Replacing the Hunter

[Scott Kenny]

According to Nigel Walpole in 'Best of Breed', it was rejected from on high as the Hunter only had a few years left and Sidewinder was 'obsolescent'...

Wonder what that genius would say if they knew that the Sidewinder was still flying in the USAF in the 2020s...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Canberra? Lots of nations operated them... many of which were bought off the assembly line. Exported to more than 15 countries: Australia, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Rhodesia, South Africa, Sweden, Venezuela, and West Germany.
Australia built its own - and the US built a modified version.

Correct.

For what it's worth (1). 258 Canberras were exported. That is 143 new Canberras (worth £47 million & 15% of the 925 Canberras built) and 115 Canberras second hand. Plus 451 were built under licence. That is 48 in Australia by the Government Aircraft Factory and 403 were built in the USA by Martin. My source for that is the Putnams book on English Electric aircraft.

Lightning? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait bought them.

For what it's worth (2). More than a few Meteors, Vampires & Venoms were exported too.

 

[Rule of cool]

It may be cheating, but given the FGA9/FR10 Hunter fleet was acquired under the flawed premise that manned combat aircraft were obsolescent I'd have the majority of the Hunter fleet displaced from the start by the multi-role variants of the F1/F1A/F2 Lightning proposed by BAC in the very early days of the Lightning programme. Hunter F6 to FGA/FR conversions would be limited to the units stationed at rough airfields in the Middle East etc, which would have the added benefit of quickly replacing the obsolete Vampire fighter bombers and Meteor fighter-recce (and others in the event) fleets in the short term.

The Hunters that do get converted I'd replace with P1127 Harrier. IIUC the Ministry of Supply requested a quote from Hawker Siddley in 1961 or 62 for 100 P1127 at the then current level of development. I'd go ahead from this quote to replace the rough field Hunter fleet by about 1967.

Regards.

 

[uk 75]

The Lightning option is interesting.
I suspect that the need to get the fighter version into service and upgraded to F3, F2A and F6 made the RAF (and HM Treasury) happy to leave the much less important army co-operation/close air support role to Hunters freed up by introducing the Lightning.
The waters are further muddied by P1154 (the closest UK came to building its own F4 Phantom). This plane was planned to do both close air support and be a fighter against East of Suez enemies.
When the RAF got its own Phantoms they went to 38 Group amongst others to replace Hunters.
The UK Hunter replacement then became the Jaguar which to the annoyance of France the RAF turned into a better aircraft than P1154 and which served it well for over 30 years.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It may be cheating, but given the FGA9/FR10 Hunter fleet was acquired under the flawed premise that manned combat aircraft were obsolescent I'd have the majority of the Hunter fleet displaced from the start by the multi-role variants of the F1/F1A/F2 Lightning proposed by BAC in the very early days of the Lightning programme. Hunter F6 to FGA/FR conversions would be limited to the units stationed at rough airfields in the Middle East etc, which would have the added benefit of quickly replacing the obsolete Vampire fighter bombers and Meteor fighter-recce (and others in the event) fleets in the short term.

I don't know that EE Lightnings would have made anything resembling a good multirole aircraft. Short ranged and very tightly designed around the high altitude interceptor role...

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't know that EE Lightnings would have made anything resembling a good multirole aircraft. Short ranged and very tightly designed around the high altitude interceptor role...

It depends on what one wants from them.
Eg. the versions sold to Kuwait and S. Arabia were toting bombs or rocket pods, and were outfitted with extra fuel tanks.

 

[uk 75]

The Kuwait and Saudi Arabian choice of Lightnings was dictated by politics rather than the aircraft itself.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Lightning option is interesting.
I suspect that the need to get the fighter version into service and upgraded to F3, F2A and F6 made the RAF (and HM Treasury) happy to leave the much less important army co-operation/close air support role to Hunters freed up by introducing the Lightning.
The waters are further muddied by P1154 (the closest UK came to building its own F4 Phantom). This plane was planned to do both close air support and be a fighter against East of Suez enemies.
When the RAF got its own Phantoms they went to 38 Group amongst others to replace Hunters.
The UK Hunter replacement then became the Jaguar which to the annoyance of France the RAF turned into a better aircraft than P1154 and which served it well for over 30 years.

