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

I think it’s fair to say that any aircraft of that era had a range on full afterburner that verged on comical. Things are not that different today.
The specific issue for the Lightning is that if you can hardly ever use afterburner because of the fuel impact, the whole design starts to look a bit pointless since it was so heavily focused on high-speed intercept. A mirage or mig21 is a practical choice even if you know you will never light the afterburner, not sure you can say the same for the lightning. They also apparently had minuscule servicing requirements relative to the lightning.
 
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.
I'm doing this from a very old memory, which may be false, but here goes...

It must be over 20 years ago but, I remember reading a book (probably by Bill Gunston) which claimed that English Electric proposed the airframe improvements (i.e. the belly and other fuel tanks plus the wing changes) early enough to be incorporated into the F.1 and F.2 Lightnings as built, but at the time the Air Minstry/RAF wasn't interested.

IIRC he also claimed that English Electric said to him that the Lightning could have been in service earlier (I think it was 2 years) if the Air Ministry/RAF had done certain things differently, but I can't remember what those things were. I do remember the paragraph had the phrases, "to save time" an that in the aviation business "time is money."

However, the earliest primary source I have on official plans for the Lightning is Plan L (Provisional) dated January 1955 covering the period from 31st December 1954 to 31st March 1960. According to that the first 1st Lightning squadron was to be formed in the first quarter of 1959. There was to be one squadron of 16 aircraft 31st March 1959 rising to a front-line force of 80 aircraft in 5 squadrons of 16 on 31st March 1961. Presumably it would have gone on to replace the 208 other short range day fighters (SRDF) in 13 squadrons of 16 aircraft that were projected to be in Fighter Command on 31st March 1960 and the SRDF in the overseas commands.

However, the first Lighting squadron didn't form until June 1960 - 15 months after the first one was planned to be operational. The build up of the Lightning force was slower than planned too:
31st Marcy 1959 - None but:
16 aircraft in one squadron of 16 was planned at January 1955​
31st March 1960 - None, but:
80 aircraft in 5 squadrons of 16 were planned at January 1955
36 aircraft in 3 squadrons of 12 were planned at September 1957​
31st March 1961 - 24 aircraft in 2 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 56 and 74) but:
84 aircraft in 7 squadrons of 12 were planned at September 1957​
31st March 1962 - 36 aircraft in 3 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 56, 74 and 111) but:
156 aircraft in 12 squadrons of 12 or 16 were planned at September 1957​
31st March 1963 - 48 aircraft in 4 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 19, 56, 74 and 111) but
156 aircraft in 12 squadrons of 12 or 16 were planned at September 1957​
31st March 1964 - 60 aircraft in 5 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 19, 56, 71, 92 and 111)
31st March 1965 - 72 aircraft in 6 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 19, 23, 56, 71, 92 and 111)
60 aircraft in 5 squadrons of 12 were planned in March 1964 so this is an improvement​
31st March 1966 - 84 aircraft in 7 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 5, 19, 23, 56, 71, 92 and 111)
84 aircraft in 7 squadrons of 12 were planned in March 1964 so this is spot on​
31st March 1967 - 84 aircraft in 7 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 5, 19, 23, 56, 71, 92 and 111)
120 aircraft in 10 squadrons of 12 were planned in March 1964​
31st March 1968 - 108 aircraft in 9 squadrons of 12 (Nos. 5, 11, 19, 23, 29, 56, 74, 92 and 111)
120 aircraft in 10 squadrons of 12 were planned in March 1964​

Under the March 1964 plan a front-line of 120 Lightnings in 10 squadrons of 12 was to be maintained until 31st March 1975. However, No. 43 Squadron was formed with F-4K Phantoms in 1969 instead of the tenth Lightning squadron. No. 74 Squadron was disbanded in March 1971 reducing the number of Lightning squadrons to 8 and another 2 squadrons converted to F-4M Phantoms in the 1974-75 financial year. Therefore there were actually 6 Lightning squadrons on 31st March 1975 (and 3 Phantom fighter squadrons) instead of 10 (and no Phantom fighter squadrons).

