Jump to content

Do F-18's carry the MK 82 snake eyes in OIF or OEF?


Recommended Posts

Was kind of curious if F-18's carried mk 82 snake eyes or just plain jane mk 82's in ground support missions? I was told that the US Navy doesn't use the mk 82's with the balloon type retarding devices anymore. Is that true? I'm just trying to find a symetrical loadout for my 1/32 scale Academy F-18C hornet not using the goofy gas set up. Also, can anybody tell me if VFA 94 "Shrikes" were in OEF or OIF or both?

Thanks again

Little Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

VFA-94 did both OEF in 2001 and OIF in 2003. I don't remember any high-drag ordnance ever sitting in the bomb farm or out on the deck during either deployment.

Your best bet for ordnance pics is www.navy.mil, mediaport, click the camera and search for VFA-94 or VFA-97 and you should get a good idea of the loads flown. My faviorite would be two JSOWs.

HTH

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the question " I was told that the US Navy doesn't use the mk 82's with the balloon type retarding devices anymore. Is that true? "

No, the USN/USMC does not, and has not used the "balloon" type retarded fins that the Air Force uses on their Mk 82's. I don't think anyone used snakeyes in country, that would require getting low and in the weeds, I believe everyone was staying up high and hitting targets with PGM's.

Reddog :coolio:

Link to post
Share on other sites

@reddog - never say never. I have an old (from 5 or 6 years ago) issue of Koku-Fan that I got as they had a big photo spread on Harriers at CAX at 29 Stumps (pretty sure that was the occassion, will need to double-check the issue when I get home), and in some shots the Harriers were carrying ballute-fitted Mk82s. I think there was a pic in there of a USMC Hornet also carrying those, but will need to double check. But I am sure about the Harriers, I was a little surprised to see them carrying ballute bombs instead of Snakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@reddog - never say never. I have an old (from 5 or 6 years ago) issue of Koku-Fan that I got as they had a big photo spread on Harriers at CAX at 29 Stumps (pretty sure that was the occassion, will need to double-check the issue when I get home), and in some shots the Harriers were carrying ballute-fitted Mk82s. I think there was a pic in there of a USMC Hornet also carrying those, but will need to double check. But I am sure about the Harriers, I was a little surprised to see them carrying ballute bombs instead of Snakes.

Lance, the BSU-49 AIR ballute fin for the MK-82 isn't a USN/USMC stock item and is not cleared for use on said aircraft. The MK-83/BSU-85 AIR fin is similar in appearance, but a bit bigger. Are you sure that isn't what you saw in the pictures?

Also, the MK-16 fin used for MK-82-based air-dropped mines is externally the same as a BSU-49, so that might be a possibility too although I have no idea what a Harrier CAX in the middle of the desert would use mines for...

The only high-drag fin typically used on Hornets or Harriers anymore for the MK-82 is the BSU-86, which looks similar to a MK-15 Snakeye fin but has shorter, broader "petals".

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joe - you are correct, sir! Mk83s with BSU-85. My bad - I remembered them as 82s (the caption does say 83s), and I did not realize there were two different types of ballute retardation systems. Indeed, based on pics I just googled, the bombs on the Harriers have the short-chord, long-span fins of the BSU-85, not the really short-span and long-chord fins of the BSU-49.

@reddog - I was wrong. I admit it. Now stand the f*** down. You can be right without being a prick about it, you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I seem a little ticked, your right, I'm getting tired of "tex-perts" calling me out and saying I'm wrong on ordnance items because they have some picture or read something in some book. I have over 25 years of USN/USMC ordnance knowledge, you might want to listen to what I say, the people who write the aircrew manuals (NATIPS) for USN/USMC platforms do. What I know I didn't read in any book you by at your local book store of off line, it's my job and I have lived if for over 25 years.

Reddog :D

Herr OberBombenFuhrer, why all the anger? Holiday season stresses? Nobody set out to discredit you, dude, so just take it easy.