No fighter Lightning’s were ordered for 3 years after the 50 F1/F1As were ordered in November 1956, this time was spent arguing over the size of fighter command. The Venom Replacement Evaluation Trials (VRET) were conducted in August 1958 and the Hunter FGA9 was ordered shortly after. Sandys left the MoD in October 1959 and the ‘manned combat aircraft are obsolescent’ dogma was dropped soon thereafter.

The crux of the 'Lightning instead of many/most Hunter' idea is Sandys does not declare manned combat aircraft are obsolescent in the 1957 DWP. In that case the 1958 VRET aim isn’t to provide a cheap plane to serve in low threat areas for 10 years until missiles take over, but rather provide a comprehensive fighter-bomber capability for 20+ years.

What I don’t know is if the multiple proposals to fit the F1/F1A/F2 with the big belly tank with ordnance pylons and ground attack avionics that were floated in the early 60s existed as early as 1958. Additionally I don’t know how early the wing pylons used in Saudi and Kuwaiti Lightning could have been available, and if these wings were retrofitted to F2As. Further I don’t know about the economics; if the undoubtedly much higher initial cost of a fighter-bomber Lightning can be weighed favourably against its much longer service life and the massive capability increase, particularly from 1965 onwards when the Hunter just won’t cut it against almost any realistic opposition and Lightning were deployed outside the UK anyway.

One thing is certain it would avoid the nightmarish Hunter replacement scenario that the RAF faced from 1960.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't know that EE Lightnings would have made anything resembling a good multirole aircraft. Short ranged and very tightly designed around the high altitude interceptor role...

The short range only applies to the small belly tank, unkinked wing models; the F3/F6 and F2A from 1965 onwards all had reasonable if not great range. In any case the RAF was one of the handful of air-forces that had tankers in the early 60s.

As for its multi-role credentials, the Saudi F52s were armed with 2 x 1000lb bombs and the retractable 44 round rocket pack making it no worse than its late 50s Mach 2 contemporaries the F104C, Draken, Mirage IIIC, MiG21 and Su7. Indeed the Saudis and Kuwaitis rejected the stronger wing pylons that could carry 2 x 1000lbs each.

I’m not going to tell you that the Lighting is an all-singing, all-dancing, multi-role superstar. Rather it was a great performer with considerable unrealised development potential that if properly supported by good Government policy could have given the RAF a hefty force of Mach 2 ‘tactical fighters’ without the Hunter/P1154/Phantom/Jaguar/AFVG debacle.

 

[red admiral]

The crux of the 'Lightning instead of many/most Hunter' idea is Sandys does not declare manned combat aircraft are obsolescent in the 1957 DWP.

This is often misquoted. Really the main thrust of the DWP was that manned interceptors were obsolescent given that the threat was changing to ballistic missiles. So the likes of F.155T aren't effective. Most discussion was around nuclear war rather than limited conventional war. There was actually quite a push to continue some new manned general purpose fighter but no one in the RAF really ran with this* - quite a big philosophical shift to happen in a very short time.

If we just want to visually lay down bombs, rockets and guns, then Hunter is probably a better choice than Lightning regardless of the cost difference. Then Jaguar gives you better nav and aiming whilst still being cheap.

I don't really support that Lightning was a "good" muti-role fighter with lots of potential. I'm mostly struck that not even EE/BAC really pushed this line and seemed to drop developed Lightning versions really quickly. Highly restricted configuration layout, big, expensive, no better than Hunter for A2G.


* arguably then Hawkers had got it "right" with the P.1121 to give an F-105 esque fighter-bomber equivalent

 

[zen]

A better Lightning?
Maybe The Other Lightning....

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-other-lightning.16889/

 

[red admiral]

A better Lightning?
Maybe The Other Lightning....

It's a very different Lightning though. And probably one that wouldn't have been built as worse than other ER.103(ish) concepts.

