Jump to content

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


Scout712

Recommended Posts

Not sure, but thinking about it a stiffer rack would likely push the stresses into the airframe? I know sometimes a bit of flex can be better than things being rock solid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eight x 1000lb were definitely carried during the opening sorties. John Nichol has mentioned it on his Twitter feed; Al Byford (retired a couple of years ago as an Air Cdre) references it here (you can also access it via the link to RAF Air Power Review in Paddy Teakle's piece); see also Mike Toft's article here.

 

The load went down to five because of the effect of the weight on trying to get the TGR up to medium altitude; it was carrying a hell of a lot of weight (with the big tanks) to an altitude where the aircraft had a metaphorical fit of the vapours with 8 x 1000-pounders underneath.  That's not to rule out issues with the carriers, but all the blokes I know from the TGR force (including three of the four named above) talk of it in terms of the weight and consequent performance issues.

Edited by XV107
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in the Gulf with XV Sqn at Muharraq International airport from November 1990 to April 1991.

 

We had 12 Tornado GR.1's, four on each of three sites and the normal bomb load carried was 8 x 1000lb GP bombs with 960 fuzes carried on four twin store carriers fitted on the front & rear stations on the shoulder pylons.

 

The sorties were initially to suppress airfield AAA batteries prior to the JP233 Tornado's attacking, but were still used after the JP233 sorties ended.

 

We continued using the 960  fuzed 1000 pounders until low stocks caused us to revert to carrying 8 x 1000 lb GP bombs on TSC's.

 

XVTonker

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2021 at 10:51 PM, XV107 said:

Eight x 1000lb were definitely carried during the opening sorties. John Nichol has mentioned it on his Twitter feed; Al Byford (retired a couple of years ago as an Air Cdre) references it here (you can also access it via the link to RAF Air Power Review in Paddy Teakle's piece); see also Mike Toft's article here.

 

The load went down to five because of the effect of the weight on trying to get the TGR up to medium altitude; it was carrying a hell of a lot of weight (with the big tanks) to an altitude where the aircraft had a metaphorical fit of the vapours with 8 x 1000-pounders underneath.  That's not to rule out issues with the carriers, but all the blokes I know from the TGR force (including three of the four named above) talk of it in terms of the weight and consequent performance issues.

All the Tornado's operating out of Muharraq carried 8 x 1000 lb bombs on twin store carriers for the duration of the conflict until the aircraft switched to medium level bombing with 1000lb LGB's, initially carrying three LGB's then reducing down to two.

 

XVTonker

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, xvtonker said:

All the Tornado's operating out of Muharraq carried 8 x 1000 lb bombs on twin store carriers for the duration of the conflict until the aircraft switched to medium level bombing with 1000lb LGB's, initially carrying three LGB's then reducing down to two.

 

XVTonker

 

Badly expressed on my part;  I meant in the context of in the instances where the load was reduced to five, the reason given (from TGR mates across the three locations) was the weight being the consideration. I forget whether the raid on Shaibah right at the end of January originated from Muharraq, but it's a cracking example of the full eight x 1000lb fit being used from medium level, as is the subsequent declassified MISREP - which I think is in the link I provided - where the aircrews complain that despite managing to get 60 odd bombs in the right target area, it still wasn't close enough to cause much damage to the hangars and please could they have Paveways ASAP?

Thinking about it, I have a recollection that Tabuk might have flown without the TSCs on some of the low-level sorties. As I am actively discouraged from visiting my office until Mr Johnson says it's OK to do so, I'll have to wait to get into the filing cabinet with the relevant material in it to see if that thought's right or not...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of lobbing 8x unguided bombs onto a target back then to just one or two LGBs nowadays rests with the so called SSPD. The SSPD is the probability that the single released weapon will cause damage to the target. Hence, in the old days with all the different factors affecting the flight path of a bomb, the solution was to increase bang and number of possible impact points around the desired target. The problem with the Tornado was that it's computerized weapons delivery was designed for low level delivery. That's why the medium altitude deliveries were so fruitless. Here is a good read about the dilemma the RAF Tornado force faced during OP Granby.  

https://medium.com/raf-caps/operation-granby-and-the-dawn-of-precision-in-the-royal-air-force-a-personal-perspective-52fa7fb8b26e

Regards

Michael

Edited by Scout712
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partially off topic - could German Airforce Tornado's carry 8 x Mk 83 1,000lb bombs (the American variety) on belly?

