British 1000 pound bombs

[LanceB]

114 tail / 947 tail fuse and 117 tail / 951 tail fuse: which is applicable for what period, please?  I have searched around, and learned that the 951 tail fuse is a later model that supposedly fixed some issues with the 947 (at least in low level usage), however in RAF usage was there some point in time one could use to say "a plane before this date probably carried bombs with 114 tails and 947 tail fuses, after this date most likely used 117 tail / 951 tail fuses"?

[Slater]

Was the 117 able to be selected for either high drag or low drag delivery? 

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, LanceB said:

114 tail / 947 tail fuse and 117 tail / 951 tail fuse: which is applicable for what period, please?  I have searched around, and learned that the 951 tail fuse is a later model that supposedly fixed some issues with the 947 (at least in low level usage), however in RAF usage was there some point in time one could use to say "a plane before this date probably carried bombs with 114 tails and 947 tail fuses, after this date most likely used 117 tail / 951 tail fuses"?

This is a @Selwyn question.

 

[Selwyn]

The 114 tail was in use from late fifties. It was certainly used in trials in 1962. It was only used with the 947 fuze. 

No951 fuze was a retard role only  fuze.  and only used with the 117 tail. I am not aware of when the 117 came into use, but I estimate it was in the late 1960's, 

 

The 951 did not "solve any problems" with the 947 fuze  as it was used in a completly different role.  It was introduced into service as a low level fuze, the 947 was not suitable for low level operations.

The 117 tail could be configured to be used as a non retard tail by lock wiring up the retard mechanism but this was seldom done as the 117 was a far more expensive tail and doing this was not economic. 

The last time I heard of the 947/951 being used by the RAF was in the  Gulf  in 1991.

 

Selwyn

[Slater]

My own experience with these particular tails is limited to demil operations. About eight or nine tears ago my depot (which stores/ships RAF assets) was tasked to demil a number of 114, 117, and 118 bomb tails. As Selyn has mentioned, when we broke the 117's out of their containers (which, IIRC, were wirebound crates with the tails inside a hermetic rubber bag of sorts), some of us were thinking "These look expensive. Why are we smashing them up?". I think the answer is simple economics - it was probably far cheaper to demil them in place than pay for loading them in ISO shipping containers and sending them by road and sea back to the UK. The RAF was starting to transition away from freefall ordnance and moving to Paveway IV and other guided munitions. We also scrapped a large number of heavy, solid steel rings which had some application to 1000 lb bombs. Not sure what. Along with various lanyards, screws, and other accessories.

 

The 117 looked like a beautifully made piece of kit. Shame they couldn't have sold ours to some other country.

[Retired Bob]

5 hours ago, LanceB said:

114 tail / 947 tail fuse and 117 tail / 951 tail fuse: which is applicable for what period, please?  I have searched around, and learned that the 951 tail fuse is a later model that supposedly fixed some issues with the 947 (at least in low level usage), however in RAF usage was there some point in time one could use to say "a plane before this date probably carried bombs with 114 tails and 947 tail fuses, after this date most likely used 117 tail / 951 tail fuses"?

For modelling issues the fuse fitted does not matter, it was screwed into the rear pocket of the 1,000lb bomb (there was also a nose fuse pocket, usually fitted with a steel aerodynamic plug) and the fuse  could not be seen once the tail was fitted.  The 114 tail units were designed to stabilise bombs dropped from altitude, usually from the bomb bay of V-bombers and Canberras, as 1,000lb bombs came to be used by tactical aircraft from the late 60s with need to be dropped from low level, to prevent the delivery aircraft being caught in the explosion the bomb needed to be retarded, thus the 117 tail was developed.  As most stocks of cold war bombs, tails and fuses were used up in the first Gulf War, the RAF thereafter did not bother with 114 tail units, if a bomb was to be dropped from altitude then a 117 tail would be used with the retard function disabled.  All the old clockwork fuses were replaced by a digital fuse, the multi-function 960 fuse, 1,000lb dumb bombs were still used but usually upgraded to smart weapons with the addition of a laser guidance nose unit and a 120 tail unit, 

 

1 hour ago, Slater said:

 We also scrapped a large number of heavy, solid steel rings which had some application to 1000 lb bombs. Not sure what.

Those would be transit rings, while the bombs were in storage and transit they did not have tails fitted, to protect the rear edge of the bomb from damage where the tail attached, steel transit rings were fitted .