I think it gets back to keeping P.1 as a purely research aircraft and then a new competition for a clean sheet supersonic fighter/interceptor aircraft pre F.155T. Not that there's any clear "winners" you can point to for this.

 

[uk 75]

I make no secret of hating the big UK 1950s interceptor designs and their equally clumsy looking missiles. They have not aged well compared with the Avro Arrow and the F108 Rapier which were also overtaken by the SAM systems and IRBM/ICBM/SLBM forces arriving in the late 1950s.
Lightning always looks like a test machine with two missiles bolted on as an afterthought.
Hunter and Hawk are like Canberra British classics. Simple beautiful looking aeroplanes that do a job and do it well. Meteor, Venom and Vampire suffer in comparison with the classic Sabre which the RAF has to buy to replace them.

 

[zen]

The only two that actually 'look good' be the P.1103 to P.1121 design and the Saro P.177. At least aesthetically...
Of the two, Hawkers had the knack of knocking out attractive designs and it might have been better suited to real world operations.
Camm and Vickers preferred the Vickers Small Radar Weapon, a scaled down Red Hebe that actually looks good on P.1103's wingtips.

Though it was highly likely Saro's F.177 in some form would end up replacing the Hunters.

Lightning could have been more.....Soviet shall we say.
And had it been so more could have been done with it.
It always seems as it was, a halfway house to something more useful.

 

[uk 75]

P1121 is achingly pretty. It looks like another Farnborough show pony especially if it flew in a nice colour scheme.
If it had been ready by the mid rather than late 50s its lack of a weapons system approach would not have mattered. But then would it have delivered much more punch per Pound Sterling than a Hunter?

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is often misquoted. Really the main thrust of the DWP was that manned interceptors were obsolescent given that the threat was changing to ballistic missiles. So the likes of F.155T aren't effective. Most discussion was around nuclear war rather than limited conventional war. There was actually quite a push to continue some new manned general purpose fighter but no one in the RAF really ran with this* - quite a big philosophical shift to happen in a very short time.

Which is unfortunate, chasing a long endurance BARCAP fighter in the 1950s would have been good.

Basically a UK F-14, a generation early.

* arguably then Hawkers had got it "right" with the P.1121 to give an F-105 esque fighter-bomber equivalent

I need more details...

 

[Rule of cool]

This is often misquoted. Really the main thrust of the DWP was that manned interceptors were obsolescent given that the threat was changing to ballistic missiles. So the likes of F.155T aren't effective. Most discussion was around nuclear war rather than limited conventional war. There was actually quite a push to continue some new manned general purpose fighter but no one in the RAF really ran with this* - quite a big philosophical shift to happen in a very short time.

If we just want to visually lay down bombs, rockets and guns, then Hunter is probably a better choice than Lightning regardless of the cost difference. Then Jaguar gives you better nav and aiming whilst still being cheap.

I don't really support that Lightning was a "good" muti-role fighter with lots of potential. I'm mostly struck that not even EE/BAC really pushed this line and seemed to drop developed Lightning versions really quickly. Highly restricted configuration layout, big, expensive, no better than Hunter for A2G.


* arguably then Hawkers had got it "right" with the P.1121 to give an F-105 esque fighter-bomber equivalent

F.155T gets all the attention, but really it’s just the first interceptor development programme to fall, before Canada’s Arrow and the US F108. If any part of Sandys’ brief is overlooked it’s the requirement to save 100 million pounds; ’56 defence spending was 1.8 billion, ’57 was 1.72, ’58 was 1.71, ’59 was 1.72, ’60 was 1.76 and it wasn’t until ’61 after Sandys left the MoD that spending surpassed the ’56 figure reaching 1.86 and ’62 was 2.07. Also the US MDAP funding which paid for the RAF Sabres and a good portion of the Javelins and Valiants ended in 1956, which leaves Britain with a single Mach 2 aircraft available to it without spending a fortune of its own taxpayers money on developing a new aircraft like the P1121 or P1154.

