RAF Germany phantom bomb racks

[beppe]

Hi

 

Did the RAF phantoms in RAFG used Tripple ejector racks like the USAF ?

 

Also were the squadrons multiple tasks ?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Joseph

[Phone Phixer]

RAF Phantoms used a Carrier Bomb Triple Ejector (CBTE). Similar to a US triple ejector rack, but the angle between bomb racks was slightly more to fit British 1,000lb bombs.

They also had different fuzing units for British weapons.

 

The Bruggen squadrons were purely ground attack, Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles were carried for self defence. 19 & 92 sqns at Wildenrath were air defence only.

You could say 2 sqn at Laarbruch were dual role, as they were tactical recce, so did recce and ground attack.

None of the squadrons did dual ground attack/air defence.

 

Rob.

[beppe]

Thanks Rob

 

I saw an old skywatch reportage and I thought they were equiped with  some kind of vertical ejector racks.

 

Joseph

[canberra kid]

10 hours ago, beppe said:

Hi

 

Did the RAF phantoms in RAFG used Tripple ejector racks like the USAF ?

 

Also were the squadrons multiple tasks ?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Joseph

This is a drawing from the RAF Phantom IPC, I have more if you need them?

John

[canberra kid]

Another one.

John

[beppe]

Thanks John,

 

I didn't know that the RAF phantoms were equipped with chaff and flare dispensers

 

Joseph

[71chally]

51 minutes ago, beppe said:

Thanks John,

 

I didn't know that the RAF phantoms were equipped with chaff and flare dispensers

 

Joseph

A good bit of info on them here Joseph, 

 

[canberra kid]

1 hour ago, beppe said:

Thanks John,

 

I didn't know that the RAF phantoms were equipped with chaff and flare dispensers

 

Joseph

Mod. 5088, introduced March 1985 ? 

Edited April 22, 2018 by canberra kid

[Starfighter]

14 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

RAF Phantoms used a Carrier Bomb Triple Ejector (CBTE). Similar to a US triple ejector rack, but the angle between bomb racks was slightly more to fit British 1,000lb bombs.

They also had different fuzing units for British weapons.

 

The Bruggen squadrons were purely ground attack, Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles were carried for self defence. 19 & 92 sqns at Wildenrath were air defence only.

You could say 2 sqn at Laarbruch were dual role, as they were tactical recce, so did recce and ground attack.

None of the squadrons did dual ground attack/air defence.

 

Rob.

Not purely ground attack . . . Their other, possibly more important role was nuclear strike. The three squadrons each had an aircraft fully armed with nuclear weapons 24/7 and 365 days a year at fifteen minute readiness. These aircraft were situated in alert barns in a secure QRA area, and guarded by RAF and USAF police.  Also, at the end of every exercise and Taceval there was a mass generation of our aircraft, each loaded with a nuclear "Shape " to simulate what would happen if the whole thing went pear shaped !  HTH  

[canberra kid]

It's very frustrating there is no date for the mod like there is in the Canberra mod lists. 

John

 

[Phone Phixer]

2 hours ago, Starfighter said:

Not purely ground attack . . . Their other, possibly more important role was nuclear strike. The three squadrons each had an aircraft fully armed with nuclear weapons 24/7 and 365 days a year at fifteen minute readiness. These aircraft were situated in alert barns in a secure QRA area, and guarded by RAF and USAF police.  Also, at the end of every exercise and Taceval there was a mass generation of our aircraft, each loaded with a nuclear "Shape " to simulate what would happen if the whole thing went pear shaped !  HTH  

Yes, I was aware of the strike role (I'm an ex armourer). I was keeping it straightforward for the OP. "Mud moving" in all its forms I grouped under ground attack.

I took Josephs initial question to be based on a possible split GA/AD role due to the Phantoms missile capabilities.

[beppe]

Thanks everybody.

 

All those drawings bring back old memories.

 

Actually I have two old matchbox kits, one I'd like to finish  it as Air defense at mont pleasant, and the other as a mud early 70's

 

To All, please my apology for my english.

 

Joseph

 

 

[iainpeden]

6 hours ago, canberra kid said:

It's very frustrating there is no date for the mod like there is in the Canberra mod lists. 

John

 

Agree the lack of dates are annoying; however, doesn't the inclusion of the F-4J mean they are post  1983?

[Starfighter]

6 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

Yes, I was aware of the strike role (I'm an ex armourer). I was keeping it straightforward for the OP. "Mud moving" in all its forms I grouped under ground attack.

I took Josephs initial question to be based on a possible split GA/AD role due to the Phantoms missile capabilities.

Point taken, Phone Phixer . . . Just thought I'd add a bit more info, but as you say, the OP was referring more to the conventional role.  I do get carried away sometimes !  

[Phone Phixer]

No problem. Thinking through it, I could have used the term strike attack. But that sounds more for the swing wing heap, rather than the mighty toom. 

[canberra kid]

21 hours ago, iainpeden said:

Agree the lack of dates are annoying; however, doesn't the inclusion of the F-4J mean they are post  1983?

The mod lists are combined FG,1 FGR,2 and F.4J and issued 1990 it covers all UK Phantom mod's from 1 to 8018!

 

John