Lightning: internal weapons?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning: internal weapons?
I always understood the EE Lightning carried either Firestreak or Redtop AA missiles externally.
Then I came across this: watch at the 3:15 point - it almost looks like the nose gear doors open and internally-mounted weapons are launched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgDM3O1GtA8
Any info?!
BEags?!
Dean
Then I came across this: watch at the 3:15 point - it almost looks like the nose gear doors open and internally-mounted weapons are launched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgDM3O1GtA8
Any info?!
BEags?!
Dean
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Lightning was small in export terms, only Saudi Arabia and Kuwait placed orders for an export version in December 1965. The single seat fighters were modified variants of the F.3s designated as F.53s........
the multirole F.53s could be fitted with a single pylon under each wing to carry unguided rocket pods or bombs of up to 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) size, and the overwing pylons were also reinforced to allow carriage of external stores as well. Exactly what external stores Saudi F.53s actually carried is unclear, but the available options were impressive and surprising.
Each underwing pylon could carry either one or (using a side-by-side adapter) two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) general purpose bombs; or one or two French Matra Type 155 rocket pods, each carrying 18 SNEB 68 millimeter (2.68 inch) unguided rockets. Of course, the top pylon could carry a standard ferry tank or a rocket pod, but it could even carry a parachute-retarded 450 kilogram bomb, tossed up from the wing pylon using an explosive cartridge ejector mechanism. An even more surprising stores arrangement for the upper pylon featured an adapter that could carry two Matra JL100 pods, which contained an 18-round SNEB rocket launcher in front and a 227 liter (50 Imperial gallon / 60 US gallon) fuel tank in back. This gave the F.53 such formidable warload configurations as eight rocket launchers, with a total of 144 rockets.
The weapons pack for the Red Tops could also be swapped out with the Microcell unguided rocket pack or a reconnaissance pack. Day and night reconnaissance packs were developed. The day reconnaissance pack featured five Vinten 70 millimeter film cameras. The night reconnaissance pack featured cameras and an infrared linescanner, backed up by photoflash flares carried on the wing pylons. The cameras in the reconnaissance pack rotated out for use and then were rotated back for stowage. The Saudis obtained the rocket pack and the day reconnaissance pack, but not the night reconnaissance pack.
The F.53, like the F.6, could accommodate two 30 millimeter Aden cannon in the front of the ventral tank, and in fact this feature was developed for the F.53, to then be retrofitted to the F.6. With the unguided rocket pack, unguided rocket pods on the wings, and the twin Aden cannon, the F.53 had a fair punch in the strike role.
the multirole F.53s could be fitted with a single pylon under each wing to carry unguided rocket pods or bombs of up to 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) size, and the overwing pylons were also reinforced to allow carriage of external stores as well. Exactly what external stores Saudi F.53s actually carried is unclear, but the available options were impressive and surprising.
Each underwing pylon could carry either one or (using a side-by-side adapter) two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) general purpose bombs; or one or two French Matra Type 155 rocket pods, each carrying 18 SNEB 68 millimeter (2.68 inch) unguided rockets. Of course, the top pylon could carry a standard ferry tank or a rocket pod, but it could even carry a parachute-retarded 450 kilogram bomb, tossed up from the wing pylon using an explosive cartridge ejector mechanism. An even more surprising stores arrangement for the upper pylon featured an adapter that could carry two Matra JL100 pods, which contained an 18-round SNEB rocket launcher in front and a 227 liter (50 Imperial gallon / 60 US gallon) fuel tank in back. This gave the F.53 such formidable warload configurations as eight rocket launchers, with a total of 144 rockets.
The weapons pack for the Red Tops could also be swapped out with the Microcell unguided rocket pack or a reconnaissance pack. Day and night reconnaissance packs were developed. The day reconnaissance pack featured five Vinten 70 millimeter film cameras. The night reconnaissance pack featured cameras and an infrared linescanner, backed up by photoflash flares carried on the wing pylons. The cameras in the reconnaissance pack rotated out for use and then were rotated back for stowage. The Saudis obtained the rocket pack and the day reconnaissance pack, but not the night reconnaissance pack.
The F.53, like the F.6, could accommodate two 30 millimeter Aden cannon in the front of the ventral tank, and in fact this feature was developed for the F.53, to then be retrofitted to the F.6. With the unguided rocket pack, unguided rocket pods on the wings, and the twin Aden cannon, the F.53 had a fair punch in the strike role.
Dean - in google images, search 'Lightning Microcell rocket pack'. You'll get some photos which demonstrate the fit.
It was an alternative to the missile pack (the Firestreak/Red Top package involved more than just mounting the missiles on the fuselage hardpoints/rails, there was a removable pack containing all the necessary gubbins to support the weapon, and a rocket pack could be fitted in here, with the launchers dropping down from the closed position for weapons release).
Someone will be along to put that into clearer English shortly...
Edit - Or, indeed, sooner thanks to the time lag on this ipad between pressing reply and the missive uploading...