I’ll reiterate that the Lightning is not a ‘good’ multirole but no 2nd Gen fighter was, USAF F104C in Vietnam carried a mere 2 x 750lb bombs and the Australian Army wasn’t impressed with the ground attack capability of the RAAF Mirages. However in April ‘57 the Lightning was already paid for, in production and immune from cancellation, which in late 50s and 60s Britain was worth much more than gold. The Lightning could be developed further, with the big belly tank and the ability to carry more air to ground ordnance including guided weapons that the Hunter never could, not to mention the Lightning would be far superior than the Gnat and Hunter in the air to air component of the task. In my humble opinion this would lead to a better RAF than Real Life, far simpler and cheaper in the long run than getting the Hunter then replacing it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I need more details...

Oh, my, the P.1121 was a pretty design. I see the Hunter wing in it.

 

[red admiral]

Which is unfortunate, chasing a long endurance BARCAP fighter in the 1950s would have been good.

Basically a UK F-14, a generation early.

It's definitely not that. In my mind the likes of P.1121 or some other "general purpose" design of the timeframe is much more like F-105; but with AAMs more suited to bomber intercepts (but near useless vs fighters?)

In my humble opinion this would lead to a better RAF than Real Life, far simpler and cheaper in the long run than getting the Hunter then replacing it.

I doubt it'd be cheaper. MAP was also paying for those Hunters. The operation and support costs for Lightning are very high as well. The UK's also likely to spend money on some follow on new aircraft development programme for industrial reasons, so the money gets spent either way.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's definitely not that. In my mind the likes of P.1121 or some other "general purpose" design of the timeframe is much more like F-105; but with AAMs more suited to bomber intercepts (but near useless vs fighters?)

F-105 with Sparrows (equivalent) would likely still be a good MiG25/31 type interceptor. Good range (1200km combat radius, 3500km ferry range), okay weapons. Give it a radar comparable to that in the early F4s and you'd have one hell of a plane.

 

[Rule of cool]

I doubt it'd be cheaper. MAP was also paying for those Hunters. The operation and support costs for Lightning are very high as well. The UK's also likely to spend money on some follow on new aircraft development programme for industrial reasons, so the money gets spent either way.

I was under the impression that MAP, in the sense of buying fleets of aircraft for other countries, ended in 1956 although the US did partly fund things like the Pegasus engine development.

The Hunter conversions, cancelled P1154, 118 non-standard Phantoms, Jaguar and associated need to develop the Hawk is a very expensive way to provide ~6-7 conventional ground attack/fighter recce squadrons*. I can't help but think that ground attack Lightngings from the 60s to the 80s and the Lightning replacement from the 80s onward would be cheaper than this route.

* some Hunters would still be required for the rough field requirement and these would be replaced by P1127 by about 1967.

 

[zen]

Definitely in purchase costs and expansion of extent support, Lightning was the affordable choice....until you dig into actual support like maintenance and realise what a task they were.

In this the F.177 seems on the face of it to be easier to maintain. Especially if you do away with the rocket and rocket fuel (oxidiser really).
Engine removal is down vertically, via nice big doors.
Avionics bay is a good size and the access hatch is decent.

Not so keen on P1121 from the maintenance viewpoint. Looks like you slide the engine out the rear and avionics, like a lot of what you want to get at, is up high.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not so keen on P1121 from the maintenance viewpoint. Looks like you slide the engine out the rear and avionics, like a lot of what you want to get at, is up high.

That wasn't a significant issue on the F-105s. And given that the US seems to have standardized on "pull the engine out the back directly onto the work stand" I think that may actually be an advantage.

 

[red admiral]

The Hunter conversions, cancelled P1154, 118 non-standard Phantoms, Jaguar and associated need to develop the Hawk is a very expensive way to provide ~6-7 conventional ground attack/fighter recce squadrons*. I can't help but think that ground attack Lightngings from the 60s to the 80s and the Lightning replacement from the 80s onward would be cheaper than this route.

I see what you mean now.

What is UK industry doing in this scenario? It seems to me like it dies off in the early 60s and then the UK buys F-16 or F-18s in the early 80s?

