Replacing the Hunter

[zen]

My guess is the vague references for the Lightning as costing '4/5 of a Phantom' and 'almost as much' as a Phantom refer to production aircraft unit prices. I'd love to see if anyone knows the real flyaway costs for Lightnings.

My understanding was Lightning was fairly cheap.

But then the F4 was originally priced for the UK at 1.2 million, not the 3 million it finally cost.
So to those engaged in weighing the estimated costs and performance. At that point Lightning would seem expensive for what you get compared to the Lightning.

But to someone looking ar this in 1969, they might think that the Lightning should have been chosen instead.

 

[Rule of cool]

'One off' should be the price without the effects of mass production, that is known to keep the cost per A/C down. A.k.a. economies of the scale.
Ditto wrt. the wish to know the price of Lightning.



A much smaller spread than I was counting on - effects of US making the F-4s in much greater numbers than the F-104s (by some 7-8 times as much). F4 was actually a bargain vs. the F-104, if we take into consideration of what one was getting with the F-4.
We could also use the flyaway prices of the European-made F-104s, as well as of Mirage IIIs.



Okay. For sake of discussion, let's put the price of Lighting at $1.65M. What should one buy - these, or the F-4s?
If the Lighting was offering anything above the F-104, it surely had that well camouflaged; cost of maintenance and fueling will be much higher on the Lightning.

In 1966-67 McD was building an average of 66 Phantoms a month, peaking at 72 aircraft for one month in 1967, no wonder it was so cheap.

Firstly, the Lightning with air to ground capability was offered to Australia in 1960 whereas the Phantom was first sold to Britain in 1965, Iran in 1967 and Israel in 1968. If a country is in the market for a mach 2 fighter bomber from 1967 onwards then it should buy the Phantom. Prior to that the choice is not so clear cut; the Lightning had a bigish, longish range radar and heavy AAMs, fully developed it would have a bigger bombload than the F104 and Mirage III as well as amazing climb performance even with the big belly fuel tank.

It would also likely come with less political strings attached. The French were unhappy with Australia being in Vietnam which was a concern for Mirage III support and the US pulled Jordanian F104s to Turkey in the days before the 1967 war with Israel. The deal could be made in Sterling, so a country didn't have to draw down it's USD reserves.

I don't know where the pictures come from, they've been on my laptop for years.

 

[Rule of cool]

My understanding was Lightning was fairly cheap.

But then the F4 was originally priced for the UK at 1.2 million, not the 3 million it finally cost.
So to those engaged in weighing the estimated costs and performance. At that point Lightning would seem expensive for what you get compared to the Lightning.

But to someone looking ar this in 1969, they might think that the Lightning should have been chosen instead.

In November 1967 the Pound went from $2.80 USD to $2.40 USD, a 14% jump in price on exchange rate alone.

 

[red admiral]

My understanding was Lightning was fairly cheap.

To my understanding the UK only started to do whole lift costs a few decades later with Tornado, so it's really difficult to get proper insight into this earlier period. e.g. sometimes development costs are written, sometimes with some production as well; generally unclear whether cost Vs price; some spot point comparisons of operating and support costs.

Lightning may look cheap if it's simply building some more airframes Vs a new development programme; but then in the round the MoS/A will still be spending development monies anyway to keep firms and teams in business...

 

[Rule of cool]

Seems like Aussies were buying 'over 100' of Mirage IIIs for AU$ 193.7 million of the mid-1960s money, that multiplied by .893 = ~173 million US$. Makes around 1.7 mil US$ per a Mirage. Initial 30 Mirages was to cost 18 mil AU pounds in 1960 money - 36 mil AU$ - or, 1.2 mil AU$ (~1.1 mil USD) per A/C , but that price point was long gone by mid-1960s.
With double the number of engines on a heavier A/C, and with less numbers being made by mid-1960s, we can only expect that Lighting was nowhere close to these figures. Even if it the cost was 20% greater than that of Mirage, it is still more than 2 mil US$ by mid-1960s.

What was included in that figure?

I know that the Foreign Military Sales Case to buy the Super Hornet was ~$3 billion, yet within that was a line item for 24 aircraft each with a sticker price that equated to about half the total Case value. The rest was for 3 years spares, engineering, training, publications, weapons. The US is particularly insistent in this regard, which is why we love them, but deals can include and exclude all sorts of things.

Another question. If your neighbour buys the Phantom in 1967 and your (Western leaning) country isn't allowed to what do you buy? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both opted for the Lightning rather than the Mirage III.

 

[kaiserd]

The Hunter was fine for good weather, daytime fighter-bomber roles in low threat areas however the window for this particular type of threat environment was closing faster than the Hunters (or Gnat, the runner up in the trials) life of type. In contrast if the Lightning was developed and adopted for the fighter-bomber role to enter service instead of much/most of the Hunters it will be inherently better able to deal with the Mig21, Su7 and SAMs that proliferated around the world in the 60s.

