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

it needs to be remembered that the only reason the Lightning survived past 1957 was that it was "too far along to cancel"
Did Duncan Sandys really say that? And if he did how serious was he?

Lightning orders from the Putnams on English Electric:
01/04/50 - 2 P.1A and one Static Test Airframe - first flight 04/08/54 and 18/07/55
05/08/53 - 3 P.1B - first flights 04/04/57, 03/09/57 and 03/01/58
26/02/54 - 20 P.1B pre-production aircraft - first flights 03/04/58 to 26/09/59
15/05/56 - 2 P.11 trainer prototypes - first flights 06/05/59 and 29/09/59
Nov. 1956 - 50 Lightning F.1 (one STA, 19 F.1 and 30 F.1A) only 48 completed - these flew 29/10/59 to 28/07/61 - the 29th and 30th F.1As were stored for spares (not assembled)
Jul. 1958 - 30 T.4 trainers - reduced to 20 - these flew 15/07/60 to 22/05/62
Dec. 1959 - 50 F.2 - reduced to 44 - these flew 11/07/61 to 05/09/63 - 30 were brought up to F.2A standard 1966-70
Jun. 1960 - 47 F.3 - these flew 16/06/62 to 26/09/64
Jan. 1962 - 45 F.3 - amended to 16 F.3, 16 F.6 (Interim) and 13 F.6 - these flew 06/10/64 to 28/02/66 - the interim aircraft were brought up to full F.6 standard 1967-69
Aug. 1962 - 20 T.5 - these flew 17/07/64 to 02/02/66
Jan. 1964 - 33 F.6 - these few 15/03/66 to 30/06/67 so the 33rd aircraft was the last Lightning built for the RAF.
Oct. 1964 - 8 T.5 (5 initially and 3 added later) - cancelled - 2 partially complete aircraft transferred to early 1966 contract and 3 other to the Saudi contract
late 1964 - 12 F.6 - cancelled - but 7 partially complete aircraft transferred to Saudi contract
early 1966 - 2 T.5 - probably replacements for the 2 T4s sold to Saudi Arabia - these flew 12/12/66 and 30/12/66​

Total Ordered for RAF 325 including static test frames, prototypes and pre-production aircraft.

Total Built for RAF 287​

March 1966 - 2 RAF T.4s to Saudi Arabia as T.54s - delivered June 1966
April 1966 - 4 RAF F.2s to Saudi Arabia as F.52 - a fifth aircraft added later - all delivered May 1967
May 1966 - 40 aircraft (34 F.53 and 6 T.55) to Saudi Arabia - Delivered July 1967 to December 1968. Also one F.3 and one T.5 were supplied ex-RAF.
Dec. 1966 - 14 aircraft (12 F.53K and 2 T.55K) to Kuwait - Delivered December 1968 to December 1969
The Kuwait order was for £20 million. Total Lightning exports were worth £85 million. The SAADC contract was worth £125 million. The UK portion was £100 million including £65 million for the 40 Lightings and 25 Strikemasters. The US portion was for Hawk SAMs.

Total Built for Export 54

Grand Total Built 341​

The Lightning entered RAF service at the Central Fighter Establishment at RAF Colitshall in December 1959 and the first operational unit to receive the aircraft was No. 74 Squadron (also at RAF Coltishall) on 29th June 1960. (Source for this paragraph Thetford, Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918, which gives the first flight date of the F.1 as 03/11/59, which is not the same as the Putnams English Electric aircraft).

IIRC many years ago I read in one of Bill Gunston's books that English Electric proposed the improvements that led to the F.3 and F.6 years before the Air Ministry allowed their incorporation and that the upgrading of the F.2 to F.2A standard was done at great expense.
 
Last edited:
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?
IIRC from reading Gardner the Saudi order earned BAC double the initial £100 million through the maintenance and training packages plus subsequent orders for spare parts.
 
Okay, so the 2-engines it is? Then let's make it better than the F-4 :)

That would be the F155 aircraft, or one of those Hawker proposals, the Lightning's story pretty much means it is stuck with its early 50s design limitations. That doesn't mean it can't be developed more than it was, just that there are firm limits on internal fuel capacity, radar size and weapons carriage due to wing/pylon layout.

But lets not lose sight of the fact that it is the best performing aircraft of the 60s, it would have no E-M problems if it had fought in Vietnam.
 
