Lightning F.2A to F.6

[Navy Bird]

Kinky wing :- !!

Stop it !!

All of you !!

DR

Hey, I was listening to Ray Davies at the time. It's not my fault!!

Cheers,

Bill

[Selwyn]

Wez is quite correct . The F2A had AI23 radar and so could only use Firestreak , whilst the F6 had AI23B , which had capability to operate both . The uprated radar is apparently why the F3 and F6 had no nose guns , since some of the extra equipment occupied the space taken by the cannon blast tubes in the F1 and F2 variants . It was also the reason for the longer cable ducts .

Don't disagree that the F2A was only seen with Firestreak, but as both the Red Top and Firestreak were were IR missiles i.e not guided by the radar, I cannot agree with you the reason was the radar fit!

(unless you know of some other reason!)

Selwyn

Selwyn

[Procopius]

Didn't the missiles use the radar to acquire the target prior to launch in a manner unique for IR-homing weapons? Is my memory failing me? I just ran four miles, that's my excuse, if so.

[Wez]

Don't disagree that the F2A was only seen with Firestreak, but as both the Red Top and Firestreak were were IR missiles i.e not guided by the radar, I cannot agree with you the reason was the radar fit!

(unless you know of some other reason!)

Selwyn

Selwyn

The radar assisted the aircraft in finding the target, the aircraft would be guided to the general vicinity by GCI, the aircraft would have to detect the target at night and poor weather in particular by using radar guidance which was used to get the aircraft into a favourable position for its weapon systems e.g. the Firestreak or Red Top.

The earlier radar only permitted stern chase interceptions which were needed for the Firestreak homing system - it was essentially a tail-chase missile that needed to be pointed at a tailpipe.

The Red-Top was more of an all-aspect missile (I wouldn't say a true all-aspect missile, just more of one than the Firestreak), it could home onto tailpipe's but it could also home onto the heat of a leading edge caused by friction, this permitted it to attack from head on or collision course (e.g it didn't require the aircraft to chase the target to get in a shooting position, it just had to fly at it). This needed more sophisticated avionics to compute the lead angles and closing speeds to the correct release point, the F3/F6 weapons control system didn't supplant the Firestreak systems, it supplemented it, this required more sophisticated avionics which required more real estate such as the room given up by the guns.

If an F3/F6 was required to fire Firestreaks it would still need to get into a tail shot position.

Does this explain why the guns had to be given up for an improved radar?

Wez (who was taught the Lightning flight control and guidance system in trade training - like so many others).

Edited May 3, 2013 by Wez

[Duncan B]

I'm still confused about the ventral tank! (Slow on the uptake, I haven't slept for 2 nights is my excuse). So are we saying that an F6 (or F3 tank for that matter) without gun pack fitted had a different fwd tank shape than an F2a or just the F6 with gun pack? If I was building an interim F3/F6 or an early F6 without guns can I use the F2a belly tank without modifying it?

I'd never thought to check for differences as I'd always assumed they were the same shape.

[AnonymousAA72]

I'm still confused about the ventral tank! (Slow on the uptake, I haven't slept for 2 nights is my excuse). So are we saying that an F6 (or F3 tank for that matter) without gun pack fitted had a different fwd tank shape than an F2a or just the F6 with gun pack? If I was building an interim F3/F6 or an early F6 without guns can I use the F2a belly tank without modifying it?

I'd never thought to check for differences as I'd always assumed they were the same shape.

This is my understanding.....The F2a & F3a/Interim F6/non gun-pack F6 front portion of the tank would be identical - there's no reason for them not to be. The gun pack was an 'add-on' at a later date on the F6, so that shape needed a re-design to incorporate the Adens.

Thats my line of thought anyway!!

Edited May 3, 2013 by Bill Clark

[Selwyn]

The radar assisted the aircraft in finding the target, the aircraft would be guided to the general vicinity by GCI, the aircraft would have to detect the target at night and poor weather in particular by using radar guidance which was used to get the aircraft into a favourable position for its weapon systems e.g. the Firestreak or Red Top.

