Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[red admiral]

However the only fighter procurement during Sandys tenure as MoD was distinctly below the state of the art and reeked of 'interim' to cover the gap to missile deployment.

Which was driven by the Air Staff and not Sandys

 

[Rule of cool]

Hansard 16 April 1957 on the 1957 DWP and manned fighters is as follows.

Mr. Sandys .........We are unquestionably moving towards a time when fighter aircraft will be increasingly replaced by guided missiles and V-bombers by ballistic rockets, but all that will not happen overnight. The introduction of these new weapons will be a gradual process, extending over a good number of years, and even then there will still remain a very wide variety of roles for which manned aircraft will continue to be needed.

Mr. Stokes All right. With regard to the statement that manned fighters will soon be superseded,........

Lieut.-Commander Maydon .........I think that we can say with absolute certainty that, for at least another ten years, manned aircraft will be required for both Fighter and Bomber Commands......

I think that in the momentous changes in the 57 DWP, with its focus on Thermonuclear War with the Soviets the fate of 6 sqns of Venom Fighter-Bombers and (ostensibly) 2 sqns of Meteor Fighter-Recce in the Middle and Far East post 1958 didn't feature too highly on the agenda. However, what is clear is the decision by the Government, indeed by a Minister specifically chosen for his force of character and ability to drive changes through despite 'Deep State' reluctance, that manned aircraft had little future in the RAF.

The Air Staff sought the Venom replacement in this environment; they aimed low in order to get it approved by Sandys.

 

[red admiral]

However, what is clear is the decision by the Government, indeed by a Minister specifically chosen for his force of character and ability to drive changes through despite 'Deep State' reluctance, that manned aircraft had little future in the RAF.

This is just nonsense as we've gone over time and time again. It's not just the personal whim of a single minister.

 

[Rule of cool]

This is just nonsense as we've gone over time and time again. It's not just the personal whim of a single minister.

The Minister has to work within the confines of Cabinet Government, however within that is free to choose which advice they accept or reject, push back on the details of advice and make decisions within their remit. Sandys was a missile 'enthusiast', as a result of his wartime service and would have been highly receptive to advice pushing missiles, likely with an eye on his direction to save 100 million pounds annually.

Another example of conflicting advice and a Defence Minister making a controversial decision was the 1966 decision to cancel CVA01. The 1st Sea Lord David Luce resigned in protest and (full) Admiral Varyl Begg, a prominent proponent of missiles and opponent of aircraft carriers, was promoted into the position and pushed to develop the Invincible class. Dennis Healy had to work within the confines of his Government's policy but as able to choose from the advice of the 1st Sea Lord and the views of another prominent Senior Naval Officer. much like Sandys would have in 1957.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Point 1 was no more manned interceptors rather than fighters in the wider combat air roles i.e. more emphasis on range, variety of weapon fits, operability etc.

I don't believe that Fighter Command recognized an aircraft mission outside "interceptor" for fighters.

The big problem being an organizational one in the RAF. RAFG and the other commands (MEAF, FEAF, and I am missing one) that needed capable ground attackers etc didn't have a voice with the same authority as Fighter Command or Bomber Command. Fighter Command being the RAF equivalent of USAF Air Defense Command, Bomber Command being our nuclear friends.

The USAF had SAC, TAC, ADC, and MAC, each as a separate organization of roughly equal power. Bombers and ICBMs, fighters and ground attackers, interceptors and missiles, transports and tankers. Each one had its own Star-in-charge to argue for it.

But the RAF didn't have an equivalent to Tactical Air Command, even though everyone who heard the name "Fighter Command" thought that it was that equivalent.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't believe that Fighter Command recognized an aircraft mission outside "interceptor" for fighters.

The big problem being an organizational one in the RAF. RAFG and the other commands (MEAF, FEAF, and I am missing one) that needed capable ground attackers etc didn't have a voice with the same authority as Fighter Command or Bomber Command. Fighter Command being the RAF equivalent of USAF Air Defense Command, Bomber Command being our nuclear friends.

