The P.1A prototype of the Lightning achieved Mach 1 without after-burner but the production Lightnings could not. They were much heavier than the P.1A and P.1B prototypes. I must add that the P.1A did not have Rolls Royce Avon engines, it achieved Mach 1 without afterburners with Siddeley Sapphire engines.
The F-101 (Mach 1.87) was much slower than the F.6 Lightning (Mach 2.3), and while I do not know the cruise speed of the F-101, I do know the Lightning cruised at Mach 0.87.
The F-22 is the first production aircraft to achieve super-cruise, just like the F-15 was the first production aircraft to achieve a greater thrust:weight ratio throughout it's flight.
No, pbfoot, Lightnings did not leak while on the ground. Any leak, on any aircraft, is dangerous. I do not know how Canadian or U.S forces work, and honestly I don't know how British forces work deep down these days, but I've asked my dad about leaks on all the aircraft he's worked on and it's always the same answer; "If it's leaking it's not flying, and if it's leaking on the ground it's priority for maintenance," And he knows what he's talking about.
The F-101A carried four M-39 20mm revolver cannon as standard, this could be supplemented by three Falcon air-to-air missiles in internal bays. The F-101B carried three AIM-4D Falcons internally and two AIR-2A Genie air-to-air missiles under the fuselage.
While the F-101 seems decent enough as an early type aircraft which evolved into a good enough interceptor, it wasn't as good as the Lightning.
--------------
I have just read that the Lightning did see action albeit only against groud forces. In a border clash between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Saudi F.53 Lightnings flew ground strike missions "...these ending the situation without any help from the Saudi Army..."
Attached picture is a F.53 Lightning being shown off before being shipped to Saudi Arabia. Note the over-wing rocket pods and under-wing bomb racks.