I think it's more likely that the government carries on spending money on Industry anyway so we get the likes of Jaguar and Hawk anyway?

 

[uk 75]

Phantom and Jaguar save the RAF in the 1960s from the failed UK programmes. I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. Some consolation is that Buccaneer came good in the S2 version and is a mainstay of the RAF.
P1127RAF is an underpowered toy until the US sorts it out.
Hawk on the other hand is a brilliant aircraft and shows what we are good at.

 

[uk 75]

Lightning like the Bloodhound missile is kept in service because the UK cannot afford to replace them.

 

[kaiserd]

The Lightening would have been a real dog of a low altitude strike or close support aircraft, very unsuited to the role - poor payload to range performance etc. as it had to feed those 2 Avons in the thick air, expensive and time consuming (pity those poor theoretical maintainers) for relatively limited capabilities, likely relatively high casualty rates (in peace time) if continually operating in the low altitude attack role.

Little better capability than a Hunter but far more expensive, significantly inferior than a Jaguar but considerably more expensive.
Comparable to a F-104G in capabilities but much more expensive to buy and operate.
Very inferior to the F-4 in the strike role and the air to air role if/ when switched back, and likely just as or more expensive.
Potentially a British Su-7 (and very much not in a good way).

 

[JFC Fuller]

The Lightening would have been a real dog of a low altitude strike or close support aircraft, very unsuited to the role - poor payload to range performance etc. as it had to feed those 2 Avons in the thick air, expensive and time consuming (pity those poor theoretical maintainers) for relatively limited capabilities, likely relatively high casualty rates (in peace time) if continually operating in the low altitude attack role.

Little better capability than a Hunter but far more expensive, significantly inferior than a Jaguar but considerably more expensive.
Comparable to a F-104G in capabilities but much more expensive to buy and operate.
Very inferior to the F-4 in the strike role and the air to air role if/ when switched back, and likely just as or more expensive.
Potentially a British Su-7 (and very much not in a good way).

Do you hany statistics to yout support cost, attrition rate, and range/payload performance assertions?

I happen to have sympathy with the idea that the Lightning was ill-suited to a low-level ground attack role, but it's hard to see how it was much less suited than the Mirage III/V/50 or the F-104, which together constituted a large part of the non-communist and non-US world's strike capability in the 1960s and 1970s.

That said, EE/BAC came up with a range of proposals for providing an attack capability in the Lightning, such as the proposal to Australia that included an extended ventral pack providing a weapons bay able to carry 1,000lb bombs, or a recce pack, and a doppler navigator. IOTL the AI.23 was given A2G modes and the Saudi's actually used the type in that role. RAF Lightnings performed low-level intercept missions in both Germany and the UK. The radar was effectively useless at low-level interception but it should have been possible to provide terrain clearance functionality - this was proposed to the Australians.

As for cost, it was a supersonic, single seat, twin engined aircraft, rather like the Jaguar. The airframe, engine and flight systems development cost was sunk, so development would be limited to nav-attack systems (mostly developed anyway) and production could have used the existing line. All rather hard to align with "considerably more expensive" than the Jaguar. And I say that as someone who thinks the Jaguar was an interesting aircraft even though its full potential was never fulfilled.

One potential alternative history could be: In 1953 the Air Ministry chose to proceed with the EE P.6/2 (approximately 20% more internal fuel than the IRL Lightning) as a day interceptor over the P.1. In 1959/60, when it became apparent that a replacement for the Hunter FGR.9/FR.10 was required as a simpler and shorter ranged complement to TSR-2, an attack variant of the P.6/2 including an appropriately scaled version of the ventral pack proposed to Australia, was put into production.

 

[zen]

If memory serves it was costed at approximately £0.5 million for more Lightnings......

 

[_Del_]

I happen to have sympathy with the idea that the Lightning was ill-suited to a low-level ground attack role, but it's hard to see how it was much less suited than the Mirage III/V/50 or the F-104, which together constituted a large part of the non-communist and non-US world's strike capability in the 1960s and 1970s.

