Laser Guided Bomb in 1/72 for a Harrier GR.3? Op Corporate Falklands War 1982

[Johnson]

Hi,

 

Does anyone do a 1/72 LGB (Paveway II 1000lb G.P. Mk.1 - I think) that would be correct for a Harrier GR.3 on HMS Hermes during the Falklands War?

 

 

 

They were carried late in the conflict by GR.3s (though AFAIK they were unable to make them work properly)

 

Any steers to a AM product, or tips - like to make them from other 1/72 LGBs (e.g. Eduard or Res Kit) much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

[CT7567]

I believe these are often (but not altogether correctly, IIRC) referred to as "CPU-123" Paveways.

 

Available from Eduard aftermarket:

https://www.eduard.com/eduard/brassin/aircraft/1-72/cpu-123-paveway-ii-1-72.html

 

From memory included in the Revell Tornado GR.1, also (not so well done) from Airfix in their Jaguar GR.3 and last Buccaneer release before the retool.  And many moons ago, aftermarket sets from C-Scale and Flightpath/PP Aeroparts, as well as the vintage Airfix NATO weapons set. 

 

For a scratchbash, I believe the rear section and definitely forward fins are sized differently from any of the standard US types, but GBU-10/Mk-84 class is closest if you have any conventional UK 1000 pounders in the stash.  These are in the latest Hasegawa Paveway sets (the vintage sets are Vietnam-era Paveway I but may also work for you). Countless kit sources for GBU-10, the best and potentially most plentiful being Revell AG's F-16s (all boxings as far as I'm aware).

Edited July 19, 2022 by CT7567

[Pappy]

GBU-10 uses the MK.84 bomb which is a 2000lb store not 1000lb

 

Pappy

[Selwyn]

The correct designation is the 1000lb Paveway II (UK).  Various companies produce them, very often incorrectly described as the "CPU 123" which is actually a small component part of the guidance section of Paveway I and very early Paveway II systems. 

 

Selwyn

[Johnson]

10 hours ago, CT7567 said:

I believe these are often (but not altogether correctly, IIRC) referred to as "CPU-123" Paveways.

 

Available from Eduard aftermarket:

https://www.eduard.com/eduard/brassin/aircraft/1-72/cpu-123-paveway-ii-1-72.html

Many thanks @CT7567 for your very comprehensive post.

 

And many thanks @Pappy and @Selwyn for your clarifications.

 

I'll go for the Eduard cpu123 Pavway II, seems the simplest solution.

 

Cheers,

[CT7567]

11 hours ago, Pappy said:

GBU-10 uses the MK.84 bomb which is a 2000lb store not 1000lb

 

Pappy

Just to clarify my comments above, I was not suggesting the GBU-10 (US 2000 lb Mk 84 warhead) as an equivalent to the British 1000 lb Paveway II in bomb tonnage, rather that the forward and rear sections of that type are the closest approximation to the equivalent components on the UK version.  The GBU-16/Mk 83 is the nominal equivalent in warhead size, but is substantially slimmer than the UK 1000 lb LGB.  So if someone has "dumb" UK 1000 lb bombs and GBU-10s, they could combine the two into a rough facsimile (with the forward fins, as noted, being most different between the two types).

[Hook]

22 hours ago, CT7567 said:

GBU-10, the best and potentially most plentiful being Revell AG's F-16s (all boxings as far as I'm aware).

C/D boxings only.

 

HTH,

 

Andre

[Pappy]

11 hours ago, CT7567 said:

Just to clarify my comments above, I was not suggesting the GBU-10 (US 2000 lb Mk 84 warhead) as an equivalent to the British 1000 lb Paveway II in bomb tonnage, rather that the forward and rear sections of that type are the closest approximation to the equivalent components on the UK version.  The GBU-16/Mk 83 is the nominal equivalent in warhead size, but is substantially slimmer than the UK 1000 lb LGB.  So if someone has "dumb" UK 1000 lb bombs and GBU-10s, they could combine the two into a rough facsimile (with the forward fins, as noted, being most different between the two types).