 

Or was their maximum load configuration on belly 5 x Mk 83 or 6 x Mk83?

Edited by Uncle Dick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The German IDS differed from the GR-1 also by having different locks on the belly pylons. Germany also did not possess the TSCs . Moreover the Luftwaffe not even had MK-83s in its inventory, only the Marine did. Hence, the SCL for a Luftwaffe Tornado was either a stick of five MK-82s , or an MW-1 which was never carried other than during testing. The nuclear tasked Tornados could be loaded with U.S. owned B-61s which were also loaded and guarded by U.S. troops. Of course, the buddy refueling store was also possible but it was more common on Marine IDS when they flew Baltic express recce flights all the way up towards  the now Latvian and Estonian territorial waters. The Marine flew with Komoran, Harm, Recce pod and MK-82/83s.

The Luftwaffe adopted the Recce role after the demilitarization treaties which went along with the end of the cold war. Since the number of Fighter Bombers were to be limited the RF-4s, even though superior in equipment, were decommissioned and the Luftwaffe integrated the Recce pod into their IDS, now having less fighter bombers...

Regards

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Iatalian Airforce IDS Tornados are quite close to the Luftwaffe examples. They carried 1000lb Mk83s during the Gulf War

as far as i know 5 could be carried

https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/italy/mm7019_2.jpg

https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/italy/mm7061_1.jpg

 

mm7080_9.jpg

the Italian Tornados also wore a desert scheme... but they are way less famous then their RAF counterparts!

maybe some noseart would have helped  :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I didn’t fly in either GW, I did fly with 8 x 1000lb fit on one occasion at Goose Bay.  Whilst we only had the 1500l tanks on the inboards, it was the heaviest fit I flew in my 9 years on the Tornado.  I recall the TSCs being exceedingly draggy, and as we were all trying to get familiarity with the extra issues that flying at low level in this fit created, it also meant that we had to bring everything back and land with it, an additional event.  Normally during training, we cruised at 420kts at low level, but in this fit we used 450kts as a cruise speed because the energy lost turning could be significant and catch out the unwary, hence starting at a faster speed gave more margin.  Of, course, the faster the cruise speed and the heavier the jet, the more the fuel burn.  I can’t recall exactly how much we were burning, 80kgs/min rings a bell - I am happily corrected, but when we only started with 7400kgs (in those days), it did mean a shorter sortie length.  

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi gents,

thanks for all the added info regarding the loads. I will add that to my (our) Gulf war site.

Regarding TSCs - I am in contact with Eduard, I helped them with Desert Babe Tornado release in 1:48. Now, I also helped them with their upcoming Desert Babe Tornado in 1:72. Also, they asked me what to provide for ordnance or pods for all scales even for GR.4 version. So I sent them a list of what they should do. And for 99%, they will do TSCs in all scales. Just need to wait a bit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a great shot Blimpyboy. Good to see how they looked with that load on them.

They might not be in the Granby colours here, but ZD890 (rear aircraft?) was definitely there and pinked up (Hello Kuwait, Goodbye Iraq nose art and 28 mission symbols according to 'Gulf Air War Debrief') and I guess the foreground aircraft could possibly be ZD747 'AL' (Anna Louise with 29 missions)?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jakub Cikhart said:

upcoming Desert Babe Tornado in 1:72.

Interesting. I wonder if this will be their own kit or a rebox of the Revell GR.1 ?  Really looking forward to this and all the Eduard goodies to go with it.

