What if more Lightnings were exported?

[GTX]

Hi folks,

If we were to have the neighboors of Indonesia getting nervous in the 1970s we could have had the following operators for the Lightning:

Singapore,
Malaysia, and
later in the 1990s, Papua New Guinea (with either RAAF or RNZAF hand-me-downs).

The last would look good in colours similar to this by Richard:


Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Hi folks,

Some more possibilities:

Taiwan - instead of the F-104;
Phillipinies - instead of the F-8;
Argentina - instead of the Mirage III; and
Chile - ditto.

Regards,

Greg

[K5054NZ]

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMP!!!!

Has anyone contemplated the RAAF getting Lightnings fairly early on? Maybe in overall polished aluminium?

[Mossie]

Not the Kahu version???  I think RAAF Lightnings in NMF would look great.  Roos would make a subtle improvement on the RAF roundel & the RAAF's unique squadron markings would compliment the Lightning.  Possibly Sidewinder instead of Firestreak or Red Top?  It'd just make for a different look.

Go for it Zac!!! 

[jcf]

Sparrows on the fuselage mounts, Sidewinders on the wings and F.6 two-gun belly pod.

And of course with every 6 Lightnings purchased you get one VC-10 tanker. 

Jon

[Lawman]

Sparrows on the fuselage mounts, Sidewinders on the wings and F.6 two-gun belly pod.

And of course with every 6 Lightnings purchased you get one VC-10 tanker. 

Jon

Not a bad idea, especially since the Lightnings would need a lot of tanker support for Aussie missions (which aren't exactly short range). Perhaps a combination of Lightnings for air-to-air, and Buccaneers for strike, plus some VC-10 tankers - 60 each of Lightnings and Buccaneers, and perhaps 10 VC-10s. Another option, completely unrelated to the Lightning, would be for the US to provide MAP funding, and a fleet of F-5s and A-4s for both the RAAF and RAN. Perhaps 80 F-5s to allow three full fighter squadrons and a training unit, and 80 A-4s, again allowing three strike squadrons plus training unit, and a further 30 A-4s for the RAN, allowing either one large or two small carrier detachments for the Sydney and Melbourne.

The sad thing is that the VC-10 was an excellent aircraft, and should have sold better, if it hadn't been sabotaged in terms of sales. A rejuvinated RAF bomber fleet, based on cruise-missile carrying Vulcans or Victors, and tanker and even AEW VC-10s, would have been a good boost to RAF morale. The VC-10 could have been bought as tankers, troop transports (to fly out troops to pre-positioned equipment around the world, hence easing some of the concerns about the need for massive airlift of equipment...), airborne command posts, AEW and SIGINT/ELINT aircraft, VIP use etc... A purchasing deal could have helped the company a lot, ten to twenty aircraft per year over a few years would have given the company a lot more stability, and given the government a fleet of excellent aircraft, and made the RAF very happy...

[Aircav]

I like this set-up, sorry I can't remember if its by Vesper or Harro, but its cool 

[Hobbes]

That one's not mine. I used a different solution:


(see this thread:http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,6815.0.html)

[Mossie]

No disrespect to Shas, but I prefer this soloution.  EE tried hanging stores just about everywhere, the wing aerodynamics were so critical that any attempts to place them under the wings, or on the tips seriously increased drag.  The least draggy soloution was the overwing pylons.

I think they tried other fuselage positions but I can't remember if these were ruled out because of increased drag or because there was no room to hang them.  The naval swing wing development of the Lightning would have extended the belly pack to nearly full length & would have incorporated a weapons bay.

[Lawman]

Just an insane thought, but did they ever look at modifying the Lightning to side intakes? If it were stretched a bit, and maybe given a full delta-wing, plus side intakes (okay, it would be a different aircraft...), it could have carried a better radar and more fuel. On the other hand, something like the Fairey Delta 3, perhaps modified to use the Gyron engine (or the Canadian Iroquois or Bristol Olympus) might have made more sense.

I have to confess, I never liked the Lightning - it was fast, but its radar was too small, and it reached 'bingo' fuel as soon as it took off (well, nearly...), and it simply lacked the beauty of its cousins, the Mirage III, Saab Draken and American F-102/106. A single reheated Avon would have been more than enough, if mated to a properly designed fuselage - okay, there were concerns at the time about the capabilities of engines in the early days of afterburning, but these were over by the late '50s. What Britain ended up with was a tremendously expensive aircraft, with relatively limited capabilities, and almost no ability to be upgraded - whereas the Saab Draken was everything the Lightning wasn't (relatively cheap, small, powerful radar etc...).

[jcf]

Just an insane thought, but did they ever look at modifying the Lightning to side intakes?

Yes, and the result was fugly.

Jon

[K5054NZ]

I was thinking Sidewinders, and then I thought Kiwi!


And then I thought, not RNZAF.....but still Kiwi.....I have a perfect submission for Silly Week 09 on the way lads, to premiere here....

Just gotta get some white paint and we're in business....

[Mossie]

Just an insane thought, but did they ever look at modifying the Lightning to side intakes?

Yes, and the result was fugly.

Jon

Here you go.  This version also had the full length belly pack I mentioned early, had an advanced Lightning gone ahead it would have been lardy as well as fugly!  They also looked at a partial delta, basically if you fill in the portion between the wing & the fuselage you've got it.  A tailess delta was considered, but it was felt that the tail was essential for stability

[Aircav]

What Britain ended up with was a tremendously expensive aircraft, with relatively limited capabilities, and almost no ability to be upgraded

Nothing new there then 

[BlackOps]

Here was my take on a slightly different Lightning I'd done a while back.