Well, the Lightning is going to have twice as many engines (plus afterburner) to maintain as the Starfighter or Mirages. Two of the same engines as in the Hunter. That massive increase in size and cost doesn't really translate to lugging substantially more armament-- it carries less. It weighs more empty than the gross weight of the Hunter, with less armament. Unsurprisingly burns more gas than the Hunter with half as many Avons, so doesn't take advantage of the increased tank age available.
It's faster than a Hunter. But it's also bigger and more complicated than the Mirage, Starfighter, or Hunter.
Even RSAF who had the "multi-role" F.53 and F.55 replaced them in the ground attack role within five years with F-5's.

It just seems like a terrible choice to replace the cheap Hunters which were mainly used for ground attack at this point. Jags for all the knocks beat the pants off the Lightning with range and load, again with less than half the thrust.

 

[uk 75]

The aircraft that I have not mentioned is the neat little BAC P45 VG trainer/tactical fighter.
If money had been no object this would have entered service around 1970 replacing the Gnat trainer and joining the P1154 in the close air support role. It would have been the basis for a VG replacement for TSR2 in the mid 70s.
BAC are to be congratulated for taking the Breguet trainer design they are forced to work with in 1966 and turning it into a better tactical aircraft than either P1154 or P45. Removing VSTOL and VG produces a cheaper more realistic aircraft which could have been even better.
If the RAF had stayed East of Suez after 1971 the rugged little Hawk might have been a handy close support aircraft alongside the BAC Strikemaster.

 

[Archibald]

P.1083 supersonic Hunter. Supermarine 545, supersonic Swift. Fairey ER.103C. English Electric P.8 (Lightning reworked the right way).

 

[red admiral]

As for cost, it was a supersonic, single seat, twin engined aircraft, rather like the Jaguar. The airframe, engine and flight systems development cost was sunk, so development would be limited to nav-attack systems (mostly developed anyway) and production could have used the existing line. All rather hard to align with "considerably more expensive" than the Jaguar. And I say that as someone who thinks the Jaguar was an interesting aircraft even though its full potential was never fulfilled.

I think there's a mixture of peopke talking about acquisition costs (Lightning already exists) and some about operation and support costs (consumables, maintenance, people etc.)

From the figures I've seen, then Jaguar in particular had really low O&S costs (e.g. multiple times lower than Buccaneer), and also had pretty good serviceability (how many aircraft are down for maintenance)

And it's got much better nav, sensors and weapon carriage than Lightning to make it more effective in the A2S role.

 

[zen]

On Lightning.
Costs were a known factor by the early 60’s. RAF had however unrealistic expectations a twin engined supersonic fighter with AI radar and AAMs would be as easy to maintain as a Hunter.
So while they had a steep learning curve on Lightning, they'd pretty much have that with anything so capable. Regardless of the design.

What is certain is they had hard figures and wanted brochure figures.....

On P.45
Just opt for the fixed wing.
Arguably this and P.141 and P.146 and HS.1179X all hit the optimum solution. For MRI multirole platform to succeed the Hunter.....which succeeded Venom/Vampire.
And for which we can assume F.177 would fulfill prior to '57 in planning.

NMBR.3 and P.1154 Harrier were intended after '57 Rightly or wrongly.
In which we can see the full avionics fit.

Jaguar is very much a back door solution.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Well, the Lightning is going to have twice as many engines (plus afterburner) to maintain as the Starfighter or Mirages. Two of the same engines as in the Hunter. That massive increase in size and cost doesn't really translate to lugging substantially more armament-- it carries less. It weighs more empty than the gross weight of the Hunter, with less armament. Unsurprisingly burns more gas than the Hunter with half as many Avons, so doesn't take advantage of the increased tank age available.
It's faster than a Hunter. But it's also bigger and more complicated than the Mirage, Starfighter, or Hunter.
Even RSAF who had the "multi-role" F.53 and F.55 replaced them in the ground attack role within five years with F-5's.