The earlier radar only permitted stern chase interceptions which were needed for the Firestreak homing system - it was essentially a tail-chase missile that needed to be pointed at a tailpipe.

The Red-Top was more of an all-aspect missile (I wouldn't say a true all-aspect missile, just more of one than the Firestreak), it could home onto tailpipe's but it could also home onto the heat of a leading edge caused by friction, this permitted it to attack from head on or collision course (e.g it didn't require the aircraft to chase the target to get in a shooting position, it just had to fly at it). This needed more sophisticated avionics to compute the lead angles and closing speeds to the correct release point, the F3/F6 weapons control system didn't supplant the Firestreak systems, it supplemented it, this required more sophisticated avionics which required more real estate such as the room given up by the guns.

If an F3/F6 was required to fire Firestreaks it would still need to get into a tail shot position.

Does this explain why the guns had to be given up for an improved radar?

Wez (who was taught the Lightning flight control and guidance system in trade training - like so many others).

So the what your saying is that the F2A could have carried the Red top, but but couldn't use it to its maximum capability due to the limitations of the aircraft radar/avionics.

Selwyn

[Navy Bird]

This is my understanding.....The F2a & F3a/Interim F6/non gun-pack F6 front portion of the tank would be identical - there's no reason for them not to be. The gun pack was an 'add-on' at a later date on the F6, so that shape needed a re-design to incorporate the Adens.

Thats my line of thought anyway!!

That is my understanding as well. I did a bit of research on this for my Lightning build. As you may recall I hacked off the Trumpeter belly tank and substituted one from Matchbox. Technically, I was in error as it was an F.6 tank with cannon pack, and I simply removed the blisters and filled in the cannon ports and called it an F.2A tank. I won't tell anyone if you won't!

Cheers,

Bill

[Wez]

So the what your saying is that the F2A could have carried the Red top, but but couldn't use it to its maximum capability due to the limitations of the aircraft radar/avionics.

Selwyn

No, I'm not saying that.

The F6 had the extra avionics which allowed it to be able to intercept on a collision course, the F2A didn't.

IIRC, there were differences in the methods used by either missile for their infra-red detection sensors and I think those were incorporated into the missile launch shoes, whilst the F6 could accept either, I don't know whether the F2A could.

So if the F2A could carry the Red Top and launch it, it lacked the avionics for a collision type interception and would therefore not be using the missile to it's best advantage so what would be the point?

Wez

Edited May 3, 2013 by Wez

[Selwyn]

No, I'm not saying that.

The F6 had the extra avionics which allowed it to be able to intercept on a collision course, the F2A didn't.

IIRC, there were differences in the methods used by either missile for their infra-red detection sensors and I think those were incorporated into the missile launch shoes, whilst the F6 could accept either, I don't know whether the F2A could.

So if the F2A could carry the Red Top and launch it, it lacked the avionics for a collision type interception and would therefore not be using the missile to it's best advantage so what would be the point?

Wez

The point would be that when the F2A's had exhausted the stocks of Firestreaks in WW3, instead of going into combat with just cannons it could carry Red Tops, OK they couldn't use the colliion course interception but carrying a IR missile with some operational limitations is better than no missile at all.

Selwyn

[Wez]

The point would be that when the F2A's had exhausted the stocks of Firestreaks in WW3, instead of going into combat with just cannons it could carry Red Tops, OK they couldn't use the colliion course interception but carrying a IR missile with some operational limitations is better than no missile at all.

Selwyn

I see your point but if that was the case far better to put a pair of Sidewinder's on a Y-Shaped launcher on each side don't you think?

I'll have to do a bit of digging on the differences between Firestreak and Red Top launchers to see what the art of the possible was, standard RAF practice was to make everything backwards compatible wherever possible but not everything was forwards compatible.

