F-104 question

[Finn]

 

3 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

Jari, a late reply to your great photo. Two questions:

 

1. what nukes do you see here? I *think* I see (left to right) a B28 and B43, both of the practice drop type I think, and another B28 but with more features of the real thing (nose cap, sensor ahead of the front lug), fins that are positioned in a very flat X shape (but why?), and a different colour.

 

2. do you know what type the 'slick' (low drag) practice bombs are, next to the MN-1A ?

 Hi Rob, on the trailer is a Mk/B28 (L) and a Mk/B43 (R) and on the MJ-1 is a Mk28EX (EXternal) which by my guess is the load trainer version since it has the folding fin options, nose cover for the radar antenna plus probably other features a real one would have and being painted silver. The "sensor" fwd of the front lug is the cover for the electrical connections, you can see it in the video i posted above of a Mk/B28RE being loaded. The ones they dropped for bombing practices had the lower fins removed thus the tail config was _I_ rather than X.

 

I don't recall what the designation of the practice bombs was, i vaguely remember seeing them when i went thru initial training 45 yrs ago but they were phased out by the time i loaded the MN-1A with BDU-33s and the Mk-106s.

 

Jari

[Rob de Bie]

On 8/7/2020 at 5:39 AM, Finn said:

 

 Hi Rob, on the trailer is a Mk/B28 (L) and a Mk/B43 (R) and on the MJ-1 is a Mk28EX (EXternal) which by my guess is the load trainer version since it has the folding fin options, nose cover for the radar antenna plus probably other features a real one would have and being painted silver. The "sensor" fwd of the front lug is the cover for the electrical connections, you can see it in the video i posted above of a Mk/B28RE being loaded. The ones they dropped for bombing practices had the lower fins removed thus the tail config was _I_ rather than X.

 

I don't recall what the designation of the practice bombs was, i vaguely remember seeing them when i went thru initial training 45 yrs ago but they were phased out by the time i loaded the MN-1A with BDU-33s and the Mk-106s.

Thanks for all the information! Still learning 🙂

 

One side reason for my interest in the practice bombs is that they look quite a bit like the ones used on Danish F-100Ds. I learned from Lars Myrup Lassen that they were called 'Øvelsesbombe M55' (practice bomb Model 55, 55 would be the year of acceptance/procurement of the design). Here's a picture from my Esci 1/72 F-100D webpage:

 

 

Rob

[Hook]

Holy thread revival, Batman! 

 

I just saw that Eduard has a couple of B43's in 1/72nd - which one would be appropriate for a NATO strike '104? 

 

B43-0 Nuclear Weapon w/ SC43-4/ -7 tail assembly

B43-1 Nuclear Weapon w/ SC43-4/ -7 tail assembly

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Murph]

2 hours ago, Hook said:

Holy thread revival, Batman! 

 

I just saw that Eduard has a couple of B43's in 1/72nd - which one would be appropriate for a NATO strike '104? 

 

B43-0 Nuclear Weapon w/ SC43-4/ -7 tail assembly

B43-1 Nuclear Weapon w/ SC43-4/ -7 tail assembly

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

The B43-0 is what you want.  The major issue you'll face using the Eduard items is that they are designed to be mounted with the fins in an X configuration, with the various access doors at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions.  On the F-104 the B43 was mounted with the fins in a _I_ configuration ( a + with the bottom fin removed for ground clearance).  If you do that with the Eduard items the various access doors are now in the wrong position.  This wasn't an issue with the real weapon, because they could rotate the tail kit to get the fins aligned properly, but the Eduard items have the tail molded on rather than being separate, like the nose cone.

 

Regards,

Murph

[Finn]

In addition to what Murph said, the -6 tails were were used more often, of course Eduard doesn't have them in 1/72, just 1/48. Also either nose section could be used, depending if they want to laydown the weapon or toss it at the target. Some walkaround pics here:

 

http://svsm.org/gallery/b43-1

 

and here:

 

 

Jari 

[Hook]

Thanks, Murph / Finn! Hm, perhaps some judicious razor sawing might work with the tail... 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Edited April 29, 2021 by Hook

[Murph]

On 4/29/2021 at 3:46 AM, Hook said:

Thanks, Murph / Finn! Hm, perhaps some judicious razor sawing might work with the tail... 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

That's one option.  The other is to fill the slots where the fins mount, shave down the mounting points on the fins themselves, and glue them on in the proper locations and configuration.  I skipped the whole process and will go with a B61 on the F-104 and use a pair of the Eduard B43s on an F-111E.  Speaking of which, it would be nice if Eduard would downsize their 48 scale B61.  The 1/72 Italeri versions are reportedly off in size, while the resin and 3D printed versions I've seen have been pretty rough.

 

Regards,

Murph

Edited May 1, 2021 by Murph

[Finn]

If you are going to rotate the tail to get the tail into the _I_ config it was 45deg CCW (looking fwd).

 

Jari

[Paws4thot]

There's been something confusing me all through this thread; why does anyone think that a Quick Reaction Alert mission would have bombs (conventional or physics packages) in the loadout? I'd expect QRA to have missiles, and possibly drop tanks and/or cannon pods (varies by aircraft type and operating service).

 

Nucular (sp) Strike is where I would expect to find physics packages.

[Slater]

During the Cold War at USAF F-111 bases in the UK, some aircraft were kept loaded (usually with B-61's) on ready alert. The term "Victor Alert" was used in some cases.

[Finn]

From here:

 

https://www.427squadron.com/news_file/co_104_memories.html

 

"After assuming command of 427, I learned that my primary responsibility was to ensure that I provided two motivated combat ready pilots to man two CF104's for 24 hours, 365 days as part of the NATO deterrent Quick Reaction Alert Force (QRA). Our QRA commitment of two CF104's was a small part of a force of 100 NATO strike aircraft of 36 squadrons mostly USAF and based in the south of West Germany and in England. The QRA deterrent was on 15 minutes stand-by 24 hours and loaded out at all times with nuclear bombs. It was designed to pre-empt a sizable Soviet incursion into West Germany. The target strategy was to destroy Warsaw Pact air defences and to catch their strike forces on the ground as well as block their invading armoured columns."

 

So going by what is said NATO had 100 strike aircraft on alert during the 60's time period.

 

Jari

[Paws4thot]

Cool Jari. As a Brit i'm used to QRA being an air defence mission using fighters, and Strike being the nucular bomber counterpart.

 

So can we agree we've all learnt something, even if it is "only terminology"?

 

And I'm now wondering if Strike would have been a good mission for ZELL Starfighters (even if also a whiff).

[Rob de Bie]

The ZELL F-104 often carried a Mk 28 dummy, so that answers your question 🙂

 

Rob

[Hook]

2 hours ago, Paws4thot said:

So can we agree we've all learnt something, even if it is "only terminology"?

 In the new and rather nice Michael Napier book on the RAF Tornado GR.1 the nuclear alert role is designated "QRA(N)". 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Paws4thot]

1 hour ago, Hook said:

 In the new and rather nice Michael Napier book

... that I don't own a copy of, but appears to include at least some revisionist terminology, and a mission profile that according to UK sources has been handled by the RN since the 1960s.

Also, there is no mention of QRA(N), or indeed of aircraft armed with physics packages at all, in Northern Q , which I do have.