 

G'day CT,

 

I understood you and I had a look at my 1/72 GBU-10s and the max diameter is about right but the side profile a little too elliptical as the UK pattern bomb is stumpier, the end have less taper. You could potentially shorten one end but it still won't look right, but I take your point that shapewise it is the closest. 

 

The Eduard is the closest, but for Falklands era you need to shave/sand off the conduit and any vertical 'bands'  as this is a feature of the later variant.

I have not seen the Eduard item personally but this is based upon what Selwyn has said  (and he ought to know) in prior post on the subject

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

[Selwyn]

13 hours ago, CT7567 said:

Just to clarify my comments above, I was not suggesting the GBU-10 (US 2000 lb Mk 84 warhead) as an equivalent to the British 1000 lb Paveway II in bomb tonnage, rather that the forward and rear sections of that type are the closest approximation to the equivalent components on the UK version.  The GBU-16/Mk 83 is the nominal equivalent in warhead size, but is substantially slimmer than the UK 1000 lb LGB.  So if someone has "dumb" UK 1000 lb bombs and GBU-10s, they could combine the two into a rough facsimile (with the forward fins, as noted, being most different between the two types).

You are closer than you think!

The Paveway II (UK) tail unit was a modified GBU 10 tail unit. If you look at images of this bomb, the Light Green (Actually the original US olive green colour) section is the original US tail.  The GBU 10 tail was used as it was the closest available diameter to the UK 1000lb bomb (the Mk84 bomb is 18" the UK 1000lb 16") The GBU 10 tail was modified by fitting a cone shaped section at the front that adapted down from 18" to 16" that contained the arming mechanism from a British 114 tail unit so UK fuzes could be used, and an arming vane was fitted at the back of the tail. These added ons bits were painted UK Deep bronze green which explains the two colour scheme. The Canard fins fitted on the guidance were unmodified  GBU10 items and marked as such.

 

see here   The conduit system is from Enhanced paveway II not used in the Falklands but the colour scheme of the tail/ guidance is typical.

 

Selwyn

[Johnson]

Eduard CPU-123 Paveway II bombs;

 

 

 

On 7/21/2022 at 8:31 AM, Selwyn said:

the Mk84 bomb is 18" the UK 1000lb 16"

 

Measures 6.14mm or 17.4 inches full size. So based on the Mk.84 I guess. 16" is 0.7mm less at 1/72, which I'll just have to live with.

 

On 7/21/2022 at 6:43 AM, Pappy said:

you need to shave/sand off the conduit and any vertical 'bands'

 

No conduit but I think that I need to shave off the two bands?

 

Ta,

Edited July 24, 2022 by Johnson
The bands are on the 'enhanced UK Paveway'.

[Selwyn]

6 hours ago, Johnson said:

Eduard CPU-123 Paveway II bombs;

 

 

 

 

Measures 6.14mm or 17.4 inches full size. So based on the Mk.84 I guess. 16" is 0.7mm less at 1/72, which I'll just have to live with.

 

 

No conduit but I think that I need to shave off the two bands?

 

Ta,

The two rings around the UK 1000lb bomb are actually securing bands for the EPWII (UK) conduit. They should not be on the Paveway II (UK) so sand/scrape them off.

 

Selwyn

[Julien]

On 24/07/2022 at 20:46, Selwyn said:

The two rings around the UK 1000lb bomb are actually securing bands for the EPWII (UK) conduit. They should not be on the Paveway II (UK) so sand/scrape them off.

 

Selwyn

The highly scientifically engineered Xtra large jubilee clips! 

[Johnson]

7 hours ago, Julien said:

The highly scientifically engineered Xtra large jubilee clips! 

And, if anything to do with MOD Procurement Executive, very expensive.