If EE sales team get their act together and promote it as a point defence interceptor, then countries with angry neighbours could be potential customers (assuming they can either beat Lockheed or 'out' their bribes team). Germany, Finland, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, India/Pakistan, Turkey, Japan, Canada etc........ all look like they could benefit from a good solid fast as the proverbial off a hot shovel fighter :p
 
That would be the F155 aircraft, or one of those Hawker proposals, the Lightning's story pretty much means it is stuck with its early 50s design limitations. That doesn't mean it can't be developed more than it was, just that there are firm limits on internal fuel capacity, radar size and weapons carriage due to wing/pylon layout.

Then our 'ALT Lighting' will feature the engines aside one to another, big fuel tank behind the pilot, and side intakes.
 
Then our 'ALT Lighting' will feature the engines aside one to another, big fuel tank behind the pilot, and side intakes.

Doing that would be a new aircraft and thus cancelled by HMG. The only new aircraft supported after the 1957 White Paper was the TSR2 and then once Sandys was discredited the P1154 from about 1961, there is a 4 year development black hole as a result.

Sandys needs to be stopped and the best way to do that is a better Suez Crisis.
 
Doing that would be a new aircraft and thus cancelled by HMG. The only new aircraft supported after the 1957 White Paper was the TSR2 and then once Sandys was discredited the P1154 from about 1961, there is a 4 year development black hole as a result.

Sandys needs to be stopped and the best way to do that is a better Suez Crisis.

New aircraft, of course. Developed from July 1948 on instead of the OTL Lightning.
 
New aircraft, of course. Developed from July 1948 on instead of the OTL Lightning.

That's a can of worms, if we're going back to the 40s the best thing to do would be continue with the Miles M52 and maybe build some of the swept wing designed that were mooted.

The reason the Lightning was designed the way it was is because it was an experimental design to try out the 'over and under, basic tube' concept because Britain didn't know much about supersonic flight. This is why it was supposed to be an interim fighter, with the F155 being the definitive fighter incorporating the lessons of the 50s.

The Phantom's design genesis was 1953-55, some 5-7 years after the Lightning and incorporated the lessons of a lot of supersonic experience. In that light the Lightning could be looked at a super, late-arriving Crusader rather than a shit Phantom, or perhaps something in between.
 
...
The reason the Lightning was designed the way it was is because it was an experimental design to try out the 'over and under, basic tube' concept because Britain didn't know much about supersonic flight. This is why it was supposed to be an interim fighter, with the F155 being the definitive fighter incorporating the lessons of the 50s.

Nobody knew much about supersonic flight in late 1940s/early '50s.

The Phantom's design genesis was 1953-55, some 5-7 years after the Lightning and incorporated the lessons of a lot of supersonic experience. In that light the Lightning could be looked at a super, late-arriving Crusader rather than a shit Phantom, or perhaps something in between.

The ALT Ligtning would've still offered a superior thrust-to-weight ratio vs. both F-8 and F-4. Big nose will alow for sizable radar.
 
Nobody knew much about supersonic flight in late 1940s/early '50s.

Some knew more than others, the US had a lot of supersonic experience by the early 50s with the X planes and Sabres going supersonic in dives and in late 1954 the F100 entered Squadron service. Britain had little to none of that sort of experience.

The ALT Ligtning would've still offered a superior thrust-to-weight ratio vs. both F-8 and F-4. Big nose will alow for sizable radar.

Unless they fall arse-backwards into this 'correct' design I think it pre-supposes too much knowledge of the fighter requirements and the state of the art of 1960 way back in 1948.

Lets not forget that the Lightning did actually become a multi-role fighter, similar to the Crusader.

304-1.jpg
lightningsaudiwithjl-100.jpg
F-8E%20wf%202000-lb%20bomb%20low%20res.jpg
 

Pangur

Donor
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.

SEATO

Sterling Area

I think we are cross purposes. By requirement what nations would need such an aircraft? Very few of the ex empire states TBH
 
I think we are cross purposes. By requirement what nations would need such an aircraft? Very few of the ex empire states TBH

Every ex-Empire state that bought the F104 and Mirage III in the 60s has a need that the Lightning could meet; that includes South Africa, Canada, Australia, Pakistan and UAE.
 