At January 1955 the F.23/49s (it wasn't named the Lightning until October 1958) annual production requirements to 31st March 1960 were:
1 - 1956-57
14 - 1957-58
56 - 1958-59
98 - 1959-60

169 - Total including (15 pre-production aircraft - but 20 pre-production aircraft were built)​

However, 25 Lightnings (5 prototypes and 20 pre-production) were on order at January 1955 as follows:
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
The first production order for 50 Lightning F Mk 1 aircraft (19 F.1 and 28 F.1A actually built) was placed in November 1956. The first flight was on 03/11/1959.

So it looks as if the first pre-production aircraft flew a year behind schedule (at January 1955). The 16th pre-production aircraft flew on 26/06/59 which is 15 months behind the first production aircraft in the 1959 schedule.

The first flight date comes for the 16th pre production aircraft comes from the UK Serials website. According to that the first production Lightning (XM134) made its first flight on 31/10/1959 and was delivered on 31/03/1960 (the second aircraft wasn't delivered until May 1960). That would make a grand total of 21 Lightnings delivered to 31st March 1960 (excluding the 2 P.1A, 3 P.1B and 3 P.11 prototypes) instead of the 169 projected in January 1955. However, according to the UK Serials site the next 12 aircraft (XM134 to XM146) had flown by 31st March 1960 but had not been delivered.

In September 1957 a grand total of 318 Lightning fighters were required (the number of Lightning trainers had yet to be determined). The 318 Lightning fighters were made up of 50 F.1, 158 F.2 and 110 F.3 aircraft. The 50 F.1 aircraft were on requisition. The 318 aircraft did not include 15 pre-production aircraft which were also on requisition (which increases the total to 333) - except that we know 20 pre-production aircraft were on requisition (which increases the total to 338).

276 of the 318 aircraft were to be delivered to 31st March 1963 as follows:
2 - 1958-59
52 - 1959-60 for a total of 54 by 31st March 1960 instead of the 154 (plus 15 pre-production aircraft planned to be delivered by that date in January 1955)
76 - 1960-61
82 - 1961-62 (78 Mk 2 and 4 Mk 3)
64 - 1962-63​

Therefore according to the plan at September 1957 only one production Lightning had been delivered by 31st March 1960 instead of 54.
 
Last edited:
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

Sweden have their own fighter/interceptor flying just a few months after the Lightning. So they won't be interested.
 
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.

It would be interesting (to me anyways) to see a range spec that allowed for subsonic cruise to and from the intercept area but also allowed for the use of afterburner for a few minutes.
 
Sweden have their own fighter/interceptor flying just a few months after the Lightning. So they won't be interested.

It is also likelier that Finland still goes for the MiG-21. The Finnish fighter ace and test pilot Lauri Pekuri who had the chance to try both planes favored the MiG over the Lightning in terms of performance and handling (though he saw the Lightning as stronger in terms of the weapons options). More importantly, the USSR was a lot more interested in selling Finland modern weapons than the NATO countries were, for both political and military reasons, and then of course the arms deals with the USSR were easier to fund than ones with the West, given the nature of the Finnish bilateral trade with the USSR. Simply put, Finland had more to offer than the USSR did in terms of quality trade goods, and thus there was a trade surplus to use on Soviet weapons.
 
Last edited:
It is also likelier that Finland still goes for the MiG-21. The Finnish fighter ace and test pilot Lauri Pekuri who had the chance to try both planes favored the MiG over the Lightning in terms of performance and handling (though he saw the Lightning as stronger in terms of the weapons options). More importantly, the USSR was a lot more interested in selling Finland modern weapons than the NATO countries were, for both political and military reasons, and then of course the arms deals with the USSR were easier to fund than ones with the West, given the nature of the Finnish bilateral trade with the USSR. Simply put, Finland had more to offer than the USSR did in terms of quality trade goods, and thus there was a trade surplus to use on Soviet weapons.

Actually Britain was quite keen to sell weapons to Finland. It is not a completely implausible scenario that Britain sells Lightnings to Finland, perhaps to balance the purchase of Soviet S-75 SAM's Finland planned to buy in early 1960's? Finnish arms purchases during the Cold War were more driven by political realities than careful analysis, so one might well devise a scenario where Lightnings are presented to FAF as a matter of fact. This might happen in connection to getting an associate membership in EFTA.

