Calling all Tornado / Tonka experts - What bombs are slug under XX947 in this photo?

[Rabbit Leader]

Probably a question for @Selwyn, however does anyone know what bombs have been slug under XX947 during this pre-service testing and demonstration period? https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/registration/XX947

Seems to look like 1000 ponders with pointed noses, although I've never seen these bombs shaped this way? 

Does anyone know if they are available in 1/72 scale too? 

 

Cheers.and regards... Dave 

[jackroadkill]

This was pretty much all I could find, Dave.  Fifteen minutes of Googling and I ended up back at BM!

[Rabbit Leader]

Thanks @jackroadkill, funny how most queries have previously been explored on BM over time! 

Mk. 83's are an interesting option, I think I've got some of those in a Hasegawa weapons set, probably not eight however I'll do a test to see how they look. 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

 

 

[exdraken]

Too small for Mk.84, too big for Mk.82 bombs.

The only other bombs with comparable shapes are the Spanish Expal series. Relatively unlikely I'd say, as the are not in use by the Tornado developper countries.

Definitely not a British bomb shape!

Italy, German Marineflieger and Saudi Arabia?? did use Mk.83s, but I think max 5 at once!

RAF Tornados did though even use 8× 1000lb bombs in service for a while. Those are bunter in shape!

For your reference:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m0ZrmBBVySE/WkY2ZNdZQWI/AAAAAAAAFGc/jj-ZXHWFF8wQCjafdczv4oUXLWPHI6P_gCLcBGAs/s1600/British+Tornado+IDS.jpg

[Selwyn]

Us Mk 83 trials bombs. 

This aircraft was a Panavia trials aircraft. Mk 80 series bombs and their derivatives are used by Germany Italy and KSA as standard basic weapons fit.  The UK and KSA used the Uk 1000lb bomb as their standard 1000lb bomb,  but the other countries carry Mk 83 1000lb as standard. KSA use the  MK 82 and 84. as well.

interestingly the UK & KSA used/use  the MACE lug system without any swaybraces, Germany/Italy use  standard Bail Lugs, and  their release units do have swaybraces.

 

Selwyn

[canberra kid]

Some alterative load options.

 

John

[Rabbit Leader]

Appreciate the additional info and content @Selwyn and @canberra kid, always nice seeing your input. 

Cheers.. Dave 

[amos brierley]

Hello.

 

 I would say that the original photo - the prototype Tonka is carrying what I would say is U.S Mk 83 gp bombs.

 

But, to digress here’s some photos to add to the discussion :

 

This is a different shot of the same A/C above. XX947 with a different load-out 12x 1000lb ers to the norm.

 

Again, adding to the above posted photos,  this time more 9 Sqn photo in a different configuration of just 4x 1000 lb ers, lessons learned from the Gulf war, in what ever way we were delivering 8 bombs they were colliding mid-air, exploding and damaging our A/C. Also in a different configuration is the 2x  ECM pods…….

 

Thanks for looking.    .     ( Photos are part of my collection, but , I don’t own the copyright. )

 

 

[Phone Phixer]

9 hours ago, amos brierley said:

Again, adding to the above posted photos,  this time more 9 Sqn photo in a different configuration of just 4x 1000 lb ers, lessons learned from the Gulf war, in what ever way we were delivering 8 bombs they were colliding mid-air, exploding and damaging our A/C. Also in a different configuration is the 2x  ECM pods…….

The photo of the 9 sqn Tornado's dates back to the early years of the GR1 introduction to service. The single letter tail codes indicate it was when 9 were at RAF Honington. So anytime up to 1986. The 2 Skyshadow ECM pod fit was used because the BOZ 105 pods were not released for use until a few years after the Tornado appeared.

As for your comment on 8 bomb release colliding, pure fantasy! Bombs are released with a time interval between each weapon to allow for separation. They are not all released simultaneously.

The issue with bombs exploding prematurely damaging the aircraft (and destroying one), was due to a defect in the 960 fuze airburst proximity sensor in the bomb nose fairing.

[Selwyn]

2 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

The photo of the 9 sqn Tornado's dates back to the early years of the GR1 introduction to service. The single letter tail codes indicate it was when 9 were at RAF Honington. So anytime up to 1986. The 2 Skyshadow ECM pod fit was used because the BOZ 105 pods were not released for use until a few years after the Tornado appeared.

As for your comment on 8 bomb release colliding, pure fantasy! Bombs are released with a time interval between each weapon to allow for separation. They are not all released simultaneously.

The issue with bombs exploding prematurely damaging the aircraft (and destroying one), was due to a defect in the 960 fuze airburst proximity sensor in the bomb nose fairing.

There was not a defect in the fuzes, The fuzes were set with too short arming times in mission requirements by aircrew. They were made aware of the danger by the armourers but chose to ignore the advice, it resulted in the loss of an aircraft, as a bomb after release when it armed, its proximity sensor detected the   next bomb in the stick in front of it instead of the ground and detonated behind the aircraft.

 

Selwyn

[Zephyr91]

Interesting pics and comments.  I worked at Warton for nearly 40 years in the aerodynamics area that had to do, amongst other things, the calc's and simulations for safe carriage and release of stores.   I didn't work directly on the configurations posted here but thought some general observations might help.

1. The 12 bomb fit looks to me like a demonstration that it will actually fly with such a load.  It wouldn't go far though because without the underwing tanks it would use most of its internal fuel getting off the ground!   Release or jettison of those things would be problematical, but if you went slow enough it might be ok.  So not a viable combat option, probably. The airflow under the aircraft and around the stores is very "messy" (aerodynamics technical term ).

2. Release of multiple stores is indeed timed (as per Phone Phixer above).  This is done to ensure no collisions and also to help maintain control of the aircraft by making sure the cg position varies as little as possible both fore/aft and laterally.  Can't comment on fuse timing/sensitivity issues but there were always extensive advice notes available to crew (who have the choice to adhere or not).

3. The shot with multiple Sea Eagles (?) looks like a photo-shopped image for brochure purposes to me.  Doesn't seem to me a viable configuration for release-to-service, for similar reasons to the 12-bomb

 

Hope that's of interest

 

[Phone Phixer]

8 hours ago, Selwyn said:

There was not a defect in the fuzes, The fuzes were set with too short arming times in mission requirements by aircrew. They were made aware of the danger by the armourers but chose to ignore the advice, it resulted in the loss of an aircraft, as a bomb after release when it armed, its proximity sensor detected the   next bomb in the stick in front of it instead of the ground and detonated behind the aircraft.

Yeah, good explanation. I was trying to keep it simple, but admit didn't know the final result of the investigation. I was at the blunt end (Finningly) at the time, we got the notice to add 960 proximity sensors to the defect list. Now my memory has gone hazy, what it was called, the one before blacklist. Then when on the Jag's, 960 airburst was not in the plan.

[Selwyn]

1 hour ago, Phone Phixer said:

Yeah, good explanation. I was trying to keep it simple, but admit didn't know the final result of the investigation. I was at the blunt end (Finningly) at the time, we got the notice to add 960 proximity sensors to the defect list. Now my memory has gone hazy, what it was called, the one before blacklist. Then when on the Jag's, 960 airburst was not in the plan.

Red carded?

 

Selwyn