The bullet to dodge isn't one of bomb throw weight, but block obsolescence of the Canberra/Victor and Hunter fleets as well as the strategic risk of having a fleet of inferior aircraft.

But how was the Lightening supposed to carry its air to air missiles, guns, sufficient ground attack weapons and sufficient fuel around at the same time? And if by some miracle it has some combination of these at the go at one time what do you think the impact on its performance will be? And if it needs to do anything of the kind at low altitude what do you think it’s range will be?

And why do you think it will be any better at deal with SAMs than the Hunters where.l? In the early 60’s neither would have had effective ECM versus SA-2s, there only defence against them would have been operating at low altitude and pilot training combined with agility. The Hunter would have probably been more survivable than the Lightening in that scenario.

The reality is that even in the purely fighter role the Lightening wasn’t an especially good pick to go up against tactical fighters like MIG-21s and Su-7s. It lacked endurance, only had 2 missiles, its gun armament was problematic or literally didn’t exist until the later F6 model, and while pleasant to fly it wasn’t really that agile/ manoeuvrable either. And the real world Lightenings were available for and deployed overseas in their fighter role. Start hanging the additional required bombs and fuel off it and you also start losing the Lightenings actual plus points re: acceleration and speed.

The Hunter was largely sufficient in its ground attack role in most scenarios while serving in that role. And if you are actually worried about performance versus MIG-19s, MIG-21s and Su-7s then the obviously better ways to go would be an earlier Phantom buy, or to deploy more of the actual Lightning fleet as escorts for Hunters, not buying hopelessly compromised ground attack Lightnings that are bad in the ground attack role and impaired in the fighter role if trying to do the same roles at once.

 

[red admiral]

In contrast if the Lightning was developed and adopted for the fighter-bomber role to enter service instead of much/most of the Hunters it will be inherently better able to deal with the Mig21, Su7 and SAMs that proliferated around the world in the 60s.

I'm still of the view that it wouldn't have made much difference; all the fighters have similar vulnerability to SAMs, and it's hardly as if supersonic fighters slaughtered the subsonic ones (e.g MiG-21s Vs A-4s? Mirages Vs Harriers?). I'm not arguing that Hunter is better than Lightning for A2A combat, but rather that this difference might have made little difference to effectiveness given the much higher cost.

 

[zen]

To my understanding the UK only started to do whole lift costs a few decades later with Tornado, so it's really difficult to get proper insight into this earlier period. e.g. sometimes development costs are written, sometimes with some production as well; generally unclear whether cost Vs price; some spot point comparisons of operating and support costs.

Lightning may look cheap if it's simply building some more airframes Vs a new development programme; but then in the round the MoS/A will still be spending development monies anyway to keep firms and teams in business...

Irrelevant if we be discussing adding to existing production in the early 60’s

Relevant if we be discussing whether Lightning should be produced at all from the late 50's.

 

[tomo pauk]

But then the F4 was originally priced for the UK at 1.2 million, not the 3 million it finally cost.
So to those engaged in weighing the estimated costs and performance. At that point Lightning would seem expensive for what you get compared to the Lightning.

Last sentence quoted is a bit ... awkward.

In 1966-67 McD was building an average of 66 Phantoms a month, peaking at 72 aircraft for one month in 1967, no wonder it was so cheap.

That was my point.

But to someone looking ar this in 1969, they might think that the Lightning should have been chosen instead.

Do we have a math to support that notion?

Firstly, the Lightning with air to ground capability was offered to Australia in 1960 whereas the Phantom was first sold to Britain in 1965, Iran in 1967 and Israel in 1968. If a country is in the market for a mach 2 fighter bomber from 1967 onwards then it should buy the Phantom. Prior to that the choice is not so clear cut; the Lightning had a bigish, longish range radar and heavy AAMs, fully developed it would have a bigger bombload than the F104 and Mirage III as well as amazing climb performance even with the big belly fuel tank.

Being a 2-engined aircraft, it had to offer a lot over the Mirages and F-104. Unfortunately, the actual advantages offered were not great in the eyes of the people in other countries making the procurement decisions.

What was included in that figure?

I know that the Foreign Military Sales Case to buy the Super Hornet was ~$3 billion, yet within that was a line item for 24 aircraft each with a sticker price that equated to about half the total Case value. The rest was for 3 years spares, engineering, training, publications, weapons. The US is particularly insistent in this regard, which is why we love them, but deals can include and exclude all sorts of things.

Aussies negotiated that a good deal of spare parts are to be made locally.
Weapons in the 1960s were mostly dumb bombs and rockets, with AA missiles being the only 'smart' weapon in the AUS arsenal.