The USAF had SAC, TAC, ADC, and MAC, each as a separate organization of roughly equal power. Bombers and ICBMs, fighters and ground attackers, interceptors and missiles, transports and tankers. Each one had its own Star-in-charge to argue for it.

But the RAF didn't have an equivalent to Tactical Air Command, even though everyone who heard the name "Fighter Command" thought that it was that equivalent.

You might have something here, but I don't know how it would be implemented to produce good results in the Sandys era.

TAC was stood up in 1946, but in the immediate postwar period Britain was thinking of 1957 as the year of maximum danger, followed by the Korean War panic. The RAF didn't have a reserve of tactical aircraft at home during these periods, the closest I could think of would be the 64 Canberras based in Britain but allocated to SACEUR in about the mid 50s. IIUC the first fighter-bombers were a pair of Hunter FGA sqns allocated to Transport Command in 1960, based in the UK but supposed to deploy to hot spots.

In the Cold War UK context Fighter, Bomber, Coastal, Transport commands and RAFG/2TAF are pretty much the full depth the same theatre .

 

[Scott Kenny]

You might have something here, but I don't know how it would be implemented to produce good results in the Sandys era.

TAC was stood up in 1946, but in the immediate postwar period Britain was thinking of 1957 as the year of maximum danger, followed by the Korean War panic. The RAF didn't have a reserve of tactical aircraft at home during these periods, the closest I could think of would be the 64 Canberras based in Britain but allocated to SACEUR in about the mid 50s. IIUC the first fighter-bombers were a pair of Hunter FGA sqns allocated to Transport Command in 1960, based in the UK but supposed to deploy to hot spots.

In the Cold War UK context Fighter, Bomber, Coastal, Transport commands and RAFG/2TAF are pretty much the full depth the same theatre .

The UK would need to make an organization standing above RAFG/2TAF/MEAF/FEAF, as a power equal to the others. A perfect excuse to have a couple more flag officers, probably someone who commanded the Typhoon squadrons/wings over Normandy.

 

[Rule of cool]

The UK would need to make an organization standing above RAFG/2TAF/MEAF/FEAF, as a power equal to the others. A perfect excuse to have a couple more flag officers, probably someone who commanded the Typhoon squadrons/wings over Normandy.

Perhaps in the mid 50s when politicians were commenting on the RAFs fighters as being too limited and the RAF was changing from fighter-bombers to nuke-armed bomber-interdictors. However the change from fighter-bombers to Canberras for the tactical role shows the RAF wasn't ignoring tactical aviation, although bomber-boys are gunna bomber!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Perhaps in the mid 50s when politicians were commenting on the RAFs fighters as being too limited and the RAF was changing from fighter-bombers to nuke-armed bomber-interdictors. However the change from fighter-bombers to Canberras for the tactical role shows the RAF wasn't ignoring tactical aviation, although bomber-boys are gunna bomber!

Canberras were available for the tactical role, IMO, so they were the interim choice. And we all know that nothing is more permanent than an interim solution.

And while Canberras were viable for MEAF/FEAF, they weren't really viable for RAFG. And that's the big problem, the RAF needed a fighter-bomber or interdictor for Germany that was also viable for MEAF/FEAF. But RAFG didn't have the internal political power to ask for one.

 

[Rule of cool]

And we all know that nothing is more permanent than an interim solution.

100%

Canberras were available for the tactical role, IMO, so they were the interim choice. .........

And while Canberras were viable for MEAF/FEAF, they weren't really viable for RAFG. And that's the big problem, the RAF needed a fighter-bomber or interdictor for Germany that was also viable for MEAF/FEAF. But RAFG didn't have the internal political power to ask for one.

I wouldn't consider new-build B(I) 6 & 8s which were built from 1955 'interim'. Operating at low level at night made them viable in Germany well into the 60s.