Since you're so belligerently eager to be helpful, then help us taxpayers get more return on our investment in educating you: Just how much dumb ordinance was used in the past decade on Navy or Marine F/A-18s? Would Mk 83s be at all common on Hornets in OEF, OIF, or subsequent operations in the 2006-2009 timeframe? How about the various types of unguided rockets? How about Mk. 82s on TERs? About when were CBU-87s phased out of operations? I'm tired of chewing through all this smart ordinance building modern jets, but the Navy.mil picture shows pic after pic of Navy hornets with all that wimpy precision stuff. Honestly, it's like you guys secretly want to be the Air Force. I'm glad they retired the battleships before those beasts had to see what's happened to their Navy. ( :beer4:)

And did at one point the Navy have some sort of conical fuse-cap for the Mk. 83? I ask, because Monogram's set with their F/A-18C suggests this, but I don't know if it was mold-maker laziness or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@Joe - you are correct, sir! Mk83s with BSU-85. My bad - I remembered them as 82s (the caption does say 83s), and I did not realize there were two different types of ballute retardation systems. Indeed, based on pics I just googled, the bombs on the Harriers have the short-chord, long-span fins of the BSU-85, not the really short-span and long-chord fins of the BSU-49.

@reddog - I was wrong. I admit it. Now stand the f*** down. You can be right without being a prick about it, you know.

Call me what you will but before you call someone out as being wrong you better have all your ducks in a row and your head and A## wire together.

I don't speak from my rear like some other do, I've actually handled the things I talk about, not just read it in a book, when was the last time you handled a Mk 82?

As far as standing down, my post was a direct response to your post, don't like being called out then don't call out someone who has been there done that as being wrong, and maybe you won't get the reaction you just got.

Reddog :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, with all due respect i don't think anyone knows what the other persons credentials are on this forum. i think he made an honest mistake and it didn't sound to me like he was undermining you. i think sometime people get a little too sensitive (whiny) when it comes to stuff like this. so you know your stuff, that's geat. biting someones head off because he questioned you when he probably didn't know what your qualifications are is in my opinion, a bit weak. i would have thought someone that deals with high explosives on a regular basis would have a bit thicker skin and would be a little slower to fly off the handle. but maybe it is just the holiday season stressing us out. at any rate. thank you for your service and your answers.

respectfully,

Bill :salute:

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, can we please not antagonize the guys that actually know what they are talking about? This is precisely the reason why people in the know, leave this board or choose not to post. I for one, appreciate the insight and first hand knowledge Reddog and others bring to this forum. It is mostly the reason I come here.

Edited by graves_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

not trying to antagonize anyone. i agree it's wonderful to have people that have the knowledge come here and be kind enough to share it. i was just pointing out that he made an honest mistake and i didn't feel was being rude to the expert because i don't think he knew Reddog was an expert. having IYAOYAS on your monikor doesn't automatically mean you know. now Lance knows what reddog's qualifications are in that field and won't question his anwers. but i don't feel he needed the proverbial swat on the nose with a newspaper. that's all. respect should be universal.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
not trying to antagonize anyone. i agree it's wonderful to have people that have the knowledge come here and be kind enough to share it. i was just pointing out that he made an honest mistake and i didn't feel was being rude to the expert because i don't think he knew Reddog was an expert. having IYAOYAS on your monikor doesn't automatically mean you know. now Lance knows what reddog's qualifications are in that field and won't question his anwers. but i don't feel he needed the proverbial swat on the nose with a newspaper. that's all. respect should be universal.

Bill

Your post wasn't what I was referring to. It was the sarcastic replies by Fishwelder and the "stand the F down" comments I was referring to in my previous post. Not necessary. Your right, Lance had no way of know his credentials. Maybe Reddog over reacted, maybe he took out his frustration on the wrong person, but he does have point, get your ducks in a row before you call someone wrong on something. I'm sure he is frustrated because this isn't the first time it has happened here. Maybe he did take it a bit personal, but I too would take a personal if it were my life's work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post wasn't what I was referring to. It was the sarcastic replies by Fishwelder and the "stand the F down" comments I was referring to in my previous post. Not necessary. Your right, Lance had no way of know his credentials. Maybe Reddog over reacted, maybe he took out his frustration on the wrong person, but he does have point, get your ducks in a row before you call someone wrong on something. I'm sure he is frustrated because this isn't the first time it has happened here. Maybe he did take it a bit personal, but I too would take a personal if it were my life's work.