Another question. If your neighbour buys the Phantom in 1967 and your (Western leaning) country isn't allowed to what do you buy? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both opted for the Lightning rather than the Mirage III.

Buy Mirage, or perhaps Draken. If money is really tight, buy F-5.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were flush with money, most of the other countries were not.

 

[Rule of cool]

But how was the Lightening supposed to carry its air to air missiles, guns, sufficient ground attack weapons and sufficient fuel around at the same time? And if by some miracle it has some combination of these at the go at one time what do you think the impact on its performance will be? And if it needs to do anything of the kind at low altitude what do you think it’s range will be?

And why do you think it will be any better at deal with SAMs than the Hunters where.l? In the early 60’s neither would have had effective ECM versus SA-2s, there only defence against them would have been operating at low altitude and pilot training combined with agility. The Hunter would have probably been more survivable than the Lightening in that scenario.

The reality is that even in the purely fighter role the Lightening wasn’t an especially good pick to go up against tactical fighters like MIG-21s and Su-7s. It lacked endurance, only had 2 missiles, its gun armament was problematic or literally didn’t exist until the later F6 model, and while pleasant to fly it wasn’t really that agile/ manoeuvrable either. And the real world Lightenings were available for and deployed overseas in their fighter role. Start hanging the additional required bombs and fuel off it and you also start losing the Lightenings actual plus points re: acceleration and speed.

The Hunter was largely sufficient in its ground attack role in most scenarios while serving in that role. And if you are actually worried about performance versus MIG-19s, MIG-21s and Su-7s then the obviously better ways to go would be an earlier Phantom buy, or to deploy more of the actual Lightning fleet as escorts for Hunters, not buying hopelessly compromised ground attack Lightnings that are bad in the ground attack role and impaired in the fighter role if trying to do the same roles at once.

What fighter entering service in 1959 carried both A2A AND A2G ordnance in a single sortie? Even the Phantom, which is the global outlier and considered a 3rd gen fighter, did this halfheartedly; ie a few flak suppression CBUs when carrying a full A2A loadout, or the Sparrows which didn't interfere with the bombload when conducting attack missions. A Lightning FGR may be bombed up in the morning then have the AAM pack installed in the afternoon.

SAMs fly a boost and glide profile, a Lightning will have the energy to continue evasive maneuvres long after a Hunter has run out of speed.

I still can't get past the casual acceptance of 'largely sufficient' when talking about war. A Hunter won't look so cheap when it gets chopped up by an enemy who has Mach 2 aircraft; 'the Hunters got shot down, the pilots killed, ground troops attacked and we lost the war. But look on the bright side, at least they were cheap.'

 

[Kiltonge]

Not much findable about Lightning unit costs:

AvWeek, 23 July 1962. Lightning offered to India at subsidised price of $750,000, "about half" of the unit cost. Remainder would have been paid by UK gov to BAC.

26 December 1966: purchase and operating costs of the Mirage III and Lightning, as proposed to Peru, were approximately the same.

 

[Rule of cool]

Being a 2-engined aircraft, it had to offer a lot over the Mirages and F-104. Unfortunately, the actual advantages offered were not great in the eyes of the people in other countries making the procurement decisions.

Given the huge political implications when buying a fleet of fighters the lack of support from the British government post 57 DWP worked more against the Lightning than the cost or performance.

Aussies negotiated that a good deal of spare parts are to be made locally.

Roll Royce Australia was building Avon engines in the 50s, they lobbied the Govt when the Atar 9C was selected for the RAAF Mirage.

Buy Mirage, or perhaps Draken. If money is really tight, buy F-5.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were flush with money, most of the other countries were not.

The Phantom would make mincemeat of all of those. It's false economy to buy something ineffective because it's cheap, its better to find that extra money to buy something with a more powerful radar and missiles and better performance.

 

[Rule of cool]

Not much findable about Lightning unit costs:

AvWeek, 23 July 1962. Lightning offered to India at subsidised price of $750,000, "about half" of the unit cost. Remainder would have been paid by UK gov to BAC.

That fits in more or less with the Lightning being about 4/5 the unit cost of the $1.9 million Phantom in 1965.

 

[Kiltonge]

That fits in more or less with the Lightning being about 4/5 the unit cost of the $1.9 million Phantom in 1965.

And in comparison, India chose the MiG-21 at $250,000 per unit. A loss on every airframe but Mikoyan made it up in volume!

 

[tomo pauk]

Given the huge political implications when buying a fleet of fighters the lack of support from the British government post 57 DWP worked more against the Lightning than the cost or performance.

Mostly agreed.
However, unless we talk about USA, Germany, Japan or the 'oil' states of 1960, the bang for the buck was still a major concern.