[Selwyn]

1 hour ago, Johnson said:

And, if anything to do with MOD Procurement Executive, very expensive.

Looking at the image of the Eduard Bomb, to me the tail unit looks a bit small, the cone shape between the bomb and the original  US tail is wrong, it cones the wrong way, from bomb to tail, not tail to bomb, they may have used the dimensions of the GBU16 1000lb tail instead of the GBU 10. A quick check would be to measure from tip of one wing to the other across the centre, it is 71cm in 1/1 scale on PWII(UK)/GBU10

 

Selwyn

[Julien]

4 hours ago, Johnson said:

And, if anything to do with MOD Procurement Executive, very expensive.

Thats 100%. I can tell the tail of the £50 tubes of Araldite, and that was £50 back in the late 80's

[Selwyn]

4 hours ago, Julien said:

Thats 100%. I can tell the tail of the £50 tubes of Araldite, and that was £50 back in the late 80's

My favorite was sealant guns of the type that you use with large tubes of sealant/with nozzle of the type used around your bath and sink.

At the time  (late 80's) at the big DIY stores chains  you got one free if you purchased x amount of  tubes of whatever you were using, If you just wanted the gun it was about £1.50 to buy, even now they are less than a fiver.  The MoD were paying £21.00 each for them.

The MOD /RAF stores chit you got with any item you had demanded from stores  all had the item unit price printed on them. After people complained about the rediculous cost of some of these items the MOD, "to save money"  initiated a system that involved filling in  a form you could submit to say if you thought the item was overpriced. Very soon the MOD system was overwhelmed with people from all three services submitting hundreds of these forms. The MOD  solution to the problem was to withdraw the form from use, and stop putting the unit cost on the stores chits!

 

Selwyn

 

[Johnson]

On 7/27/2022 at 8:47 AM, Selwyn said:

Looking at the image of the Eduard Bomb, to me the tail unit looks a bit small, the cone shape between the bomb and the original  US tail is wrong, it cones the wrong way, from bomb to tail, not tail to bomb, they may have used the dimensions of the GBU16 1000lb tail instead of the GBU 10. A quick check would be to measure from tip of one wing to the other across the centre, it is 71cm in 1/1 scale on PWII(UK)/GBU10

 

 

The tail measurements vary front to back;

 

Front 9.86mm (71cm at 1/1)

Mid 10.04mm (72.2cm 1/1)

Back 10.20 (73.4cm 1/1)

 

The bomb casing diameter is too large for the UK 1000lb 16" at 6.16mm (44.35cm or 17.46" at 1/1). 1.46" oversize, 0.5mm at 1/72.

[HAAFPhot]

There is reference to pave way and laser target markers being used in theatre, however as far as I know there were only 3 designators in theatre and one was destroyed. I seem to remember that they were on loan, either from the IS or UK SF. Early on their was a rather silly dit being spun, laying blame for the black buck accuracy on the SAS FACS using wrong codes etc which for so many reasons was crap. Hugh McManners make mention of them as an FOO/FAC during Op Corporate.

[CharlieGolf2009]

Just my two cents: in my GR.3 I used the couple of Paveways that came with Revell's Tornado GR.1.

 

Btw (and sorry to hijack your topic), Sea Harriers during strike missions carried 2 or 3 1000lb bombs? 

Edited August 18, 2022 by CharlieGolf2009

[Johnson]

Thanks @CharlieGolf2009, I'll have a look at my Eduard (actually Revell) GR.1.

 

2 hours ago, CharlieGolf2009 said:

Btw (and sorry to hijack your topic), Sea Harriers during strike missions carried 2 or 3 1000lb bombs?