This would require a larger Finnish defense budget, though, but it was very low anyway and perhaps British credit could be used? The amount of planes would be quite low, though.
 
It would be interesting (to me anyways) to see a range spec that allowed for subsonic cruise to and from the intercept area but also allowed for the use of afterburner for a few minutes.

The first scenario reduce the range from 370nm to maybe 250nm and loiter from 15 to 10 minutes and you'd get a 5-10 minutes allowance for combat with afterburner.
 
Actually Britain was quite keen to sell weapons to Finland. It is not an implausible scenario that Britain sells Lightnings to Finland, perhaps to balance the purchase of Soviet S-75 SAM's Finland planned to buy in early 1960's? This would require a larger Finnish defense budget, though, but it was very low anyway and perhaps British credit could be used? The amount of planes would be quite low, though.

My argument is mainly that even if Britain would be keen to sell Finland weapons, the USSR was even keener, and in both political and (especially) economic terms it was under the circumstances easier to buy fighters from the East. If the Finns buy Lightnings from Britain even after Pekuri would not recommend them, then I guess Kekkonen would have to commit to buy some other systems from the USSR. AA missiles would be just the thing, though then that purchase would cause problems with the West on the other side of the equation. The British and Americans were pretty sceptical about the Finnish AA missile purchases from the USSR. There would be consequences here. The purchase of the Vigilant AT missiles Finland got IOTL from Britain would probably have to be cancelled ITTL.
 
My argument is mainly that even if Britain would be keen to sell Finland weapons, the USSR was even keener, and in both political and (especially) economic terms it was under the circumstances easier to buy fighters from the East. If the Finns buy Lightnings from Britain even after Pekuri would not recommend them, then I guess Kekkonen would have to commit to buy some other systems from the USSR. AA missiles would be just the thing, though then that purchase would cause problems with the West on the other side of the equation. The British and Americans were pretty sceptical about the Finnish AA missile purchases from the USSR. There would be consequences here. The purchase of the Vigilant AT missiles Finland got IOTL from Britain would probably have to be cancelled ITTL.

US and British scepticism on Finnish S-75 purchase was about the initial project which would have envisaged a large scale purchase of SAM's. Purchasing SAM's to defend Helsinki, Tampere and Turku would have been a different thing altogether. Perhaps, with some handwaving of schedule, Finland could get a package deal in which a) SAM's are purchased from Soviet Union b) Finland gets to join EFTA as an associate member and as a price for this c) Lightnings are purchased from UK. As for Vigilant missiles, they were politically irrelevant.

Frankly, whatever Pekuri thought about planes was irrelevant in 1960's Finland. The Defense Forces would buy whatever was forced upon them. Mirage III and Draken were favourites, and MiG-21 was bought without even a trial.
 
US and British scepticism on Finnish S-75 purchase was about the initial project which would have envisaged a large scale purchase of SAM's. Purchasing SAM's to defend Helsinki, Tampere and Turku would have been a different thing altogether. Perhaps, with some handwaving of schedule, Finland could get a package deal in which a) SAM's are purchased from Soviet Union b) Finland gets to join EFTA as an associate member and as a price for this c) Lightnings are purchased from UK. As for Vigilant missiles, they were politically irrelevant.

Frankly, whatever Pekuri thought about planes was irrelevant in 1960's Finland. The Defense Forces would buy whatever was forced upon them. Mirage III and Draken were favourites, and MiG-21 was bought without even a trial.

There are a lot of different kinds of moving parts in the Finnish defence purchases palette of the sixties. What would also be affected would be the the navy purchases - the Matti Kurki from Britain, the P-15 missiles and the Riga class frigates Uusimaa and Hämeenmaa from the USSR, the SS.11s from France, and so on - not even going into the army purchases. Really, I think we could only construct a plausible timeline that could fit a Lightning purchase in it and include all the changes needed for that and stemming from that if we went through the events in detail beginning with what ever would be chosen as the actual POD and taking into account all the relevant domestic and foreign political issues.