The B.15 and B.16s converted from B6s when entered service from 1961 were certainly interim, but by then the TSR2 was a project. However the interim nature of the B.15 and B.16 in the M/FEAF and aging B(I) 6 & 8 in RAFG is why it's important to compliment them with the Mach 2 Lightning ASAP rather than dragging out the Javelin replacement and adding another interim aircraft in the Hunter.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF of the 1950s like much else in Britain was smothered in World War2.
The V force was its heart and soul aimed at smashing Soviet cities as Harris's Bomber Command had Dresden and Hamburg.
Next came Fighter Command which was also focussed on the fighter plane and its pilot.
Sandys knew this and had to use a politician's methods to get the RAF to realise the need for missiles in the offensive and defensive roles.
Why was the RAF not interested in giving RAF Germany and other overseas commands better Close Air Support equipment?
Overseas stations were not popular with the RAF.
It was no accident that V Bombers and then TSR2 would all be based in the UK and only detached overseas as necessary.
The P1154 emerges from a complicated NATO competition and Post Sandys becomes a possible Lightning adjunct and even successor.
Had a Fairy F103 and its missiles survived they would all have been needed for the Fighter Command squadrons. Hunters would have been deployed elsewhere with support from F103s as with Lightnings to Singapore.
As usual this British dream world ends in the 60s with the F4 Phantom and some kind of collaborative fighterbomber.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAF and Britain's 'problem' from 1957 onwards isn't technical, it's production numbers, specifically production numbers of a supersonic 'tactical' aircraft. Whatever route they go down, the Lightning or FD2 - ER103/C, they need to go all-in and build ~500 of them to equip every interceptor, fighter-bomber and OCU sqn they possibly can and fly them for ~20 years. A two-fleet solution condemns the RAF/British to the most expensive development, production and operating model available, regardless of whatever cool tricks these niche planes might be able to do.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RAF and Britain's 'problem' from 1957 onwards isn't technical, it's production numbers, specifically production numbers of a supersonic 'tactical' aircraft. Whatever route they go down, the Lightning or FD2 - ER103/C, they need to go all-in and build ~500 of them to equip every interceptor, fighter-bomber and OCU sqn they possibly can and fly them for ~20 years. A two-fleet solution condemns the RAF/British to the most expensive development, production and operating model available, regardless of whatever cool tricks these niche planes might be able to do.

Disagree, the UK as a whole needs at least 3 different major airframes. You just cannot pack the required capabilities into fewer airframes in the 1950s and 1960s.

Interceptor to last until the big long-range SAMs come online.
Strategic Bomber.
fighter-bomber/interdictor.

 

[Rule of cool]

Disagree, the UK as a whole needs at least 3 different major airframes. You just cannot pack the required capabilities into fewer airframes in the 1950s and 1960s.

Interceptor to last until the big long-range SAMs come online.
Strategic Bomber.
fighter-bomber/interdictor.

I agree that RAFs roles require 3 airframes in 1960, dropping to 2 airframes by 1970. However, I lump the Interceptor and Fighter-Bomber together because no 'fighter' available to late 50s Britain has the range to do Interdiction.

The VRET demanded a combat radius of 240nm, the Gnat had a radius of 188nm and Hunter could do 240nm with the big 230gal drop tanks used by F6As based at RAF Brawdy, where diversion airfields were distant. I suspect that similar would apply to the Lightning, the big belly tank giving 40% more range at the expense of climb that the lighter, small-tank Interceptors would have.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I agree that RAFs roles require 3 airframes in 1960, dropping to 2 airframes by 1970. However, I lump the Interceptor and Fighter-Bomber together because no 'fighter' available to late 50s Britain has the range to do Interdiction.

You cannot pack enough 1950/60s avionics into any airframe short of a Phantom in size to have both adequate air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities at the same time.