The Phantom would make mincemeat of all of those. It's false economy to buy something ineffective because it's cheap, its better to find that extra money to buy something with a more powerful radar and missiles and better performance.

Fighters were still depending on GCI to catch a bogey, especially if the country was big, talk Iran, Australia, Canada or Sweden. Having just two missiles onboard was not great, not even in 1960s. A non-all-weather missile system was also behind the curve.
Wrt. the Phantom in the 1960s, if I can deploy 150 Mirages vs. my enemy deploying 100 F-4s (asuming that budgets are roughly equal), I've just outnumbered him 3:2. Both aircraft are with high performance, long ranged, both can shoot IR-guided missiles well.
Sparrow will do well against a bomber in 1960s (so might the M530) flying through an overcast, but it will do less well against a well flown and aware fighter force.

If the Lightning can offer what F-4 was offering (bar the navalization), than yes, buy it by all means. Potential customers mostly reckoned that that was not the case, and were buying other fighters.

That fits in more or less with the Lightning being about 4/5 the unit cost of the $1.9 million Phantom in 1965.

Any source that can confirm that?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Hunter was fine for good weather, daytime fighter-bomber roles in low threat areas however the window for this particular type of threat environment was closing faster than the Hunters (or Gnat, the runner up in the trials) life of type. In contrast if the Lightning was developed and adopted for the fighter-bomber role to enter service instead of much/most of the Hunters it will be inherently better able to deal with the Mig21, Su7 and SAMs that proliferated around the world in the 60s.

The bullet to dodge isn't one of bomb throw weight, but block obsolescence of the Canberra/Victor and Hunter fleets as well as the strategic risk of having a fleet of inferior aircraft.

So hold onto the Hunter until the really competent attack planes like A-7E are available in the late 1960s. TFR, computerized bomb sights, 15klb bombload, 2x sidewinders for self defense, and 1000rds of 20x102mm for the Vulcan gun. That's the benchmark.

Do NOT try to keep the Hunter past 1970, which honestly means you need a decision no later than 1965 if you're developing a fighter from scratch.

 

[uk 75]

The trouble is that the RAF deludes itself into thinking it will get P1154 by 1968. 150 were expected to replace FGA Hunters.
Lightnings in the fighter role were not planned to be replaced until the 70s. BAC had enough to do inproving and building these.

 

[Rule of cool]

Mostly agreed.
However, unless we talk about USA, Germany, Japan or the 'oil' states of 1960, the bang for the buck was still a major concern.



Fighters were still depending on GCI to catch a bogey, especially if the country was big, talk Iran, Australia, Canada or Sweden. Having just two missiles onboard was not great, not even in 1960s. A non-all-weather missile system was also behind the curve.
Wrt. the Phantom in the 1960s, if I can deploy 150 Mirages vs. my enemy deploying 100 F-4s (asuming that budgets are roughly equal), I've just outnumbered him 3:2. Both aircraft are with high performance, long ranged, both can shoot IR-guided missiles well.
Sparrow will do well against a bomber in 1960s (so might the M530) flying through an overcast, but it will do less well against a well flown and aware fighter force.

If the Lightning can offer what F-4 was offering (bar the navalization), than yes, buy it by all means. Potential customers mostly reckoned that that was not the case, and were buying other fighters.



Any source that can confirm that?

Firstly, with regard to Lightning cost, I've never come across anything more definite that 4/5 Phantom cost. That said, a cost between the F104 and F4 doesn't seem outrageous to me, generally the bigger the aircraft the greater the cost and the Lightning was in between those 2 in size.

As for capability, its hard to know given the lack of A2A combat with the Lightning and Firestreak/Red Top compared to the Mirage III and Phantom. Funnily enough for all the push-back on the FGA/R Lightning concept gets the only combat the Lightning saw was in the ground attack and recce roles. However the Phantom radar has a range of ~100km so can launch volleys of Sparrows close to the 40km detection range of the Mirage's Cyrano II with the R.530 only able to reply at 20km making it effectively useless. In contrast the Lightning radar would detect the Phantoms at ~70km so at least would know they are approaching and fire Red Tops head on at 21km, without the need to stay on course to guide them like the Sparrow and R.530. Then in close combat even the big belly the Lightning has the best power to weight ratio of the three.

BTW the Mirage III is not 'long range', it has a flight endurance in the A2A configuration of about 90 minutes, compared to about 75 minutes for the F6 Lightning and ~120 minutes for the Phantom.

 

[Rule of cool]

So hold onto the Hunter until the really competent attack planes like A-7E are available in the late 1960s. TFR, computerized bomb sights, 15klb bombload, 2x sidewinders for self defense, and 1000rds of 20x102mm for the Vulcan gun. That's the benchmark.

Do NOT try to keep the Hunter past 1970, which honestly means you need a decision no later than 1965 if you're developing a fighter from scratch.