It just seems like a terrible choice to replace the cheap Hunters which were mainly used for ground attack at this point. Jags for all the knocks beat the pants off the Lightning with range and load, again with less than half the thrust.

The Jaguar and the F-5 have twice as many engines as a Starfighter or Mirage. How is a Lightning "more complicated" than a Mirage or Starfighter? It may have one more engine but that engine is no more complex in its own right.

Less armament? The multirole pack proposed, developed from 1959 onwards, allowed for carriage of 3 x 1,000lb bombs without using the over-wing or outer-wing pylons. There were porposals for Bullpup and large batteries of 2" rockets (I have seen one configuration proposed with 122 but higher should have been possible). The Hunter FGA.9 seems to have spent its time with either 2 x 1,000lb bombs or a clutch of rockets. Saudi Lightnings were doing ground attack training runs right up to the ends of their careers.

@red admiral , 1959-65 proposals for the Lightning include terrain clearance functionality in AI.23, and a doppler navigator for altitude control. AI.23 would provide ranging and sighting information to feed into the pilots sight for weapons delivery. The INAS/NAVWASS configurations are a bit later but between the space available in the front of the proposed multi-role central pack and the standard Lightning weapons pack under the nose there was plenty of space that could have accommodated additional equipment like the LRMTS.

As I said previously, I don't think its a particularly good idea but nobody has presented any evidence as to why a strike Lightning would be any worse than a contemporaneous F-104 of Mirage III/V in the same role.

 

[zen]

Lightning by the early 60’s is a known quality in service, with support, training and supply chains all in place.
All a MRI Lightning does is expand on a pre-existing setup for the Fighter Only version.

AIRPASS AI.23 is the basis of Blue Parrot, TFR, and the Set for P.1154RAF. So quite adequate for low level terrain avoidance.

Hell there's even the option of changing to the RB.153 instead of Avon. Actually proposed.

 

[red admiral]

As I said previously, I don't think its a particularly good idea but nobody has presented any evidence as to why a strike Lightning would be any worse than a contemporaneous F-104 of Mirage III/V in the same role.

I don't think it is much different. It's more that they're all a bit pants. I'd argue a Hunter would be "better" given the better handling at lower speeds and reduced pilot workload for when you're visually laying down weapons and avoiding terrain and threats.

I think it sort of comes to whether the use is for limited numbers vs limited threat as historically, or whether it's over Germany in WW3 when you probably care about air to air a bit more - but this is way before flexible response so everyone got nuked way before that point ...

 

[uk 75]

The RAF had its work cut out getting the updated Lightnings with Red Top into service. Hunters were adequate for close air support where there was little or no opposition.
38 Group with its three squadrons in support of the UK Mobile Force is a possible Lightning user if Phantoms are not bought though P1127RAF is more likely.

 

[zen]

I think there's a mixture of peopke talking about acquisition costs (Lightning already exists) and some about operation and support costs (consumables, maintenance, people etc.)

From the figures I've seen, then Jaguar in particular had really low O&S costs (e.g. multiple times lower than Buccaneer), and also had pretty good serviceability (how many aircraft are down for maintenance)

And it's got much better nav, sensors and weapon carriage than Lightning to make it more effective in the A2S role.

Keep in mind Jaguar doesn't exist at the time of decision, and it's operational costs and availability, even as brochures, wasn't available. That's all AFVG and after.
Not in the days of "what do we succeed Hunter with", which led to "whatever wins NMBR.3" to become "if we fund P.1154 other NATO members will buy".....

 

[uk 75]

P1154 made a lot of sense on paper. Had it, TSR2 and the AW681 transport been able to work as promised, the RAF by 1975 would have been a lot smaller but a much more mobile. These stories are all discussed at length on this site.
It is unfortunate that Phantom and Hercules were available on such good terms or fortunate if you were the RAF and NATO.
Jaguar is even better value. Not only does it do the same job as P1154 without the drama but it serves as a Canberra replacement allowing Phantoms to become interceptors.
Tornado would not have been possible without Jaguar both in helping BAC develop its skills and filling the gap in the RAF.