In reality, had they survived for long enough I'd suspect the F2A's would have been pulled back for point defence or replaced by F6's, now there's a great WHIF, a Mk6 in the green/grey scheme wearing a 92 Sqn arrow head...

Wez

Edited May 3, 2013 by Wez

[cardiff guy]

In later years when even red top was obsolete why did they not fit sidewinder to the lightning.

regards Glenn.

[Max Headroom]

In later years when even red top was obsolete why did they not fit sidewinder to the lightning.

regards Glenn.

Money I suppose.

The Lightning never received a comprehensive mid life update like Tornado GR.1 to 4, Jaguar GR.1 to 3 and Harrier GR.5 to 7 and 9.

Trevor

[Dave Fleming]

In later years when even red top was obsolete why did they not fit sidewinder to the lightning.

regards Glenn.

It was looked at several times, including a 4 AIM-9 fit if I recall correctly, but as Trevor says the money was never there as the Lightning wasn't expected to remain in service so long. I also remember reading that some thought the Red Top a better option for a Bear interceptor due to a heavier warhead.

[Duncan B]

This is my understanding.....The F2a & F3a/Interim F6/non gun-pack F6 front portion of the tank would be identical - there's no reason for them not to be. The gun pack was an 'add-on' at a later date on the F6, so that shape needed a re-design to incorporate the Adens.

Thats my line of thought anyway!!

OK, good. That's what I had always thought but I was a bit confused by an earlier post and lack of sleep brought on by being bounced around in 10m seas for 48 hrs solid (tends to disrupt sleep somewhat). So my F2a to early F6 conversion is still good to go. Although by the time I get round to it Airfix will have done the decent thing and released F1/F1a, F2, F3 and F6 versions quickly to be followed by the T'birds (I think I might still be a bit punch drunk?).

Duncan B

[sloegin57]

This is my understanding.....The F2a & F3a/Interim F6/non gun-pack F6 front portion of the tank would be identical - there's no reason for them not to be. The gun pack was an 'add-on' at a later date on the F6, so that shape needed a re-design to incorporate the Adens.

Thats my line of thought anyway!!

OK, good. That's what I had always thought but I was a bit confused by an earlier post and lack of sleep brought on by being bounced around in 10m seas for 48 hrs solid (tends to disrupt sleep somewhat). So my F2a to early F6 conversion is still good to go. Although by the time I get round to it Airfix will have done the decent thing and released F1/F1a, F2, F3 and F6 versions quickly to be followed by the T'birds (I think I might still be a bit punch drunk?).

Duncan B

My apologies Duncan, it was more than likely my post that confused you (too many nights staring at a screen scanning negatives/slides).

What Bill says is correct. The F2a, F3a/Interim F6 and F6 Front Ventral Fuel tank were identical externally. The difficulty I found in my previous post was describing adequately the shape of the Forward Ventral Gun Tank as fitted to F6 and F53's so I have searched through the files and re-scanned a couple of shots which should show the difference (a picture says a thousand words etc........).

First, a close-up of a Forward Ventral Fuel Tank as fitted to Lightning F6 XS898/K of 5Sqdn at Luqa 06-10-67 for 'ADEX '67' :-

You can see how rounded the tank is by following the cradle markings (the black lines).

Next, a close-up of a Forward Ventral Gun-tank as fitted to Lightning F6 XR763 11Sqdn/BE' at Leuchars 17-12-80 :-

Note how the Gun-tank looks "fatter" at the front, forward of the blisters ,with straighter sides and especially

the flat area on the front of the Gun-tank. If you compare the cradle markings you will see what I mean.

The side view profile of the two tanks was, in fact, the same but the contours of the two tanks was subtly

different. Even, so there was still 98 gallons, about 784 pounds, less fuel in the Gun-tank than in the

Fuel tank.