That assumes the Hunter was a CAS aircraft, when in fact it had a significant air to air role. In any case, if an efficient bomb truck in service by the late 60s is what's required the British already have a great beast in production; the Buccaneer S.2.

 

[zen]

In any case, if an efficient bomb truck in service by the late 60s is what's required the British already have a great beast in production; the Buccaneer S.2.

And later on South Africa proved what could be done with them.
It's chief lack was some 30mm cannon.

 

[tomo pauk]

Firstly, with regard to Lightning cost, I've never come across anything more definite that 4/5 Phantom cost. That said, a cost between the F104 and F4 doesn't seem outrageous to me, generally the bigger the aircraft the greater the cost and the Lightning was in between those 2 in size.

Please, double-check the weight and size figures. Wing area of the Lightning was 90% of the F-4's, and 2.5x greater than what F-104 had; wing area keeps the wing loading manageable, so the aircraft can maneuver as it is supposed to do and not overtax the pilot. Weight - 'empty' weight of the Lightning and F-4 was in the ballpark; F-104 max TO weight was lower than these empty weights.
F-104 have had one half of number of engines the F-104 had, and 100% the number of engines that F-4 had. F-4 had the advantage of being mass-produced.

tl;dr - unless the respective governments want to cover the losses at sale and in future, the Lighting is not going to be cheaper than the F-4 in either purchase cost or cost of ownership.

As for capability, its hard to know given the lack of A2A combat with the Lightning and Firestreak/Red Top compared to the Mirage III and Phantom. Funnily enough for all the push-back on the FGA/R Lightning concept gets the only combat the Lightning saw was in the ground attack and recce roles. However the Phantom radar has a range of ~100km so can launch volleys of Sparrows close to the 40km detection range of the Mirage's Cyrano II with the R.530 only able to reply at 20km making it effectively useless. In contrast the Lightning radar would detect the Phantoms at ~70km so at least would know they are approaching and fire Red Tops head on at 21km, without the need to stay on course to guide them like the Sparrow and R.530. Then in close combat even the big belly the Lightning has the best power to weight ratio of the three.

I don't agree with some assumptions laid there. Like - F-4 will not be able to launch voleys of Sparrows, since Sparrow was semi-active guided missile, so a F-4 will fire one after another; during the Vietnam war, it took 7-8 (-E) or up to 10 (earlier marks) to kill a single enemy aircraft (fighter, mostly).
(I don't have high hopes that R530 will fare any better; both missiles might do better against the bomber type of targets)

Expecting that Red Top can lock on a target head-on assumes:
- weather is excellent, there is no clouds
- enemy is flying supersonic all the time, so the aircraft skin is heated up enough for the seeker to lock on
- enemy does not fly at lower altitudes, so both radar and IR seeker have no problems with discriminating it against the ground

Basically: enemy is required to do just what we want, so we win - sorta what Japanese were counting on back in ww2.

For all of it's power/weight ratio, both the MiG-25 or MiG-23 for example were still a fair game for an AA missile. Expecting that Lightning will avoid a good AAM shot is expecting too much.

BTW the Mirage III is not 'long range', it has a flight endurance in the A2A configuration of about 90 minutes, compared to about 75 minutes for the F6 Lightning and ~120 minutes for the Phantom.

Care to share some sources for these figures?
FWIW (video), seems like that Israelis had no problem in making bombing runs at 600 mile distant Egyptian airfields, duke it out in air combat, and return home, while flying at low level during the 1st leg of the flight. Quite a long way.

 

[Hood]

The book English Electric Lightning - Genesis and Projects by Tony Wilson actually has quite a bit on the various ground attack improvements and studies offered by BAC to the RAF and export.
It looks like improved air-ground capability would have been included in the F.3 and F.6 but was never funded. There was certainly a lot of effort in this area.

 

[uk 75]

From what I have read the RAF would have been happy to replace its Canberras Hunters AND Lightnings with Phantoms. By 1966 it was thoroughly fed up with British industry.

 

[zen]

A case of Brochure blindness.
To paraphrase Roland Beaumont "the closer to American systems I get, the less impressive they reveal themselves to be"

Example in point, you can go Mach 2+ in the F4......once.
Then you replace the windscreen.

You can load up and return with 4 Sparrows.....but I'd check the connection slot and 'card'. Because these can crack and leave the card in the slot. Requiring much swearing and effort for maintainer to get it out without damaging the slot.

 

[tomo pauk]

From what I have read the RAF would have been happy to replace its Canberras Hunters AND Lightnings with Phantoms. By 1966 it was thoroughly fed up with British industry.

Talk about the institutional blindness. But then again, no institution ever blamed themselves for mistakes, so no surprise there.

