In article t,
lid (Thomas Schoene) wrote:

I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round
better. The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts,
but the Phantom was probably a better all-round aircraft.

Not in the same class, though. Compare with the F-104 instead; it's not
clear-cut which is better, I'd say.

Yup, that's pretty fair. Incidentally, an explanation I picked up recently
of why the RAF stuck with the old Red Top missiles on the Lightning to the
end of its life: the capability was about the same as AIM-9, and
integrating Sidewinders would have been pretty simple. Apparently the RAF
reckoned there was little point in trading to a newer missile with a
smaller warhead. When you only have two missiles, the bigger bang is
worthwhile.

Was the F-104 as much of a maintenance nightmare?

The Buccaneer couldn't carry as much as the F-111, nor go so fast,
although it could manage some combinations better and it was
carrier-compatible.

Again, is this the fair comparison? The Buc is probably a closer
equivalent in role and missions (including carrier compatibility)
to the A-6, against which it matches up pretty well. The two are
only about a year or two apart in terms of entry into service; the
F-111 came five or six years later.

Yup. The Buc didn't have anything as sophisticated as the DIANE, but what
it had was more reliable. Top speed was just about the same, but the Buc
had about twice the range: I bet that was because of the streamlining and
the internal weapons bay. Hadn't realised the A-6 was that old a design.


---
John Dallman