So at best you'd have Lightning F.3s or whatever the number was and "Lightning A.4s" or "B(I).4s" with completely different avionics inside. It's not quite the same, but see USN F-8s and A-7s for the closest comparison.

Crud, even the F/A-18 was originally supposed to be two separate types, with the A-18 basically having none of the F-18's air-to-air capabilities and the F-18 basically having none of the A-18's all-weather bomber capabilities. It wasn't until late in development that people realized that they could pack most of both sets of capabilities into a single avionics set.

IMO the fighter-bomber built for RAFG (and usable by MEAF/FEAF) would be closer to an F-105 or F-111/A-6 than a Lightning or F-8.

 

[Rule of cool]

You cannot pack enough 1950/60s avionics into any airframe short of a Phantom in size to have both adequate air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities at the same time.

So at best you'd have Lightning F.3s or whatever the number was and "Lightning A.4s" or "B(I).4s" with completely different avionics inside. It's not quite the same, but see USN F-8s and A-7s for the closest comparison.

Crud, even the F/A-18 was originally supposed to be two separate types, with the A-18 basically having none of the F-18's air-to-air capabilities and the F-18 basically having none of the A-18's all-weather bomber capabilities. It wasn't until late in development that people realized that they could pack most of both sets of capabilities into a single avionics set.

IMO the fighter-bomber built for RAFG (and usable by MEAF/FEAF) would be closer to an F-105 or F-111/A-6 than a Lightning or F-8.

You don't. All-singing, all-dancing just wasn't possible until the Hornet!

I'd suspect all British Lightnings to start off with the same avionics fit but sqns/wings diverging as new avionics items become available. The differences would be in their flying programmes and training.

As production progressed Interceptor-fighter sqns would get the S-band receiver and CW emitter while the fighter-bomber sqns would get a doppler radar in the belly and air to ground radar modes. However these would be add-ons, the basic radar and airframe would be the same.

An FD2-ER103/C fleet wouldn't be so 'bad' because it was starting a couple/three of years later than the Lightning and things doppler and S-band receiver would be available for the first production aircraft, and likely the nose would allow a CW emitter from the start.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I do not believe that the aerodynamics of a high altitude interceptor would make anything resembling a good low altitude interdictor, either.

So the UK ends up with:

• Lightnings or FD2s as the interceptor
• TSR2 as the strategic bomber
• [Insert airframe here] as the low level interdictor.

At best you might be able to use the same fuselage in the interceptor and interdictor, but with very different wings and probably tail. On top of completely different avionics.

 

[Rule of cool]

I do not believe that the aerodynamics of a high altitude interceptor would make anything resembling a good low altitude interdictor, either.

So the UK ends up with:

• Lightnings or FD2s as the interceptor
• TSR2 as the strategic bomber
• [Insert airframe here] as the low level interdictor.

At best you might be able to use the same fuselage in the interceptor and interdictor, but with very different wings and probably tail. On top of completely different avionics.

I think we're talking past each other, with interdictor and CAS.

I understand an interdictor is an aircraft that attacks rear area military targets whereas CAS attacks targets close to troops in contact. In the 1960 British context the Canberra interdictor had a flight endurance of 3.5 hours whereas the Hunter FGA had a flight endurance of 1.5 hours. The interdictor attacks traffic jams 100 miles in the rear whereas the fighter-bomber attacks artillery batteries firing at troops.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think we're talking past each other, with interdictor and CAS.

I understand an interdictor is an aircraft that attacks rear area military targets whereas CAS attacks targets close to troops in contact. In the 1960 British context the Canberra interdictor had a flight endurance of 3.5 hours whereas the Hunter FGA had a flight endurance of 1.5 hours. The interdictor attacks traffic jams 100 miles in the rear whereas the fighter-bomber attacks artillery batteries firing at troops.

I am using "interdictor" to separate this aircraft from the word "fighter" so that Fighter Command isn't in charge of it.

 

[Rule of cool]

I am using "interdictor" to separate this aircraft from the word "fighter" so that Fighter Command isn't in charge of it.

