Pictures of Op Granby GR-1 with 8x 1000# bombs

[Scout712]

I started my 1/72 Revell kit and saw that only 4x 1000# unguided bombs were included. That made me thinking that a GR-1 with 8 of those would look the part. I seem to remember that this config was flown during the initial low level strikes during OP Granby. However, not a single picture showed up during my research. On another note. When U.S. supplied CBU-87 were loaded. Did the jets fly with them combat missions?

Thanks

Michael

[alhenderson]

I was listening to a podcast the other day which had an interview with Nick Heard, a GR.1 pilot, about his experiences in Op Granby.  Pretty sure he said that they were dropping 8 x 1,000lb early on - whether it was alongside the JP233 missions or after, I'm not sure.  Podcast was "Pilot Episodes" (https://play.acast.com/s/pilotepisodes) - well worth a listen!

 

Al. 

[Scout712]

I have the same info. The 1000 pounders were used in conjunction with the JP-233 flights to suppress airfield ground based air defenses.

Michael

[Jabba]

Weapon load options for Tornados in Op Granby can be found here https://dstorm.eu/pages/loadout/tornado.html. 

[RedhillPhil]

 Carrying 8X1,000 lb-ers must have curtailed the range considerably.

[Hook]

41 minutes ago, RedhillPhil said:

 Carrying 8X1,000 lb-ers must have curtailed the range considerably.

 

That's what the tankers were there for.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre 

[Jabba]

And the switch to the bigger fuel tanks that the F3s normally used.

[Scout712]

I know the desertstrom.eu homepage. In fact, I provided some info on the 3rd TFW F-4Es for it.

Even though it states 8x1000# I there is only a pic pic of a RSAF Tornado carrying this load, with the Hindenburger tanks btw. Anyway, I searched the whole evening and

finally found a nice homepage showing pictures from Tabuk in 1991 .

And what did I find? GR-1s with those 1000 pounders but only six. Two on each of the three belly weapons rails. This would also coincide with the warload for cold war ops.

Some random pictures I also found confirm that load out.

Cheers

Michael

Edited January 27, 2021 by Scout712

[exdraken]

3 hours ago, Scout712 said:

I know the desertstrom.eu homepage. In fact, I provided some info on the 3rd TFW F-4Es for it.

Even though it states 8x1000# I there is only a pic pic of a RSAF Tornado carrying this load, with the Hindenburger tanks btw. Anyway, I searched the whole evening and

finally found a nice homepage showing pictures from Tabuk in 1991 .

And what did I find? GR-1s with those 1000 pounders but only six. Two on each of the three belly weapons rails. This would also coincide with the warload for cold war ops.

Some random pictures I also found confirm that load out.

Cheers

Michael

great photos, thanks!

 

but really 6? Can the center pylon carry 2 of them? I'd rather think 5... 

[Scout712]

Good question, I guess I concluded that one from pictures I've seen of GR-1's lofting six of them.

My curiosity startet now and I looked on youtube and there are several videos showing eight bombs on VERs.

First missions, you see the worried faces of the aircrew prior to take off and how relieved their were when coming back alive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfdsMwg-XmQ

 

Michael

 

[wombat]

8 was definitely common early on (which I think was still less weight than two JP233) Switched to five later though two versions of why - whether the medium level move or diminishing stocks.

 

CBU87 was signed off but ceasefire came first.

[Finn]

No pics of 8 x 1000lb bombs but some interesting reading here:

 

https://medium.com/raf-caps/no-ordinary-job-a-personal-perspective-e8250bce886f

 

scroll down a bit to get to Op Granby info.

 

Jari

[Shaun]

The twin stores carrier and the 8x 1000lb Bombs  fit was used early in the War, there is a photo in the World air power journal Gulf war debrief book.

[wombat]

Checked my reference re CBU 87s - not only signed off but loaded and ready to depart when the ceasefire came through. Doesn’t say what config though and I’ve never seen pics.

[MT1]

Take a look at the dstorm.eu post above from Jabba. It will take to directly to the page with Tornado weapon loads, in the dumb bomb section CBU87 is mentioned. There is also a link to a pic which seems to show 4 weapons on ZA456.  Michael Napiers excellent book, Tornado GR1, has several pics and pilot interviews that mention aircraft carrying 8x1000lb bombs during the opening days of Desert Storm. These were used in loft attacks from low level. As the aircraft moved to medium altitude attacks the bomb load was reduced to 5 weapons, or 2-3 a little later when Paveway LGBs were used.

[Jabba]

1 hour ago, MT1 said:

Take a look at the dstorm.eu post above from Jabba. It will take to directly to the page with Tornado weapon loads, in the dumb bomb section CBU87 is mentioned. There is also a link to a pic which seems to show 4 weapons on ZA456.  

 

Also on ZA475 which also had a different style shark mouth.

 

https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/gb/za475_3.jpg

 

https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/gb/za475_6.jpg

 

https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/gb/za475_7.jpg

 

 

[robonth]

Hello, I'd like to build a 1/48 GR1, where can I find the dual lauchers please. Which Reskit bombs would I need?

Regards

Robert-Jan 

[MT1]

Hannants.co.uk have Aim - Transport 8x1000lb on dual carriers in 1:48. They are quite expensive though, plenty of other weapon options available via the search engine on their site.

 

[MT1]

Oops, just seen their home page, seems they have issues with sending to EU, so have stopped taking orders.

[RMP2]

Unsure where I read it now, possibly WAPJ, but I recall that the twin racks would flex upon release which obviously affected accuracy. Carrying and lobbing less bombs thereby increased both accuracy and range.

[exdraken]

3 hours ago, RMP2 said:

Unsure where I read it now, possibly WAPJ, but I recall that the twin racks would flex upon release which obviously affected accuracy. Carrying and lobbing less bombs thereby increased both accuracy and range.

Interesting reason!

Would the be released all at once, or ripple released to create a string of bombs?

Accuracy when lobbing can't be high anyways, no?

[RMP2]

3 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Interesting reason!

Would the be released all at once, or ripple released to create a string of bombs?

Accuracy when lobbing can't be high anyways, no?

 

Not sure. But Id imagine theyd lob them all at once, I for one wouldnt fancy a return visit.
Accuracy wise - must be half decent, but then throwing 8 of them at once might suggest otherwise? Either way - it cant be much fun being at the other end.

 

Re the flex - Im sure I read that the tandem beams on the Jaguars suffered the same and the French didnt like them because of that, despite the side by side dual mounts they used instead which one would expect to also wobble a bit.

[exdraken]

10 minutes ago, RMP2 said:

 

 

Re the flex - Im sure I read that the tandem beams on the Jaguars suffered the same and the French didnt like them because of that, despite the side by side dual mounts they used instead which one would expect to also wobble a bit.

Wonder why they didn't notice that fact earlier during testing

 

With ripple I meant one after the other, with some milliseconds time delay.

[RMP2]

3 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Wonder why they didn't notice that fact earlier during testing

 

With ripple I meant one after the other, with some milliseconds time delay.

 

I guess with there being 8x1000lb of bad news it wasnt considered much of a concern and besides, what was the alternative other than less boomy stuff being thrown about?

 

Apols, I didnt read properly. I believe they were ripple released. Theres likely something about it in Tornado Boys, I will have a read of that later and see what I find.

[exdraken]

3 minutes ago, RMP2 said:

 

I guess with there being 8x1000lb of bad news it wasnt considered much of a concern and besides, what was the alternative other than less boomy stuff being thrown about?

Without knowing the exact cause its difficult of course. But stiffer racks? Or stiffer  mounting? Or different design or firing sequence?

There is always options, but those cost time and money....