 

Good hijack (I'm currently making a Sea Harrier FRS.1). Not entirely sure, but I believe they may have carried 3 or even more 1000LB bombs. In Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward's book (but it might have been his IWM audio file), he mentions moving the carriers closer to the Falklands so that they could carry maximum bomb load. I'm assuming that they removed their 100gal external fuel tanks to carry maximum ordnance. It's an interesting question and I've wondered about it myself. Two people who might know, if they're around, are @Selwyn and Nick Greenall (IPMS Harrier SIG) @NG899.

 

Cheers,

[NG899]

Selwyn - My references have the UK PWII using the Mk.13 1,000lb GP bomb with dimensions of 3,680mm (146ins) diameter 420mm (16ins). I trust that info tallies with your references.  

 

Charlie and Johnson, as far as I know, SHARs only operated with 100-gal tanks and max 3x 1,000lb bombs during the Falklands War. In 'bomber' mode their usual load out was 2. Only the initial strikes on Stanley airfield by HMS Hermes' FRS1s on 1 May and a few of their other ops, plus those planned attacks on helicopters on Mt Kent by 801 on 19 May, had the FRS1s loaded with 3.  Compared with 2x 9-Limas for CAP the carriers would have had to move closer to the islands to launch the heavier FRS1s or GR3s armed with bombs, then moving away from the islands to the east once more after launch to safeguard the carriers from SuE strikes. I've always understood max bomb load to be 3. Burden et al in "Falklands the Air War" have never mentioned five bombs being carried, nor have any other authors. I'm sure John Shields would have mentioned it in his recent analysis "Air Power in the Falklands Conflict".

 

I have asked if the FRS1s ever carried the the M L Aviation Ltd twin store carrier seen on early Harrier GR1s (included in Airfix's 24th scale GR1/3 kits) the answer is "No". Had they done so, then they could have carried 5x 1,000lb bombs IF their all up weight had still enabled them to take off safely from the carriers' ski-jumps...

 

Hope that helps, good luck.

 

Nick

 

[Selwyn]

28 minutes ago, NG899 said:

Selwyn - My references have the UK PWII using the Mk.13 1,000lb GP bomb with dimensions of 3,680mm (146ins) diameter 420mm (16ins). I trust that info tallies with your references.  

 

Charlie and Johnson, as far as I know, SHARs only operated with 100-gal tanks and max 3x 1,000lb bombs during the Falklands War. In 'bomber' mode their usual load out was 2. Only the initial strikes on Stanley airfield by HMS Hermes' FRS1s on 1 May and a few of their other ops, plus those planned attacks on helicopters on Mt Kent by 801 on 19 May, had the FRS1s loaded with 3.  Compared with 2x 9-Limas for CAP the carriers would have had to move closer to the islands to launch the heavier FRS1s or GR3s armed with bombs, then moving away from the islands to the east once more after launch to safeguard the carriers from SuE strikes. I've always understood max bomb load to be 3. Burden et al in "Falklands the Air War" have never mentioned five bombs being carried, nor have any other authors. I'm sure John Shields would have mentioned it in his recent analysis "Air Power in the Falklands Conflict".

 

I have asked if the FRS1s ever carried the the M L Aviation Ltd twin store carrier seen on early Harrier GR1s (included in Airfix's 24th scale GR1/3 kits) the answer is "No". Had they done so, then they could have carried 5x 1,000lb bombs IF their all up weight had still enabled them to take off safely from the carriers' ski-jumps...

 

Hope that helps, good luck.

 

Nick

 

Around that time the majority live bombs used by the RAF/RN for external carriage were the Mk 13 and 16. The Mk 20 was just coming into service so some of them might have gone south.  The Vulcans probably carried Mk 9 bombs  (single point suspension) as I was involved in sending the RAF Waddington bomb dump stocks to RoF Bieth in 1983   for refurbishment and modification to Mk 20, and all the bombs left at Waddo were Mk 9's. Not that this means  meant a jot of difference to  model builders as the only way of differentiating between marks was by looking at the ident plate or stencilling, as the differences were all internal. According to drawings The diameter of all postwar UK 1000lb bombs (except the Mk 7) was actually 16 1/2." not 16." not that it makes a lot of difference in 1/72! 