I think an interdictor primarily as a bomber. I don't think 'fighters' (apart from the outlier Phantom) had the payload-range until the 70s to undertake longer range attack missions for interdiction purposes. The exception I suppose is the F104G, but that carried a light nuke in order to get the range.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think an interdictor primarily as a bomber. I don't think 'fighters' (apart from the outlier Phantom) had the payload-range until the 70s to undertake longer range attack missions for interdiction purposes. The exception I suppose is the F104G, but that carried a light nuke in order to get the range.

F-105, and its English cousin the P1121.

 

[Rule of cool]

F-105, and its English cousin the P1121.

Yes but the F105, despite its awesome air to air performance against the Mig 17 in VietNam, wasn't considered an air to air fighter. Indeed, it's early missions in VietNam were escorted by F100s, which had much less performance than the F105 but was a 'fighter' in the classic sense of the word. Later is was escorted by F4C/D, which was an air to air aircraft at the very least.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes but the F105, despite its awesome air to air performance against the Mig 17 in VietNam, wasn't considered an air to air fighter.

It did alright, and was even the Thunderbirds plane for a while. Helps that it had ludicrous excess thrust once the bombs were gone and could extend out of a fight faster than a MiG could hit afterburners.

But that does get me back to my other point about how trying to make a fighter-bomber or interdictor out of the Lightning would involve a lot of changes to the airframe, not just whole new avionics.

 

[Rule of cool]

It did alright, and was even the Thunderbirds plane for a while. Helps that it had ludicrous excess thrust once the bombs were gone and could extend out of a fight faster than a MiG could hit afterburners.

Learning about the air-to-air performance has really changed my view of the Thud, or more accurately given me a positive opinion instead of having no opinion at all.

But that does get me back to my other point about how trying to make a fighter-bomber or interdictor out of the Lightning would involve a lot of changes to the airframe, not just whole new avionics.

My enthusiasm for the Lightning as a fighter-bomber doesn't rest on its technical awesomeness, but rather its technical adequacy combined with its availability in the required timeframe and ability to use the industry and technical support structure developed for the interceptor-fighter Lightnings.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Learning about the air-to-air performance has really changed my view of the Thud, or more accurately given me a positive opinion instead of having no opinion at all.

Yes, I was very surprised to read about how well the Thud flew when not loaded with bombs. Takes most of a state to turn around in (I think because of the small wings), but flies well.

My enthusiasm for the Lightning as a fighter-bomber doesn't rest on its technical awesomeness, but rather its technical adequacy combined with its availability in the required timeframe and ability to use the industry and technical support structure developed for the interceptor-fighter Lightnings.

Ah, gotcha.

I still think the Lightning FB, GR, or B(I)** would end up with a completely different wing optimized for low altitude bombing, in addition to different avionics.

** However the RAF tagged it.

 

[starviking]

I still think the Lightning FB, GR, or B(I)** would end up with a completely different wing optimized for low altitude bombing, in addition to different avionics.

** However the RAF tagged it.

Might be better to spend that money on a new aircraft then. Wing attachment points would probably need to be changed, and the mind-wing would be a pain for loading payload.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Might be better to spend that money on a new aircraft then. Wing attachment points would probably need to be changed, and the mind-wing would be a pain for loading payload.

I mean, the A-6 has a mid wing and wasn't seen as terrible for loading ordnance.

How high is the Lightning's wing off the ground? 6ft?

 

[Rule of cool]

What's wrong with the F6/F53 wing, that was designed and flown as early as 1958? BAC offered the Saudis a wing pylon capable of carrying 2 x 1,000lb bombs but the Saudis decided a single 1,000lb bomb was enough.

The VRET (Hunter FGA) stated a 240nm combat radius compared to 460nm for NA39 Buccaneer at low altitude and 1,000nm for the TSR2 of which 200nm in and out would be flown at 200'-Mach 0.95. A fighter-bomber Lightning won't fly long enough at low level and high speed to require specialised wings, which in any case would likely reduce its air-to-air agility.

