Adding some context to Fonsi’s well-considered analysis and subsequent discussion.
The Lightning met the requirement for a point defence interceptor with the advent of nuclear armed long range bombers. With conventional warfare the defensive objective could be met via attrition by destroying 10% bomber force, whereas with nuclear, there might only be one chance against a mass bomber force, which only required 10% survival for their success, but the intercept kill rate had to be 100%.
The Lightning was the first truly integrated weapon system, radar and (analogue) computation, missiles with unique detection, guidance, and fusing capabilities. IIRC the war plan success rate per aircraft/missile system was less than 50% - engine start to kill, yet in-service testing demonstrated 60%+ throughout its lifetime.
The aerodynamics almost certainly originated from Germany, but this knowledge had to be applied by the EE designers. Either as an outright swept wing or a cut-out delta, requiring new understandings in tail plane position, power controls (higher pressure hydraulics), and structural materials and fabrication. The first aircraft, P1, were prototypes, proof of concept – the research was done by SB5 aircraft, etc.
Airframe systems also broke new ground, very high altitude pressurization, heating/cooling, fuel pumps, elect generation etc, etc, all used new technologies.
Engines – Rolls Royce. ... The Avon was the jet Merlin in design philosophy, ground breaking in many areas, and with reheat (latterly variable) which at that time was difficult to achieve. The materials technology might have restricted hours between servicing – but the extent of the engines capability was fantastic, no pops, bangs, squeaks, or buzzes – not a single failure in my 1000hrs, although two engines took several birds simultaneously.
The radar probably evolved from wartime work circa 1947. The monopulse scan and track system within the same dish, together with the waveguide design providing good ECM resistance, were all well in advance of contemporary technologies. The analogue computation and system control was sewing-machine standard compared with today’s capability, but it worked.
The missile technology was world beating (stories of a Firestreak homing head being ‘retained’ by the US). The warhead was a large 60lb mills bomb (FS) with intelligent fusing; vs contemporary 10lb frag devices depending on contact; Red Top had and an expanding ring with adaptive fusing according to launch angle and used the enhanced aircraft intercept computation, with even better ECM resistance (Computer Red / 60 way plug). The USA ‘invented ‘angle rate bombing’ circa 1970’s, the Lightning F3 had working Kinematic Ranging – intercept computing without range knowledge.
Handling – exceptional; the only trans /supersonic aircraft which did not depend on auto stabilisation. Yes there were quirks, but it wasn’t a Hunter, nor designed for the same job; the Lightning was fit for purpose.
Comparisons with latter day aircraft are meaningless; the Lightning excelled against contemporary designs, but with insufficient development, the new designs of interceptors were able to match some (most) of the Lightning’s characteristics.
A realistic comparison might be made with the potential of the Avro Arrow (how much of that came from the UK). The Arrow could have been as good, even better in the point defence role, and with greater development options; large nose section for updated radar; RR engines, more internal/external weapons, two crew, long range … even better than the P1121 (ahh Hawker), which like the Lightning suffered the constraints of narrow-minded and politically inward defence views.
The Lightning gave the politicians and planners exactly what they asked for, but not all of them saw it because the world moved on.