Jet fighters/interceptors of the sizzling 60's?

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lightning hunting MUCH closer in rapid-response intercept. Dagger hunting much further out with over twice the range.
Thats exactly the same mission except the 106 reacts much further out . The 106's stood the same 5 minute alert as the Lightnings
Then we are in violent agreement. Mission profile is much different.
how both aircraft are interceptors with the duty of intercepting targets over the ocean , the aircraft is a weapons platform for an anti bomber mission , its not dueling with other fighters during its period of operations . I believe the trick is to get the target as far away from your house as possible so they cant lob ASMs.
The Lightning was designed to defend the British isles from an incoming bomber stream by getting as high as possible as fast as possible with no consideration for range. It was a given that any incoming raid would be very close indeed to the coastline by the time interception could be carried out.

There was no need for it to stooge about over the Atlantic as the bombers would be coming from the other direction. Which is another reason it would need to turn rapidly, unlike the 106 which would take a missile shot while the bombers were still quite distant.

Its a similar argument to the one that says the Spitfire was inferior to the P-51 because it lacked range, despite the fact that for the mission the Spitfire was designed for range was not an issue, the RAF even asked for the Spitfire's internal fuel capacity to be reduced at the design stage. Not having an ability that was never asked for is not a failing.

A lot of research went into the aerodynamic shape of the Lightning, not just with the P.1 but also with the Short SB.5 and scale rocket powered models. different wing sweeps and profiles and different tail designs such as T-tail delta, mid mounted and the selected low mounted tail were all tested in a quest to find the best form for a manouverale high performance interceptor. This does not seem to have happened so much on US types were a plethora of prototypes could be afforded and the best selected.

I notice that the Lightning layout was never even tested by any other nation (the Su-7 looks close but is far different in reality) but was found to be the best in the UK research. This is an anomaly I have never really understood.
how these bombers getting to the UK wiithout hitting Norwegian, German , Danish or American on Iceland or any other countries air defence Radar . I maintain it was a good point defender but a poor interceptor due to its limited range . It was a magnificent airshow performer
Compared to something crossing the Atlantic, the distance involved in reaching the UK are very small. The RAF was DEPENDING on warnings from those stations to allow the Lightning to intercept at all.

"poor interceptor due to its limited range "

Range is not a requirement, as I said. Up off the ground and high into the sky in the shortest possible time is what a UK interceptor required. We even studied vertical launched rocket interceptors based on the same principle as the Bachem Natter, of which the Fairey FD.1 was designed to be a prototype, until someone suggested that this might be a step too far and the FD.1 just became a 'research' aircraft as we had already built it.
How did the Delta Dart and Delta Dagger stand in comparison back in the day?

Simply - the 106 was a 'successful 102' .

The 102 did not (YF102) have the area rule fuselage.

The F-102 did but the 106 incorporated design changes in length, inlet geometry, replaced leading edge slats with boundary layer control features, had a much more powerful engine.

Net - the 102A did 1.25M and initial climb of 13k/min
the 106 did 2.31+M and had an initial climb of 42K/m.

An F-15 had to be very careful regarding a knife fight against the 106. The F-102 could not 'knife fight' above mach one because of pitiful acceleration and climb.
Range is not a requirement, as I said. Up off the ground and high into the sky in the shortest possible time is what a UK interceptor required. .
I understand that the Lightning is near and dear to every Brit but jeez guys I'd much rather down my target with its nuke over the water . Thats why the Lightning was replaced by its contemporary the F4.
I am just saying what the requirement was when the Lightning was built. The RAF would have dearly loved to intercept the threat way out over the sea, many miles away from the UK, but the received wisdom was that when you are scrambling from the ground that is simply not going to happen, there is not enough time.

If the RAF at that time had had the F-106 instead it would have made no difference at all to the intercept mission, its extra range would have been utterly pointless. It could not have intercepted further out because the enemy would already be on the doorstep. At least that was how the threat was percieved.

We later moved away from total reliance on that strategy and we saw F-4's and until recently Tornadoes with huge external tanks mounting standing CAP's that the Lightning was never required to carry out, in addition to the QRA role.

To be strictly correct the reason the Lightning was replaced by the F-4 was because the British govt cancelled or backed away from the Fairey Delta III, Hawker P.1121, Gloster Super Javelin (no great loss!) Avro Arrow, Saro P177, English Electric P.8, et al leaving us with no choice at all and precious little industry. But thats another story :)

Oh yes, AND we ruined the F-4 by crowbarring Speys into it, ho hum.
At least the Speys didn't smoke like a 3 penny whore. And I always liked the look of the radome you guys installed to house your radar.

Users who are viewing this thread