It was the RAF/AM that insisted on TSR.2, just to kill it from behind (if we're to talk jokes, here is from Sir Sidney: "every aircraft has 4 dimensions, the 4th being politics; TSR.2 was lacking in it's 4th dimension"). RAF/AM approved the short-burn high-perf Lightning, only to discover that long range is good, that 2-engined fighters are expensive, and that 1-engined fighters keep the purchase cost down while making the industry in shape for future projects. RAF can point the finger on themselves that an expensive high-perf fighter in 1960s is not specified to carry ground attack ordnance.
British industry made the Harrier possible. British industry made the Buccaneer (whose greatest failing in the eyes of the RAF was that it was FAA's bird), Canberra, V bombers (3 separate designs introduced in service) and Hunter. British industry was instrumental in Jaguar seeing the light of the day.
It was not British industry that wrote the '57 defence white paper, either.

 

[tomo pauk]

Example in point, you can go Mach 2+ in the F4......once.
Then you replace the windscreen.

Any good source to confirm that?

 

[alertken]

RofC #197, KT#211: C.Gardner,BAC,Batsford,81,P104 has 1958 £750K price, Lightning F.1, but that might be for Warton's lumps alone.
MoS practice was to buy engines, radars...directly and issue them free to the airframer, who had no need to know their cost.. So, I hear you say: Q: how did UK price the Saudi/Kuwait package deals. A: With great difficulty.

TFP #171: (RAF's) nuclear role was almost entirely limited to Europe. Well, No, but again Yes. Complicated.
NEAF Canberra B.15/16, 28/11/61-24/2/69, Red Beard Mk.2, were assigned NATO/CENTO “retardation targets” “probably cities - in Ukraine /S.Russia ...CENTO targets in USSR/C.Asia. 12 from Akrotiri, 10 Muharraq, 4 Sharjah, 6 Masirah...recover to Sharjah, Peshawar,Mehrabad”. R.Moore, F-111K, RAF APR18/3,2015,P17.

FEAF: Red Beard Mk.2, 11/63-13/2/70 in 8x45 Sqn/Tengah Canberra B.15, reinforced by det. 8x32 Sqn/NEAFi, and by UK-det Vulcan B.2 (what weapon?), plus a CV in FE Fleet, Bucc. S.1 wef 21/8/63, S.2, wef 28/7/66 had "TNA AIR 2/17962 suggests 41 SEATO (UKAW targets)" R.Moore, above, Pp.16/46. A Vulcan nav/rad poster on pprune perceived his Exercise-target to be a trails-crossing in the jungle.

Ah, but...I hear you say, none of the above was in the 7/46 Light Bomber Spec that became Canberra. That was because a UK light Bomb, Red Beard, was funded into R&D only in 1952. Not until 2/3/55 did Mac,MoD, tell HoC: “power of interdiction upon invading columns by (AW) gives a new aspect (to) strategy (in ME/FE)” M.Navias,Nuc.Wpns &Br.Strat.Plng.Clarendon,1991,P40. The post-Korea "new aspect" was AW was cheap, in flesh and in cash...because we did not know what to do with Canberra B.6 after its use to bridge to Valiant. 87 B.6 would reach Sqns, HE-armed, but would only serve 6/54-2/57. Then 64 (plus Reserve) were modified to take ML Avn fitments for US Mk.7, secured 8/8/57, deployed 2/7/59-13/7/61 as NATO Tactical Bomber Force/Coningsby. Replaced by Valiant, 39 were converted 1961/62 as B.15, 19 as B.16, deployed to NEAF/FEAF for no capital cost.

Canberra was the Multi-Role Combat A/c: Interdictor/AW B.(I).6/8 held Q in RAFG to 6/6/72!

​

 

[uk 75]

The RAF and Air Ministry were undoubtedly to blame for TSR2, P1154 and AW681.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF would have mission creeped the MRCA into yet another Valiant replacement if the Germans had not been needed to pay for it.
UKVG with France might have carried ASMP
Typhoon with Storm Shadow and WE177 nuke head anyonr*3?

 

[zen]

Any good source to confirm that?

I do.wish I'd saved the chaps description. He goes or went by the name Wabpilot over on Warships1.

Essentially he talked of a thermal limit for the windscreen on the F4 which translates to about Mach 1.8. Most of his exercises in F4s were kept below that, as going above breached this thermal limit and the transparency started to degrade. Requiring replacement.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't agree with some assumptions laid there. Like - F-4 will not be able to launch voleys of Sparrows, since Sparrow was semi-active guided missile, so a F-4 will fire one after another; during the Vietnam war, it took 7-8 (-E) or up to 10 (earlier marks) to kill a single enemy aircraft (fighter, mostly).
(I don't have high hopes that R530 will fare any better; both missiles might do better against the bomber type of targets)

Expecting that Red Top can lock on a target head-on assumes:
- weather is excellent, there is no clouds
- enemy is flying supersonic all the time, so the aircraft skin is heated up enough for the seeker to lock on
- enemy does not fly at lower altitudes, so both radar and IR seeker have no problems with discriminating it against the ground

Basically: enemy is required to do just what we want, so we win - sorta what Japanese were counting on back in ww2.

