PC/WI: BAC (EE) Lightnings get chosen instead of F-104 Starfighters?

What about my suggestion? The upgraded P.8 'Super Lightning' wouldn't have used Rolls-Royce Avon engines, but Rolls-Royce RB.106 engines instead- roughly the same size and weight as the Avon, but with twice the thrust output. It was good enough for the Canadians to select it as their engine of choice for the Avro Arrow- with those engines fitted into an improved EE Lightning, you'd have certainly had a world-beater. If it had been delivered before 1960 as planned, with Lockheed's bribes having either been exposed earlier on or having toned down to mitigate the risks of exposure, then this improved cutting-edge version of the English Electric Lightning would have had no trouble getting selected over the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter, Grumman F11F Super Tiger, and Northrop N-156.
Had the RB-106 been developed and met expected performance figures, it wouldn't change the configuration of the Lightning. Changing the Lightning configuration to one which keeps the performance, but allows the fitment of advanced avionics, a variety of weapons, and additional fuel, changes the very nature of the Lightning, making it not a Lightning. With twice the available power, the new Lightning could have used only one engine, for example, used fuselage space for fuel, revised the undercarriage and added weapons stations on a revised wing, but that isn't a Lightning. It might have been a success with foreign sales. But it wouldn't be the Lightning, which wasn't.
 
No one has suggested that aircraft deemed "NATO aircraft" had to be purchased. Many were not. British aircraft were available for purchase when they filled a need and exhibited the ability to fill that need. Teddy Petter's Canberra and Gnat found a home abroad, and the Hunter, a little late to fill the RAF Sabre's NATO role, did have some export sales success. Pretending that Lightning was something that it wasn't won't make it a sales success, like the Mirage series. The configuration which gave the Lightning its startling performance and capabilities in its role precluded its adaptation to other roles, in fact, and over the life of its development.

What?? We seem to be having a neuro - linguistic problem here, don't we? You're 'replying' to issues neither I, nor anybody else, has raised.

Additionally, the Canadair Sabres acquired by the RAF, (for both RAF Germany AND Fighter Command, btw) were never intended as anything other than a stop - gap, so it's hadly the case that the Hunter 'filled' their role, rather - and temporarily - the opposite. The last Sabre left Benson for refurb on June 22nd 1956. As for the Hunter itself having 'some' export success, well, I think you'll find it did rather better than that.
 
What?? We seem to be having a neuro - linguistic problem here, don't we? You're 'replying' to issues neither I, nor anybody else, has raised.

Additionally, the Canadair Sabres acquired by the RAF, (for both RAF Germany AND Fighter Command, btw) were never intended as anything other than a stop - gap, so it's hadly the case that the Hunter 'filled' their role, rather - and temporarily - the opposite. The last Sabre left Benson for refurb on June 22nd 1956. As for the Hunter itself having 'some' export success, well, I think you'll find it did rather better than that.
The "issue" was that the Hunter sold, and the Lightning did not. When you have a need, you get an aircraft which fills the need. The Hunter filled a need, and sold.
 
Top