As for the opinions of military experts on acquisitions in 1960s Finland, I don't think they were irrelevant. The different branches made plans on what they wanted and needed and then tried to implement them. They did not always get exactly what they wanted, but not all weapons were bought due to purely political reasons, either. Things were more complicated than that. It is quite obvious that in terms of the navy's missile purchases, for example, it would have been all but impossible to get as advanced weapons as easily from the west as Finland got from the east, and that purchase was made along priorities men like Jouko Pirhonen had created in the navy, not just due to Kekkonen's foreign political considerations.
 
There are a lot of different kinds of moving parts in the Finnish defence purchases palette of the sixties. What would also be affected would be the the navy purchases - the Matti Kurki from Britain, the P-15 missiles and the Riga class frigates Uusimaa and Hämeenmaa from the USSR, the SS.11s from France, and so on - not even going into the army purchases. Really, I think we could only construct a plausible timeline that could fit a Lightning purchase in it and include all the changes needed for that and stemming from that if we went through the events in detail beginning with what ever would be chosen as the actual POD and taking into account all the relevant domestic and foreign political issues.

But in case of SS.11 missiles, for example, we're talking about entire different scale of purchase compared to fighters - a major against a minor one. I do agree with you that larger implications need to be addressed, that's why I'd suggest EFTA might have something to do with it.

It is quite obvious that in terms of the navy's missile purchases, for example, it would have been all but impossible to get as advanced weapons as easily from the west as Finland got from the east, and that purchase was made along priorities men like Jouko Pirhonen had created in the navy, not just due to Kekkonen's foreign political considerations.

In field of anti-ship missiles it would have been impossible to get Western equivalents as they were not yet available. But that was one exception, alongside some small arms. As a general rule the Defense Forces would specify Western weapons and finally get Soviet ones.
 
I thought I read once that part of the WW2 peace treaty Finland is only allowed to own 60 fighter aircraft. Has anyone else heard this?

If that's true then pushing for the most powerful 60 fighters they could get their hands on in the 60s would make the Lightning attractive.
 
I thought I read once that part of the WW2 peace treaty Finland is only allowed to own 60 fighter aircraft. Has anyone else heard this?

If that's true then pushing for the most powerful 60 fighters they could get their hands on in the 60s would make the Lightning attractive.

Yes, that was the Paris Peace treaty limitation, but until 1980's the true limitation was financial, as Finnish defense spending was minuscule compared to most Cold War countries. In 1950's Finnish frontline fighter strength for 1952-1957 was six DH Vampires, for 1958-1962 nine Folland Gnats, for which there were not enough spares and Gnats spent most of their time as hangar queens.

Finland bought just 20 MiG-21's in 1962, for example. In 1970's Finnish aerial might was expanded with 15 Drakens, in 1980's with 20 additional Drakens while 20 MiG-21bis were acquired in 1978-1980 to replace the F-model.
 
If English Electric's sales team get their act together and promote it as a point defence interceptor, then countries with angry neighbours could be potential customers...
Iran could have been a possibility, IIRC they didn't always have the best of relations with the USSR and played aeronautical games along their common border. The Shah had a lot of money to throw around and a large military shopping list.


It must be over 20 years ago but, I remember reading a book (probably by Bill Gunston) which claimed that English Electric proposed the airframe improvements (i.e. the belly and other fuel tanks plus the wing changes) early enough to be incorporated into the F.1 and F.2 Lightnings as built, but at the time the Air Ministry/RAF wasn't interested.
Interesting, nothing cutting edge but would certainly be useful.


IIRC he also claimed that English Electric said to him that the Lightning could have been in service earlier (I think it was 2 years) if the Air Ministry/RAF had done certain things differently, but I can't remember what those things were. I do remember the paragraph had the phrases, "to save time" an that in the aviation business "time is money."
Shame you don't remember the source as this would be very handy. Trying to figure out the timings that would allow the Lightning to still go ahead alongside a joint Anglo-French FD2-Mirage project that would enter service a couple of years earlier than our timeline's Mirage III, this fits the bill quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
Now I've found an easier way to import spreadsheets this is the plan for Fighter Command at 15th January 1955 (Plan L) for the period up to 31st March 1960.

The first column is the number of squadrons and the second column is the total number of aircraft. The F.153 is the thin-wing Javelin and the F.23/49 is the Lightning.

Fighter Command January 1955.png
 
Top