in his history of BAC wrote that Lightning didn't sell well on the export market because BAC failed to turn it from a pure interceptor into a multi-role fighter quickly enough. The RAF selecting the multi-role Lightning to replace the Venom in the FGA role instead of the Hunter FGA9 solves that problem.

Therefore the TTL multi-role Lightning is likely to attract a lot of interest from overseas, which will be stronger as it has the endorsement of the RAF purchase. However, the result may not be a great increase in orders because Mirage III, F-5 and Starfighter are cheaper - Does anybody have an information of the costs of these aircraft and Export Lightning?

Having written that I can see the Australians buying it instead of Mirage III in part because 2 of the 3 RAAF Mirage IIIO squadrons were based in Malaya. If it was 2 Lightning squadrons there would be logistical benefits due to commonality with the RAF Lightning squadrons. The IDF/AF is a strong possibility instead of the Mirage III and 5 due to the Israelis buying Centurion. Imagine the IAI Dagger and Kifir being based on the Lightning instead of the Mirage! The SAAF before the arms embargo instead of their Mirage IIIs is possible.

Highly unlikely, but fun is the RCAF instead of the Starfighter and Freedom Fighter if EE/BAC can make Lightning capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

As the Belgians and Dutch built Meteors and Hunters under licence them selecting Lightning instead of the Starfighter, Mirage V and Canadian built F-5s is a remote possibility.

IIRC the Swiss botched their purchase of the Mirage IIIS so buying Lightnings or building them under licence might not cost more if done correctly.
 
Highly unlikely, but fun is the RCAF instead of the Starfighter and Freedom Fighter if EE/BAC can make Lightning capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

As the Belgians and Dutch built Meteors and Hunters under licence them selecting Lightning instead of the Starfighter, Mirage V and Canadian built F-5s is a remote possibility.

IIRC the Swiss botched their purchase of the Mirage IIIS so buying Lightnings or building them under licence might not cost more if done correctly.

I think what you're trying to have is like NATO countries purchasing F-15 instead of F-16 in 1970's...

Lighting: Two engines, 14 ton empty weight. Starfighter: One engine, 6400kg empty weight. Mirage: One engine, 7 ton empty weight.
 
I think what you're trying to have is like NATO countries purchasing F-15 instead of F-16 in 1970's...

Lighting: Two engines, 14 ton empty weight. Starfighter: One engine, 6400kg empty weight. Mirage: One engine, 7 ton empty weight.
So twice as expensive? I did write that it was unlikely, but I still like the idea, especially the Swiss buying Lightnings instead of Mirages.

Does having twice the empty weight translate into twice the speed, range and/or payload?
 
So twice as expensive? I did write that it was unlikely, but I still like the idea, especially the Swiss buying Lightnings instead of Mirages.

Does having twice the empty weight translate into twice the speed, range and/or payload?

I have no idea, and naturally in international arms trade the prices are notoriously difficult to calculate. But RAAF did evaluate F-104, F-106, Draken, Lightning and Mirage III so I would guess looking into documentation of the process might prove to be the key.
 
Does having twice the empty weight translate into twice the speed, range and/or payload?
No - doubling the number of engines almost doubles the airframe weight, fuel consumption, etc.
it needs to be remembered that the only reason the Lightning survived past 1957 was that it was "too far along to cancel", the concept dating back to 1947 and the P1A prototype which was admittedly not really a Lightning to anybody but the Treasury flying in 1954. The Mirage III design was 10 years later - an eternity at the time in Aviation - and even the Starfighter was 5 years newer as a design concept. It was locked into vertically stacked twin engines at a time when the only Axial flow turbojets the UK had were a very balky Avon prototype at 6,500 lbs thrust or the Metrovick Beryl at 4,000 lbs: to get supersonic performance with that little thrust needs a tiny frontal area and twin engines. By the time the Starfighter got to the same stage, the 14,000 lb J79 was in prospect, enabling a wider range of design choices and a single engine design. That's the crucial point - the Lightning was the aircraft that it became because it was designed at a particular time in history: had it come along only a few years later then a far wider set of choices would have been available and a much more saleable aircraft would have been the result.
 
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.
The whole RAF Fighter and Ground Attack Force on 31st March 1964 was 255 aircraft in 20 squadrons and one flight. That is
156 fighters in 11 squadrons
96 Javelin F(AW).9 in 6 squadrons of varying strength
12 Lightning F.1 in one squadron of 12
24 Lightning F.1A in 2 squadrons of 12
24 Lightning F.2 in 2 squadrons of 12​
95 FGA/FR in 9 squadrons and one flight
79 Hunter FGA.9 in 7 squadrons - i.e one squadron of 16, six squadrons of 12 and one "squadron" of 3 in Hong Kong
16 Hunter FR.10 in 2 squadrons and one flight​

By 31st March 1967 the fighter force was to be reduced to 120 Lightnings in 10 squadrons of 12. By 31st March 1968 these would consist of 24 F.2A in 2 squadrons and 96 F.3 (Modified) in 8 squadrons. This force would be maintained until 31st March 1975.

The FGA force would be reduced to 67 Hunters in 6 squadrons by 30th September 1966. Replacement of the Hunter by the Hawker P.1154 was to begin in the first quarter of 1971. There would be a half-squadron of 6 aircraft on 31st March 1971 and 96 aircraft in 8 squadrons on 31st March 1974 and no Hunter squadrons.
 
In general terms with 2 engines and being twice as heavy the Lightning will cost twice as much as an F104 and Mirage III, but the sticker price isn't THE most important thing when buying a fleet of aircraft. The Saudis bought their Lightnings alongside Strikemasters, can other manufacturers offer both a 'heavy' fighter with longer range missiles as well as an advanced trainer/light strike aircraft in a single purchase? They also bought a training and maintenance package from Air Services, which kept these complex fighters operational, can other countries offer this service from a private company?

Australia and Switzerland both have aviation industries that they wanted to support by building Mirages under license, the Lightning may have been too much for these countries to build or the licence may not have been forthcoming or building at home drives up the price which might push the Lightning over the available budget. In contrast countries without a domestic industry don't have to worry how easy a plane is to build or whatever, they just buy what suits them best.
 
Top