[Selwyn]

2 hours ago, Retired Bob said:

For modelling issues the fuse fitted does not matter, it was screwed into the rear pocket of the 1,000lb bomb (there was also a nose fuse pocket, usually fitted with a steel aerodynamic plug) and the fuse  could not be seen once the tail was fitted.  The 114 tail units were designed to stabilise bombs dropped from altitude, usually from the bomb bay of V-bombers and Canberras, as 1,000lb bombs came to be used by tactical aircraft from the late 60s with need to be dropped from low level, to prevent the delivery aircraft being caught in the explosion the bomb needed to be retarded, thus the 117 tail was developed.  As most stocks of cold war bombs, tails and fuses were used up in the first Gulf War, the RAF thereafter did not bother with 114 tail units, if a bomb was to be dropped from altitude then a 117 tail would be used with the retard function disabled.  All the old clockwork fuses were replaced by a digital fuse, the multi-function 960 fuse, 1,000lb dumb bombs were still used but usually upgraded to smart weapons with the addition of a laser guidance nose unit and a 120 tail unit, 

 

Those would be transit rings, while the bombs were in storage and transit they did not have tails fitted, to protect the rear edge of the bomb from damage where the tail attached, steel transit rings were fitted .

They also might have been the Bomb adaptor rings that were fitted between the tail and the bomb body as a mounting point for the 960 fuze electrical connector and a mounting for the wiring harness when the associated proximity sensor was fitted to the nose of the bomb.

 

The only time you would see a nose fuze in a UK 1000lb bomb was when a 952 VT fuze was fitted in the nose it looked like a brass cylinder with what looked like two handles on it.

 

Selwyn

[Slater]

Selwyn, "Adaptor ring" sounds familiar. I know they were quite heavy and came individually packaged in wooden boxes.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Slater

[Selwyn]

3 minutes ago, Slater said:

Selwyn, "Adaptor ring" sounds familiar. I know they were quite heavy and came individually packaged in wooden boxes.

Thats what they would be. The transit rings were never packaged, but just taken off the bombs during prep and were rough cast items. the Adaptor rings were machined steel and came packed in wooden crates.

 

Selwyn

[Retired Bob]

1 minute ago, Selwyn said:

They also might have been the Bomb adaptor rings that were fitted between the tail and the bomb body as a mounting point for the 960 fuze electrical connector and a mounting for the wiring harness when the associated proximity sensor was fitted to the nose of the bomb.

Seeing as they were described as heavy, solid steel rings I thought that more likely described bomb transit rings.  But as you say they would have been removed from the bombs on assembly.

 

6 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

The only time you would see a nose fuze in a UK 1000lb bomb was when a 952 VT fuze was fitted in the nose it looked like a brass cylinder with what looked like two handles on it.

Agreed, I only assembled bombs with with 952 VT fuze's on one occasion, with the contact strip running to the rear,  not very reliable as I recall

[Selwyn]

Just now, Retired Bob said:

Seeing as they were described as heavy, solid steel rings I thought that more likely described bomb transit rings.  But as you say they would have been removed from the bombs on assembly.

 

Agreed, I only assembled bombs with with 952 VT fuze's on one occasion, with the contact strip running to the rear,  not very reliable as I recall

The Dreaded Film Wire Fuzing Strip!

 

Selwyn

[Retired Bob]

1 minute ago, Selwyn said:

The Dreaded Film Wire Fuzing Strip!

Ah! The memories from the bomb dump. 

[LanceB]

Thanks for all the responses.  So if I have this right:

114 tail / 947 tail fuse - for bombs dropped from altitude, more likely to be seen on large bombers

 

117 tail / 951 tail fuse - developed in late-60s for tactical, low-level use , so more likely to be seen on tactical aircraft like Harriers and Jags? Although they could also carry bombs with the 114 tail and 947 tail fuse.

 

So, given that I normally build tactical aircraft and not V bombers, if I was looking at aftermarket bombs (Res/kit) I guess I should stick with the 117 tail.

 

Thanks!

[Retired Bob]

10 hours ago, LanceB said:

So, given that I normally build tactical aircraft and not V bombers, if I was looking at aftermarket bombs (Res/kit) I guess I should stick with the 117 tail.

That's correct, I have some of the Res/kit 1,000lb bombs, with both the 114 and 117 tails and they are very nice and accurate. Takes me right back to the early 90s, assembling bombs in the bomb dump at RAF Lossiemouth. 

[LanceB]

Thanks Bob, so I shall get the Reskit ones with 117 tails and... you will become a close relative? 😉

 

And thanks, @Selwyn, for your advice as well, I was hoping when I posted this that you'd chip in.