 

I recall the original 1/72 Airfix MRCA kit included an option for an eight bomb weapon load albeit the bombs were BL755 cluster bombs with the TSC's integrally moulded with the pylon; as did the Monogram 1/72 kit. Not sure if the BL755 was ever carried by Tornado in service but clearly an 8 bomb fit was considered from the earliest days. I recall building the Airfix kit with 8 bombs in "operational" RAF camo markings when it first came out (1975). I do have a book with photos of an RSAF Tornado with a live 8 x (British) 1,000lb load too from GW1 - not sure about RSAF missions during the war, although I am aware of the one JP233 attack by a single RSAF Tornado on an Iraqi airbase (3 aircraft in the planned four ship attack having apparently aborted due to fuel issues en route to the target).

 

Rich

 

 

 

Edited by RichG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, the kit will be definetly rebox of Revell Gr.1 with all the possible Eduard goodies to it. I also recommended to make correct underfuselage pylons, as the kit has only 4-point IDS (Italy/German) pylons and not the correct Gr.1/4/IDS 3-point pylons (UK/Saudi).

Btw, RSAF Tornado and JP233 ???? First time I hear about it, any chance for more info ? Did the RSAF ever got JP233s or were they loaned from UK ?

Thanks !!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jakub Cikhart said:

RSAF Tornado and JP233 ???? First time I hear about it, any chance for more info ?

Thaks for the info re Eduard. I have seen RSAF Tornados with JP233. They were a standard weapon fit when they purchased Tornado as part of the massive and controversial Al Yamamah I arms deal by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. This included: 

  • 28 GR.1 Standard Tornados,  6 GR.1A Reconnaissance Standard and 14 Dual Control Trainer GR.1 Tornados
  • 24 Panavia Tornado ADVs (equivalent to RAF's Tornado F.3 standard)
  • JP233 Runway Denial Munition
  • Sea Eagle Anti Ship Missile
  • ALARM Anti-Radar Missile
  • Skyflash air-to-air Missile

A further 48 Panavia Tornado IDS' were delivered in the 1990s under the follow-on Al Yamamah II deal.  

 

Some information on the RSAF JP233 attack is here - very brave men.

 

Rich

Edited by RichG
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HA, thanks for the info. Strange, I totally forgot this that Ben Eng made this plane and I also have this on my site LOL !!!!!!

Btw, that list of 28 + 6 + 14 Gr.1 - is there a complete list ? I guess you mean all these delivered before Gulf war ? Or all delivered ? I have 27 IDS/IDS-T and 24 ADV delivered before Gulf.

Thanks to all !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too sure of the state of deliveries to RSAF immeadiately prior to GW1.

 

According to my information I understand the RSAF were in a hurry to receive them once the initial contract had been signed and 18 were therefore diverted to RSAF from RAF (and another 2 from German) Batch 5 production. The initial deliveries allowed the formation of 2 IDS squadrons (also one ADV - from RAF's Batch 6).  The first IDS Squadron, 7,  took all 20 Batch 5 Tornados (serials 701-6 and 757-770); this included 6 twin stickers reflecting the units secondry role as a weapons conversion & tactical training unit (serials 704-6, 759, 768-9). The second RSAF IDS unit, 66 Squadron, was just in the process of forming under the auspices of No 7, when the Gulf conflict occurred.

 

The remaining 28 IDS aircraft from the Al Yamamah I contract (for 48 IDS Tornados) were built in Batch 7. These first began appearing in Feb 1988 and included 8 twin stickers (serials 771-4 & 6620-6623); 14 standard config aircraft (serials 6610-6619 and 6624-6627); and the final 6 were in the GR1A configuration (serials 6628-6633). 

 

Little seems to have been published concering Saudi operations in the Gulf war but the RSAF IDS aircraft were practically identical in equipment fit to the RAF's GR.1s and apparently undertook similar interdiction and counter-air missions. The only JP233 attack - on the first night of the war - was reportedly against the Iraqi H-3 airfield.   

 

Hope that's correct - but happy to be corrected by those more learned in the subject.

 

Rich

Edited by RichG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jakub Cikhart said:

Great info, looks like I was missing 704 and 705 as IDS(T)

Have to be a little careful because it looks like the RSAF renumbered their a/c at some point with serials 701-708 becoming 751-758.  The trainers being:

754 (ex 704); 755 (ex 705); 756 (ex 706? w/o 28/08/89 - not sure if it was 756 at the time or still 706).

 

Rich

Edited by RichG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...