The Forward Ventrals, both Gun and Fuel, were often known as "hatch tanks" as they were the main access "panel" to Number 1 engine and if I had a pound for every time I had one of them up and down, I wouldn't be sitting here in a chilly, wet, Scotland. No Siree !

Having checked my course notes I will also correct my statement regarding the position of the guns. The Starboard gun was 8.4 inches forward of the Port gun and although the gun ports were not affected, the position of the access doors was i.e. the Stbd access door was 8.4 inches forward of the Port access door.

HTH

DR

[Duncan B]

Dennis deserves a medal for posting that info at 4am on a dreich morning, at least I have an excuse for being up as I'm on nightshift Sun shining off the coast of Norway, the calm before another storm though.

Thanks for the photos, the difference is immediately obvious.

Duncan B

[Wez]

Dennis,

Hats off to you for posting that information, that is a very subtle difference between the two and something I'd never noticed in over 35 years of looking at the Lightning quite closely.

The knowledge base increases.

Thank you

Wez

[Selwyn]

No, I'm not saying that.

The F6 had the extra avionics which allowed it to be able to intercept on a collision course, the F2A didn't.

IIRC, there were differences in the methods used by either missile for their infra-red detection sensors and I think those were incorporated into the missile launch shoes, whilst the F6 could accept either, I don't know whether the F2A could.

So if the F2A could carry the Red Top and launch it, it lacked the avionics for a collision type interception and would therefore not be using the missile to it's best advantage so what would be the point?

Wez

So what you are saying is that the F6 could only fire red top missiles head on? Red top couldn't be used from the rear aspect of your target on F6?

The chance of getting a head on shot in air to air combat is at best 50/50. Red Rop was an advance over the Firestreak and could be used from the front that is why it was the preferred weapon for the F6.

What you appear to be saying is that the F2A couldn't use Red Top as its radar didn't have the collision course facility, but I do not see how that would stop the F2A from firing a Red Top from the rear aspect because it would aquire and guide if fired from the rear.

I can understand that as the Red Top could not be used to its full potential on F2A because of the radar limitation, Firestreak was the preferred missile for the F2A, but I believe if required the red top could be used on this mark.

I have an old friend who was involved in Lightning development i shall ask him if he knows!

Selwyn

[Wez]

So what you are saying is that the F6 could only fire red top missiles head on? Red top couldn't be used from the rear aspect of your target on F6?

The chance of getting a head on shot in air to air combat is at best 50/50. Red Rop was an advance over the Firestreak and could be used from the front that is why it was the preferred weapon for the F6.

What you appear to be saying is that the F2A couldn't use Red Top as its radar didn't have the collision course facility, but I do not see how that would stop the F2A from firing a Red Top from the rear aspect because it would aquire and guide if fired from the rear.

I can understand that as the Red Top could not be used to its full potential on F2A because of the radar limitation, Firestreak was the preferred missile for the F2A, but I believe if required the red top could be used on this mark.

I have an old friend who was involved in Lightning development i shall ask him if he knows!

Selwyn

No Selwyn. I'm not saying the Red Top was only used for collision course interceptions, if you read my first post on this subject you'll see that I said that Red Top could home onto tailpipes too. Red Top allowed more interception options - stern chase or head on, given that the Lightning was used to intercept an incoming target e.g. towards it, head on, I would expect most of its intercepts to be collision course.

Simple fact of the matter is that the F2A was never fitted with Red Top. Given that Red Top had greater range and better acquisition characteristics than the Firestreak makes you wonder why they didn't fit it to the F2A's in Germany - oh maybe it was because the aircraft's systems including the radar didn't allow it!

There's a lot more to weapon systems capability merely attaching a different missile to your aircraft, I'm sure that if it was that simple the RAF would have done it but they didn't.

Wez

[Selwyn]

No Selwyn. I'm not saying the Red Top was only used for collision course interceptions, if you read my first post on this subject you'll see that I said that Red Top could home onto tailpipes too. Red Top allowed more interception options - stern chase or head on, given that the Lightning was used to intercept an incoming target e.g. towards it, head on, I would expect most of its intercepts to be collision course.