 

[starviking]

I mean, the A-6 has a mid wing and wasn't seen as terrible for loading ordnance.

How high is the Lightning's wing off the ground? 6ft?

Looking at images on the net, it looks to be more 8 feet off the ground.

 

[Rule of cool]

The MHU83 bomb jammer can lift bombs up to almost tactical aircraft.

If you want to see something dodgy, look up how Lightnings loaded their AAMs. It's like my brothers taking the engine out of 76 falcon with an endless chain.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What's wrong with the F6/F53 wing, that was designed and flown as early as 1958? BAC offered the Saudis a wing pylon capable of carrying 2 x 1,000lb bombs but the Saudis decided a single 1,000lb bomb was enough.

The VRET (Hunter FGA) stated a 240nm combat radius compared to 460nm for NA39 Buccaneer at low altitude and 1,000nm for the TSR2 of which 200nm in and out would be flown at 200'-Mach 0.95. A fighter-bomber Lightning won't fly long enough at low level and high speed to require specialised wings, which in any case would likely reduce its air-to-air agility.

I'm talking something like the difference between the F-8 Crusader and A-7 Corsair wings. Not 5000lbs of capacity on 2 pylons (2500ea), but 15,000lbs of capacity on 6 (4x3000, 2x1500)!

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm talking something like the difference between the F-8 Crusader and A-7 Corsair wings. Not 5000lbs of capacity on 2 pylons (2500ea), but 15,000lbs of capacity on 6 (4x3000, 2x1500)!

Fair enough, although the A7 is all new aircraft based on the F8, rather than a version of it. Much like the Super Hornet is 25% bigger than the Classic Hornet, it's all new but based on the earlier design so saves design time and money.

Keep in mind that no Lightning adapted to undertake ground attack will compete with a dedicated ground attack aircraft, its rivals are F104 and Mirage III, not A4, F105 or the much later A7.

As for weapons carriage, apart from the single pylon on each wing I've seen 2 schemes for bomb carriage. The first is simple line drawing of a Red Beard or 3 x 1000ln bombs semi-recessed into the front section of the big belly fuel tank. The second is much more developed, the middle section of the big belly tank having a doppler radar and stub pylons for a single 1000b bomb or AS30 missile at the expense of potential fuel capacity. I doubt with bombs on stub pylons on the fuselage the RAF would put the AAMs in their usual position in the detachable pack in the forward fuselage. My guess is they'd use that space for a pair of 30mm guns, the fold out rocket system or recce cameras.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Fair enough, although the A7 is all new aircraft based on the F8, rather than a version of it. Much like the Super Hornet is 25% bigger than the Classic Hornet, it's all new but based on the earlier design so saves design time and money.

I was really thinking something like the A-7 but based off the Lightning. Whole new wing that has 4-6 pylons on it, at least 2 plumbed for fuel tanks. Maybe keep the same overall length, maybe change it if the ground attack avionics needs more space.

Keep in mind that no Lightning adapted to undertake ground attack will compete with a dedicated ground attack aircraft, its rivals are F104 and Mirage III, not A4, F105 or the much later A7.

Right. I'm trying to come up with a good interdictor and close air support attacker for RAFG that also happens to be okay for MEAF/FEAF.

As for weapons carriage, apart from the single pylon on each wing I've seen 2 schemes for bomb carriage. The first is simple line drawing of a Red Beard or 3 x 1000ln bombs semi-recessed into the front section of the big belly fuel tank. The second is much more developed, the middle section of the big belly tank having a doppler radar and stub pylons for a single 1000b bomb or AS30 missile at the expense of potential fuel capacity. I doubt with bombs on stub pylons on the fuselage the RAF would put the AAMs in their usual position in the detachable pack in the forward fuselage. My guess is they'd use that space for a pair of 30mm guns, the fold out rocket system or recce cameras.