Honestly, I don't think the reply I posted anything that can be called antagonistic, either. The guy said he worked with bombs for a living (and for what it's worth, yes, I believe him), so is some comment in a modeling thread on the internet really that injurious? And further, I followed it up with real questions about real ordnance, that I was entirely confident he could answer, or tell me straight if he couldn't. You know, the thread's subject.

(Sigh) Merry Christmas everyone. Enjoy your F/A-18 builds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing, sarcasm is the Navy's stock in trade. I doubt I could say anything so profoundly snarky as to shock or offend any prior or active-duty sailor or Marine. Any group of people who could refer to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier , a product of Rickover's empire, as "Mobile Chernobyl" pretty much takes the prize where sarcasm is concerned.

And another thing: Does the navy still use Mk 84 "dumb" bombs, without precision kits, for much of anything? How about Mk 83 dumb bombs on Tomcats, while they were still flying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I don't think the reply I posted anything that can be called antagonistic, either. The guy said he worked with bombs for a living (and for what it's worth, yes, I believe him), so is some comment in a modeling thread on the internet really that injurious? And further, I followed it up with real questions about real ordnance, that I was entirely confident he could answer, or tell me straight if he couldn't. You know, the thread's subject.

(Sigh) Merry Christmas everyone. Enjoy your F/A-18 builds.

You truly were just asking him questions you wanted to know? That's fine, but that is obviously not what you were doing. And who cares if Navy guys are sarcastic? There's a time and a place for everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Herr OberBombenFuhrer, why all the anger? Holiday season stresses? Nobody set out to discredit you, dude, so just take it easy.

Since you're so belligerently eager to be helpful, then help us taxpayers get more return on our investment in educating you: Just how much dumb ordinance was used in the past decade on Navy or Marine F/A-18s? Would Mk 83s be at all common on Hornets in OEF, OIF, or subsequent operations in the 2006-2009 timeframe? How about the various types of unguided rockets? How about Mk. 82s on TERs? About when were CBU-87s phased out of operations? I'm tired of chewing through all this smart ordinance building modern jets, but the Navy.mil picture shows pic after pic of Navy hornets with all that wimpy precision stuff. Honestly, it's like you guys secretly want to be the Air Force. I'm glad they retired the battleships before those beasts had to see what's happened to their Navy. ( :thumbsup:)

And did at one point the Navy have some sort of conical fuse-cap for the Mk. 83? I ask, because Monogram's set with their F/A-18C suggests this, but I don't know if it was mold-maker laziness or not.

Fish,

You and I have not seen eye to eye on several issues so it is no suprise to see you jump in here and attack me but comparing me to some Nazi ordnanceman, common on, does that make you feel like a big man?

It ain't the holiday stress or anything like that, I'm just getting tired of being called out as being wrong on something that is basic knowledge to me. My credentials have already been estabilshed on this site several times, everyone who has been here for more then three months know them.

If you are going to call me out at least learn how to spell ORDNANCE and FUZE, it would give you a little bit more credibility. Also, what education am I suppose to be getting on your tax payer dollar? ref: " then help us taxpayers get more return on our investment in educating you"

I don't just throw info out on the internet, there is such a thing called OPSEC and it's not just a buzz word. Once you show me your clearance level and need to know I'll answer any questions you have, until then I will continue to be limited with the info.

Now to some of your questions.

"Would Mk 83s be at all common on Hornets in OEF, OIF, or subsequent operations in the 2006-2009 timeframe? "

I will not comment in general about operation load out but any authorized load may have been used.

"How about the various types of unguided rockets?"

Can you be a little bit more specific with this question, I'm not sure what you are asking.

"How about Mk. 82s on TERs? "

Currently, only cleared on the AV-8B

"About when were CBU-87s phased out of operations?"

This is an Air Force CBU and was never cleared for USN/USMC platforms, therefore I defer to the A/F munitions expert. I specialize in USN/USMC Ordnance and a little bit FMS stuff, mainly those who use USN/USMC platforms

"And did at one point the Navy have some sort of conical fuse-cap for the Mk. 83? "

Not sure what you are talking about, conical fuze-cap? If you are referring to the end of the conical fin being close then yes, the early version of the Mk 80 Series conical fins did have the end close off and not a hole like you see now but those didn't last long and not many where in the fleet. If you are talking about a mechanical tail fuze, then yes, there was a Mk 346 Mechincal tail fuze that looked like the M904 mechnical nose fuze but was phased out of service in the early 80's.