For all of it's power/weight ratio, both the MiG-25 or MiG-23 for example were still a fair game for an AA missile. Expecting that Lightning will avoid a good AAM shot is expecting too much.

As I said, without A2A combat to compare with we can only go with the theory, which is what planners do, after all you can't rely on a missile to get its average because today might be the day the Sparrow does well and next week might be the day it does poorly to get that average. We know in practice the Sparrow was a dud, but we also know that the USAF did better than the USN and fired it in pairs to improve the chances of a kill, indeed the USAF aces got their kills mostly with Sparrow. We also know that the R530 was OK in lower intensity skirmishes where there was time to set it up for the shot, but was too hard to use in high intensity, close in combat so was also a dud. We know that IR Sidewinders fared best with a single shot kill probability of ~19% in Vietnam with the Aim9D and ~16% with the Aim9B.

From that I conclude that likely the IR Red Top will have similar SSPK to the Aim9D, better than the Sparrow and R.530. but being a much bigger missile it will have an engagement envelope more akin to the Sparrow and fire from longer range and greater angles than the Aim9D. This, and the radar range make the Lightning a better adversary for the Phantom than the Mirage III.

Care to share some sources for these figures?
FWIW (video), seems like that Israelis had no problem in making bombing runs at 600 mile distant Egyptian airfields, duke it out in air combat, and return home, while flying at low level during the 1st leg of the flight. Quite a long way.

The Lightning Wiki page quotes Lightning F Mk.6 Operating Data Manual. Warton Aerodrome, UK: English Electric Technical Services, May 1977. It gives profiles for a a 430 mile, 112 minute subsonic mission and a 135 mile 35 minute supersonic mission with an F6 with 5,700 litres of internal fuel. We also know that Argentine Mirage IIIEs (which had more fuel than Israeli IIICJs) needed two big 1700l ferry tanks (not the slim supersonic 250l tanks with short pylons) to travel the 435 miles from Rio Gallegos to the Falklands and then had 5 minutes loiter time and couldn't go supersonic.

The really long range strikes into Egypt and Iraq in 1967 were done by Vautours not Mirages, which were short range.

My sources for the Mirage IIIO are RAAF SNCOs, they're a wealth of information. I know that the Atar lubrication system is 'sacrifical', ie once the oil has been through the engine it doesn't go back into a sump but is sprayed into the exhaust and burnt off. I also know that if you fit the 1,700l wing ferry tanks and 1,300l belly ferry tank the plane is too heavy and the main-wheel types burst.

 

[Rule of cool]

The book English Electric Lightning - Genesis and Projects by Tony Wilson actually has quite a bit on the various ground attack improvements and studies offered by BAC to the RAF and export.
It looks like improved air-ground capability would have been included in the F.3 and F.6 but was never funded. There was certainly a lot of effort in this area.

This is what I envisage when I bang on about this potential path the RAF should have taken.

Attached is an F2 taken in 1963, the aircraft has the big belly tank with pylon for Bullpups or bombs. The F6 could also be fitted with underwing pylons.

Why flight testing the English Electric Lightning was such a challenge

Getting Britain’s first afterburning Mach 2 interceptor from the drawing board and into RAF service was no mean feat. Hugh Trevor describes the challenges faced by those tasked with flight testing the English Electric Lightning.

www.key.aero

 

[tomo pauk]

From that I conclude that likely the IR Red Top will have similar SSPK to the Aim9D, better than the Sparrow and R.530. but being a much bigger missile it will have an engagement envelope more akin to the Sparrow and fire from longer range and greater angles than the Aim9D. This, and the radar range make the Lightning a better adversary for the Phantom than the Mirage III.

Expecting form a tail-chaser to have the engagement envelope akin to a SARH will require a truckload of salt to digest.
I agree that the Red Top should have had better kinematic abilities than the Sidewinders, though.
A good number of Lightings was without the cannon armament, unlike the Mirages.

 

[red admiral]

British industry made the Harrier possible. British industry made the Buccaneer etc.