Selwyn

 

Selwyn

 

[Sundowner14]

1 hour ago, NG899 said:

Selwyn - My references have the UK PWII using the Mk.13 1,000lb GP bomb with dimensions of 3,680mm (146ins) diameter 420mm (16ins). I trust that info tallies with your references.  

 

Charlie and Johnson, as far as I know, SHARs only operated with 100-gal tanks and max 3x 1,000lb bombs during the Falklands War. In 'bomber' mode their usual load out was 2. Only the initial strikes on Stanley airfield by HMS Hermes' FRS1s on 1 May and a few of their other ops, plus those planned attacks on helicopters on Mt Kent by 801 on 19 May, had the FRS1s loaded with 3.  Compared with 2x 9-Limas for CAP the carriers would have had to move closer to the islands to launch the heavier FRS1s or GR3s armed with bombs, then moving away from the islands to the east once more after launch to safeguard the carriers from SuE strikes. I've always understood max bomb load to be 3. Burden et al in "Falklands the Air War" have never mentioned five bombs being carried, nor have any other authors. I'm sure John Shields would have mentioned it in his recent analysis "Air Power in the Falklands Conflict".

 

I have asked if the FRS1s ever carried the the M L Aviation Ltd twin store carrier seen on early Harrier GR1s (included in Airfix's 24th scale GR1/3 kits) the answer is "No". Had they done so, then they could have carried 5x 1,000lb bombs IF their all up weight had still enabled them to take off safely from the carriers' ski-jumps...

 

Hope that helps, good luck.

 

Nick

 

To add to this (if that’s possible with the authority that is Nick), just because you could, doesn’t mean you would or should. Any Harrier without wing tanks would be operating without much in the way of a margin to get there and back… in the South Atlantic….and with no diversion airfields… 

 

If things had got desperate, the risks would have likely been considered I’m sure. But it never got desperate.

 

That is all.

[Johnson]

1 minute ago, Sundowner14 said:

Any Harrier without wing tanks would be operating without much in the way of a margin to get there and back

 

I probably misinterpreted what Cdr Ward said about getting the carriers closer to Stanley for the Harrier airfield bomb attack and sure Nick is correct. Only 3 bombs plus 100gal tanks.

 

Cheers,

[NG899]

Good morning chaps,

@Sundowner14 - You're right about why tanks would not be left on mother.

I'm definitely not infallible on this or any other subject!

Indeed new things about the Falklands Harriers keep emerging even 40 years on. 🤣

 

I believe the port tank on XZ997/31 in the first photo above had its originally light aircraft grey undersides painted Oxford Blue (BS381C:105) or RAF Blue Grey (BS381C:633) as used on RN Lynx and Sea Kings; what looks to be a small black C on the fin ahead of the flash is (expensive?!) sealant applied around the rectangular panel there. The photo was probably taken before a sortie on 13 June, XZ997/31 flown by Wg Cdr Peter Squire with Flt Lt Mark Hare in XZ133/10, the pair launched at 1430Z on an LGB attack this time using an FAC with a Laser Target Marker. The attack profile was a 30-degree loft using an Initial Point behind the forward line of troops. The FAC illuminated the target too soon causing the first bomb to fall 400 yards short, but the second LGB hit the target - a Company HQ on Mt Tumbledown. Unlike his leader’s LGB armed GR.3, Hare’s XZ133/10 carried CBUs, and he followed up his leader's attack with a successful CBU attack. The pair returned to Hermes at 1530Z. Later, Jerry Pook carried out another successful LGB attack in XZ997/31 later in the day, this time on a 105mm gun emplacement on Mt Tumbledown, accompanied by Flt Lt Mike Beech; the identity of his GR.3s is not known.

 

Cheers

Nick

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by NG899