The reason why "we" are so secretive is because you never know who's surfing these forums, if you think the bad guys aren't surfing this site think again, I'm not taking that chance.

And yes, your's and Lance's reply where antagonizing, hence my reply. Also, there is a reason why I dont' post what I do and who I support, again it's called OPSEC. I'll give you a hint, if you know what NATIP and WASP is, I'm one of the ordnance SME's for them.

As to your question about the Monogram two place bomb rack, I can not comment on that, have not seen it. Also, what the heck is an HTS Pod? Can you give me a designation or something, HTS is not familiar to me.

niart17,

I'm not being whiny or stress out, I'm just tired of being called out as being wrong on things that I know like the back of my hand because someone read something in some book. As Graves 09 stated, this isn't the first time and quite frankly it probably won't be the last time but again, I'm tired of it. I am no longer going to take the PC route and just ignore it, I will answer the challanges.

Lance,

I understand you are a Marine, I salute you sir but please understand my fustration with being called out on something that is (for me) basic knowledge. This has not been the first time this has happen, you just happen to be the one that finally pushed me over the edge, I apologize for snapping at you, hope you understand my position.

And finally, I don't like being called an expert, IMO there is no such thing. I just happen to specialize in the ordnance and aircraft configuration field and know enough to be dangerous. Some one who calls themself an expert usually ain't, I just know enought to fool the people that I work for.

Reddog :monkeydance:

Link to post
Share on other sites
And another thing, sarcasm is the Navy's stock in trade. I doubt I could say anything so profoundly snarky as to shock or offend any prior or active-duty sailor or Marine. Any group of people who could refer to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier , a product of Rickover's empire, as "Mobile Chernobyl" pretty much takes the prize where sarcasm is concerned.

And another thing: Does the navy still use Mk 84 "dumb" bombs, without precision kits, for much of anything? How about Mk 83 dumb bombs on Tomcats, while they were still flying?

Fish,

I have the thickest, toughest skin you can imagine but when my knowledge and reputation is being question I take offense.

To answer your question, yes, the Mk 84 GP Bomb is still in service and used but lately only for training since the emphasis is on PGM's in country. Yes, the Tomcat did use Mk 83 GP Bombs a lot, we dropped a lot of them and Mk 82's when I was in VF-143.

Reddog :monkeydance:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks...as far as Reddog and his nearly unlimited knowledge of what ordnance is used/not used legal/illlegal on USN aircraft....it has been verified time and again. I'll say this; Confucious say "Hungry man, should not insult the cook". Reddog may not be the only show in town, but I doubt if we'll find one that's better. We the other modelers are the hungry and he is the cook. Let's not give him cause to stop answering the questions a lot of us have, some repeated more than once.

Thank you Reddog for providing a source for info that without it, some would be embarrased and very vexed when they are told or find out that the loadout is wrong for that aircraft; it's been proven that the instruction sheets are flawed in what the sometimes suggest a loadout should be; Reddog and others help us get it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and how about those two-bomb ejector racks in the Monogram kit--are they legitimate or did Monogram invent them?

The VERs in the Monogram kit are real items, although the version in the kit is the original design with the ejectors truly vertical, rather than the later (and far more common now) CVER - Canted Vertical Ejector Rack which has the ejectors angled out 5 degrees or so off vertical. CVERs are only used for dumb bombs or GBU-12 on legacy Hornets. BRU-32 and 38 JDAMs need a BRU-55 Smart Rack. Harriers don't use dual-carriage racks, only the BRU-42 ITER for dumb bombs.

Yes, there were Ogive (pointed) nose plugs but I don't think they're used much anymore, so the bombs in the Monogram kit are again OK. More common, though, is the blunt nose plug, MXU-735, which is mostly flat with a slight convex surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to your question about the Monogram two place bomb rack, I can not comment on that, have not seen it. Also, what the heck is an HTS Pod? Can you give me a designation or something, HTS is not familiar to me.

Don't know what the designation is (other than HTS), but it is the HARM Targeting System that the Air Force puts on the Block 40/42 F-16Cs (IIRC) for the SEAD mission. I'm not sure why they need to do that, but they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...