Of course it was, British industry having successfully disbanded the Royal Aircraft Factory competition (and Royal Dockyards) and slowly moved towards becoming a monopoly supplier. But the same Industry is also responsible for much mismanagement, cost overruns, schedule delays, not hitting performance goals etc. Or maybe that's all the government's fault as well? But then at the same time it's the government that holds all the risk in the end

It's worth remembering that basically until the mid 50s the government funded two (or more) industry projects to the same requirement given the experience that one of them was usually a dud (e.g. Swift Vs Hunter, Sperrin Vs Vulcan). Never forget that same Industry also gave us the likes of Botha and Seamew

 

[Rule of cool]

Expecting form a tail-chaser to have the engagement envelope akin to a SARH will require a truckload of salt to digest.
I agree that the Red Top should have had better kinematic abilities than the Sidewinders, though.
A good number of Lightings was without the cannon armament, unlike the Mirages.

I'm not going to tell you that Red Top can do head on like the Sparrow, it cannot. However what it can do is head on in certain circumstances, apparently the Red Top had no trouble locking on to a Spey Phantom in afterburner head on at 21km. Knowing that what does our Phantom pilot do in this idealised head on engagement, turn off his afterburner?

Then there's everything else other than head on. Beam shots that the Sidewinder might take at 2 miles and the Sparrow at 10 miles the Red Top might take at 6-7 miles. From the rear the Sidewinder needs to get to within 1 mile, the Sparrow to within 5 the Red Top might be able to engage at 3-4 miles.

The overall picture is that against a Lightning fleet the Phantom fleet would have to be far more wary compared to a Mirage III fleet. The Phantoms couldn't just lob Sparrows in from long range at the very start to put the enemy on the defensive, maybe get a few kills, and then merge from a position of advantage and take somewhat longer range Sparrow shots during dogfights. The Phantom has the advantage over the Lightning to be sure, but that advantage is smaller than that over the Mirage III.

The gunless Lightning is merely a funding and requirements problem. The detachable forward weapons pack that carried the AAMs could also carry a pair of guns, and the big belly F6s were retrofitted with guns by 1970 despite the miserly treatment of the Lightning.

 

[uk 75]

The relationship between government and industry in the UK is complex with faults on both sides.
It is worth considering two successful 70s programmes: Hawk and Tornado to see what was got right.
As for Lightning no country not dependent on UK as a supplier bought it.

 

[Rule of cool]

The relationship between government and industry in the UK is complex with faults on both sides.
It is worth considering two successful 70s programmes: Hawk and Tornado to see what was got right.
As for Lightning no country not dependent on UK as a supplier bought it.

Apparently the West German government showed some interest after the SR.177 cancellation (1958?) but British Government officials advised them not to buy it. This is on top of the British Government clearly begrudging having to buy the aircraft itself. Pretty hard to export an aircraft in the face of hostility from the seller.

Politics doesn't get nearly enough attention compared to performance and price as a reason why aircraft do and don't get procured.

 

[uk 75]

Sometimes the product is a solution looking for a problem. EE got lucky with the RAF but it took a decade to equip with decent Red Top equipped aircraft

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not going to tell you that Red Top can do head on like the Sparrow, it cannot. However what it can do is head on in certain circumstances, apparently the Red Top had no trouble locking on to a Spey Phantom in afterburner head on at 21km. Knowing that what does our Phantom pilot do in this idealised head on engagement, turn off his afterburner?

He certainly can turn-off his afterburner, once the SARH missile is launched. A/B was for the short-time bursts of thrust anyway.
OTOH, Lighning's pilot has no ability to make a switch between the cloudy weather into cloud-less weather, so his IR-guided missile has better chances of making a hit.

The overall picture is that against a Lightning fleet the Phantom fleet would have to be far more wary compared to a Mirage III fleet. The Phantoms couldn't just lob Sparrows in from long range at the very start to put the enemy on the defensive, maybe get a few kills, and then merge from a position of advantage and take somewhat longer range Sparrow shots during dogfights. The Phantom has the advantage over the Lightning to be sure, but that advantage is smaller than that over the Mirage III.

Thing with comparing fleets of the fighters is that against the force of 100 F-4s, another side can have a force of 140-150 Mirages, or 100+- Lightnings.

The relationship between government and industry in the UK is complex with faults on both sides.
It is worth considering two successful 70s programmes: Hawk and Tornado to see what was got right.
As for Lightning no country not dependent on UK as a supplier bought it.

My idea is that UK would've done good if it had lower hopes in the multi-national projects. Bi-lateral projects - yes (even the AFVG should've been a big-a$$ warning of the things to come), but anything with 3 or more countries involved - better no.
If Americans want to spend the money on British projects, that is also very good.

 

[red admiral]

I agree that the Red Top should have had better kinematic abilities than the Sidewinders, though.

From the available data, then it really doesn't look like this is the case. If anything then the contemporary Sidewinders have significantly better (like maybe 50%) engagement envelopes than Red Top. Whilst it's a bigger missile, it's also much heavier and draggier so loses speed quicker after motor burn out. Even against a relatively gently manoeuvring (2g) targets, then you're into a 20deg ish cone and 1-2miles behind the target...