It was an alternative to the missile pack (the Firestreak/Red Top package involved more than just mounting the missiles on the fuselage hardpoints/rails, there was a removable pack containing all the necessary gubbins to support the weapon, and a rocket pack could be fitted in here, with the launchers dropping down from the closed position for weapons release).
Someone will be along to put that into clearer English shortly...
Edit - Or, indeed, sooner thanks to the time lag on this ipad between pressing reply and the missive uploading...
Last edited by Archimedes; 4th Feb 2016 at 12:29. Reason: Correcting Ipad Autocorrections
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all - despite being a 1960s RAF kid, I had no idea the Frightning toted anything more than a couple of Firestreaks.
Remarkable engineering....
Dean
Remarkable engineering....
Dean
FWIW The Lightning reconnaissance pack was adopted and modified as the original Vinten Vicon 18 ( 18" diameter) recce pod for pylon attachment , starting a family of pods which were developed over many years. The JRP had it's ancestry in this system.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The doors you see opening are well aft of the nose wheel doors. The rocket pod doors are abreast the wing leading edge. The pod dropped, fired and closed quite quickly. I've often wondered why this idea wasn't used in later aircraft.
The pod dropped, fired and closed quite quickly. I've often wondered why this idea wasn't used in later aircraft.
I always found it hard to believe that any spare space in the Lightning would be used for anything other than fuel, even if it meant doing away with the pilot.
I've often wondered why this idea wasn't used in later aircraft.
Several aircraft were originally fitted or planned with internal rocket packs for attacking enemy bombers, but rockets were found to be only marginally usefull in that role as guided missile proved to be much more effective- but the rockets were good for ground attack.
Various American aircraft used the massed unguided missile idea for bomber attack, including the Starfire and the Scorpion, until guided weapons took over.
(I often wondered about the American nuclear tipped air-to air missiles. A bit overkill and strategically dubious? Any thoughts?)
(I often wondered about the American nuclear tipped air-to air missiles. A bit overkill and strategically dubious? Any thoughts?)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had been searching for scale drawings of the unique underwing pylons and twin bomb carriers used by the Royal Saudi Air Force and Kuwait Air Force Lightnings, but in vain. Would be most grateful for any advice where I can find it or if it can be posted on this site. Thank you.
The kill probability of the Microcell unguided rockets was proportional to firing distance, hence the need to get as close as you could without self harm.
One option considered for the Lightning F3 F6, but not used, was to use auto attack (autopilot coupled guidance from the AI radar / computer) to achieve a close range firing from a 90 deg intercept course (500 yds??). This was necessary for high speed or supersonic targets.
A problem was that with the nose doors open the aircraft directional stability was reduced, critical when supersonic, even for the brief firing time before auto closure. An unattributed cause for the loss of a T5 test aircraft was a simulated supersonic rocket attack which involved a rapid roll away to miss the target / debris. The rapid roll occurred with the doors open thus with reduced stability the aircraft suffered roll coupling which broke the fin (test pilot J Squire?); its likely that the doors had remained open after firing; auto system failure.
There is also an attention getting nose camera recording of a live firing of a full rocket pack where one rouge 'twirling' missile returns just over the aircraft's nose (video last seen at MPC circa 1973).
Firestreak / Red Top much more reliable, but then there was the gun with a bit of deflection shooting!
One option considered for the Lightning F3 F6, but not used, was to use auto attack (autopilot coupled guidance from the AI radar / computer) to achieve a close range firing from a 90 deg intercept course (500 yds??). This was necessary for high speed or supersonic targets.
A problem was that with the nose doors open the aircraft directional stability was reduced, critical when supersonic, even for the brief firing time before auto closure. An unattributed cause for the loss of a T5 test aircraft was a simulated supersonic rocket attack which involved a rapid roll away to miss the target / debris. The rapid roll occurred with the doors open thus with reduced stability the aircraft suffered roll coupling which broke the fin (test pilot J Squire?); its likely that the doors had remained open after firing; auto system failure.
There is also an attention getting nose camera recording of a live firing of a full rocket pack where one rouge 'twirling' missile returns just over the aircraft's nose (video last seen at MPC circa 1973).
Firestreak / Red Top much more reliable, but then there was the gun with a bit of deflection shooting!
Battle of Palmdale
Perhaps the most inauspicious use of the 2.75 inch rockets in the air to air role was the "battle of Palmdale" in which over 200 were fired against a wayward Hellcat...with zero hits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9vspotter: I believe all Lightning drawings etc. held by BAES were transferred to the North West Heritage Group at the Warton site. The group is operated by BAES retirees. They might be able to provide drawings if anybody can.
As an aside, has anyone else spotted that the last photo in ORAC's post shows Lightning 666 (RSAF designation) carrying a UK Civil B Conditions registration, G27-2?
EAP
PS I don't think the RSAF Lightnings operated with tankers very often at all.
As an aside, has anyone else spotted that the last photo in ORAC's post shows Lightning 666 (RSAF designation) carrying a UK Civil B Conditions registration, G27-2?
EAP
PS I don't think the RSAF Lightnings operated with tankers very often at all.
Last edited by EAP86; 28th Nov 2016 at 11:18. Reason: Tanker comment