Pangur

Donor
Every ex-Empire state that bought the F104 and Mirage III in the 60s has a need that the Lightning could meet; that includes South Africa, Canada, Australia, Pakistan and UAE.
Fair enough. I would like to get something cleared up, namely range. Going by the numbers from Wiki it was not crash hot - true or false?
 
Fair enough. I would like to get something cleared up, namely range. Going by the numbers from Wiki it was not crash hot - true or false?

True to an extent, but the devil is in the details. The early F1 and F2 Lightnings didn't have the belly and other fuel tanks, so had an endurance of less than an hour, this gave the Lightning a reputation for short range that they've never shaken off.

The Lightning F6 has 5700 litres of internal fuel for its 2 engines, a Mirage IIIE has 3000 litres for its single engine, a Mig 21bis has 2100 litres of fuel for its single engine and an F4C Phantom has 7200 litres for its 2 engines. So a Lightning F6 has 2850 litres of fuel per engine, 5% less than a Mirage IIIE, and like the Mirage flew sorties of about 1 1/2 hours while the Phantom would do 2 1/2 hour sorties.

In practice where the Lightning fell over was external fuel. Mirage III came with 2 drop-tank types, a thin supersonic tank (sometimes with a rocket pod attached to the front) and a fat ferry tank and the centreline and inner wing pylons were plumbed for fuel. The RAAF once put 3 ferry tanks on a Mirage and the tyres popped, so the limit was 2 ferry tanks but they limited speed so the supersonic tanks were used usually for tactical purposes. To reach the Falklands the Argentine Mirages used 2 ferry tanks and struggled with low speed. The Lightning used a pair of over-wing tanks, but these only seem to be used for ferry flights rather than a semi-permanent fixture like the Mirage wing tanks.
 
Fair enough. I would like to get something cleared up, namely range. Going by the numbers from Wiki it was not crash hot - true or false?

Absolutely true. F.6 endurance in service was legendarily short, the F.3 and T.5 even more so. The overwing tanks were only used on ferry flights as a rule, as the weight and drag caused by fitting them nearly cancelled out the fuel gain.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely true. F.6 endurance in service was legendarily short, the F.3 and T.5 even more so. The overwing tanks were only used on ferry flights as a rule, as the weight and drag caused by fitting them nearly cancelled out the fuel gain.

Its not what you fly, but how you fly it.

From Wiki citing Lightning F Mk.6 Operating Data Manual. Warton Aerodrome, UK: English Electric Technical Services, May 1977.

...on a maximum-range subsonic intercept radius of 370 NM (425 mi, 625 km). An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can climb to 36,000 ft and cruise at Mach 0.87 to a loiter or intercept area 370 NM distant. It then has 15 minutes on station to complete the intercept or identification task before returning to base. The afterburners are not used during this profile, and the total mission time is 112 min.

An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can climb to 36,000 ft, accelerate to Mach 1.8, and intercept a target at 135 NM only 10.7 min after brake release. A 2g level turn allows a rear-quarter re-attack 1.6 min later. Following a best-range cruise and descent, the Lightning enters the landing pattern with 800 lb of fuel remaining with a total mission time of 35 min.

The first mission profile is not short range by any means, but the second one most certainly is.
 
Its not what you fly, but how you fly it.

From Wiki citing Lightning F Mk.6 Operating Data Manual. Warton Aerodrome, UK: English Electric Technical Services, May 1977.

...on a maximum-range subsonic intercept radius of 370 NM (425 mi, 625 km). An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can climb to 36,000 ft and cruise at Mach 0.87 to a loiter or intercept area 370 NM distant. It then has 15 minutes on station to complete the intercept or identification task before returning to base. The afterburners are not used during this profile, and the total mission time is 112 min.

An F.6 equipped with Red Top missiles can climb to 36,000 ft, accelerate to Mach 1.8, and intercept a target at 135 NM only 10.7 min after brake release. A 2g level turn allows a rear-quarter re-attack 1.6 min later. Following a best-range cruise and descent, the Lightning enters the landing pattern with 800 lb of fuel remaining with a total mission time of 35 min.

The first mission profile is not short range by any means, but the second one most certainly is.

Given most of the commentary about limited endurance on typical ops comes from Lightning jocks themselves I'll take their word for it :)
 
Top