Simple fact of the matter is that the F2A was never fitted with Red Top. Given that Red Top had greater range and better acquisition characteristics than the Firestreak makes you wonder why they didn't fit it to the F2A's in Germany - oh maybe it was because the aircraft's systems including the radar didn't allow it!

There's a lot more to weapon systems capability merely attaching a different missile to your aircraft, I'm sure that if it was that simple the RAF would have done it but they didn't.

Wez

Wes,

I am more than conversant, (probably far more than you!) with the relation of weapon systems capabiity and weapons fit, but in the early 1960's the integration of a IR missile was a lot easier than you think.

The reason RT was not carried on F2A was probably more the result of a parsamonious MoD than the technical aspects! i do agree with you it is ludicrous when looking back to those days that the F2A was not a RT carrier.

As I said in my previous post I will be chatting to an old friend who worked on the lightning project at that time and he will probably be able to tell me more on the subject from first hand.

It was from him that I learnt that the AIR 2 Genie missile was trialled on Lightning, which I never knew about!

(semi recessed in the fuel tank before you ask!)

Selwyn

[Procopius]

Per this thread on pprune, the F.6's AI23B apparently included "Computer Red", needed "to determine the closing speed and send the appropriate signal to the missile to fuse it for a head on or a tail shot". I would guess then that without "Computer Red", a Red Top's fuse couldn't be set at all, hence, no-go on an F2A lacking same.

[Wez]

Per this thread on pprune, the F.6's AI23B apparently included "Computer Red", needed "to determine the closing speed and send the appropriate signal to the missile to fuse it for a head on or a tail shot". I would guess then that without "Computer Red", a Red Top's fuse couldn't be set at all, hence, no-go on an F2A lacking same.

Procopius,

Interesting snippet that thanks.

Wes,

I am more than conversant, (probably far more than you!) with the relation of weapon systems capabiity and weapons fit, but in the early 1960's the integration of a IR missile was a lot easier than you think.

The reason RT was not carried on F2A was probably more the result of a parsamonious MoD than the technical aspects! i do agree with you it is ludicrous when looking back to those days that the F2A was not a RT carrier.

As I said in my previous post I will be chatting to an old friend who worked on the lightning project at that time and he will probably be able to tell me more on the subject from first hand.

It was from him that I learnt that the AIR 2 Genie missile was trialled on Lightning, which I never knew about!

(semi recessed in the fuel tank before you ask!)

Selwyn

I think the answer lies in parsimony, whether it's in the MoD or the Treasury is a moot point. Given that the lightning was always a gnat's crotchet from being retired it would have been difficult for the MoD to convince the Treasury that it was worth spending the money on further upgrades (such as the computer upgrade Procopious has mentioned), which makes it amazing that the F2's were upgraded to F2A standard, the only reason I can think of them doing that for would be to fulfil NATO obligations without there being a capability gap.

The notion of a Lightning carrying a Genie is interesting, I wonder what the difference in mass between 1x Genie vs 2x Firestreak/Red Top is? I always thought of the Genie as the epitome of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut analogy... ...such a blunt instrument but given the technology of the time, an understandable solution.

I wonder if any schematics exist?

Wez

[RMP2]

Digging up a thread here, but having just found out about Genie consideration for Lightnings I had to have a search - lo and behold its mentioned on a thread here.

Has anyone anymore info or dare I even suggest it... photos or perhaps drawings at least?

[Kes]

According to 'BAC/English Electric Lightning' 'Bryan Philpott'

The Douglas AIR2 Genie was considered in response to a specification in that 'infamous' 1957 White paper demanding 100% success in interception of an incoming Soviet attack, conventional gun/ missile armed interceptors unable to meet the specification, Genie would have been mounted in pairs forward of the ventral tank.