I'd say guns.

 

[pathology_doc]

I'd say guns.

If your aircraft is based on the F.1 or F.2, there's already a pair of Adens in the upper cowling. I seem to recall reading that one of the options for the weapons pack was a pair of guns.

 

[Rule of cool]

I was really thinking something like the A-7 but based off the Lightning. Whole new wing that has 4-6 pylons on it, at least 2 plumbed for fuel tanks. Maybe keep the same overall length, maybe change it if the ground attack avionics needs more space.

Right. I'm trying to come up with a good interdictor and close air support attacker for RAFG that also happens to be okay for MEAF/FEAF.

The main landing gear was in the Lightning's wings, to get a wing with multiple, plumed pylons means relocating the main wheels to the fuselage which is a big job that will take time and money. English Electric's Lightning based concept for F.155 did have flared 'hips' for the Area Rule and had the wheels relocated to the fuselage, but this didn't get off the drawing board as the money vanished.

However, making major change to the Lightning for ground attack causes the same problem that the post-Sandys RAF had; multiple, small aircraft fleets with high overheads. Not to mention the RAF needed fighter-bombers in 1960, 1963 is too late.

 

[Rule of cool]

If your aircraft is based on the F.1 or F.2, there's already a pair of Adens in the upper cowling. I seem to recall reading that one of the options for the weapons pack was a pair of guns.

Apparently the nose guns in the early Lightnings caused problems with gun gas injections into the engines, which helped justify their deletion for the all-missile F.3.

Guns were an option for the detachable weapons pack, but I don't know if the RAF bought them.

 

[pathology_doc]

Apparently the nose guns in the early Lightnings caused problems with gun gas injections into the engines, which helped justify their deletion for the all-missile F.3.

It would explain why the retrofit for the F.6 put them in the front of the belly tank. IIRC one of them ran tests with the BK 2.7 gun later fitted to the Tornado, in place of one of the Adens.

 

[Rule of cool]

It would explain why the retrofit for the F.6 put them in the front of the belly tank.

That came at the expense of fuel capacity, which was marginal in the Lightning at the best of times. In a FGA version the doppler radar would be in the belly at the expense of fuel, putting the guns there was well would be a double whammy. Perhaps an FGA version would carry the overwing tanks as standard, much like the FGA9/FR10 Hunters carried what were ferry tanks for other Hunters as standard.

Something has occurred to me, when did attack aircraft start carrying Sidewinders for self defence? The Thud defend itself from fighters with its gun, but the A7A of 1967 specifically had launch rails for Sidewinders. The reason I ask is because the Firestreak and Red Top aren't what I'd consider useful self defence missiles.

 

[pathology_doc]

The reason I ask is because the Firestreak and Red Top aren't what I'd consider useful self defence missiles.

No, but that's because they were designed for the same purpose as the Sparrow and Falcon. Sidewinder was unique in the way its design was driven by maximum simplicity, which in turn made it an excellent missile to be able to scab onto literally ANYTHING that could carry a rail for it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Something has occurred to me, when did attack aircraft start carrying Sidewinders for self defence? The Thud defend itself from fighters with its gun, but the A7A of 1967 specifically had launch rails for Sidewinders. The reason I ask is because the Firestreak and Red Top aren't what I'd consider useful self defence missiles.

• Looks to be from the F-105 in the late 1950s. It could carry Sidewinders on the outer wing pylons, which would only cost you 2x 750-1000lb bombs and improve loaded roll rate. Wiki has a 1964 picture of an F-105F showing Sidewinders as an armament option.
• F-111 got Sidewinder pylons on the outboard side of all 4 swiveling wing pylons, but that wasn't until the mid-late 1960s.
• A-7s entered service in 1967.
• Phantom fighter-bombers from 1960.

But there's even pictures of A-1 Skyraiders carrying Sidewinders.