High Drag MK82 in Vietnam

[Wafu]

Hi all, I need some help with loading out my Tamiya 1/32 US Navy Phantom.

 

I see Video Aviation do some lovely looking ordnance, I'd like to fit a full set of eighteen MK82 US Navy High Drag bomb's. However I'm not sure if this load out will be accurate for the early 1970's? Can anyone help me or advise to the correct loads for this aircraft?

 

Also, and this is as long a shot as it goes, I have a set of Cutting Edge seamless intakes, CEC32030, that I was going to use. This set is supposed to remove the battle damage patches from the kit intakes. All was good until I opened the pack and found I have two right hand side intakes, yes I said two right hand sides, just to add to the comedy it has a little label saying it's been proudly packed by Hom, ironic even for an Englishman.

 

Thanks for any help in advance.

[ChesshireCat]

honestly, the Phantom was the plane you dreaded for an air strike. Yet were great with napalm and other things. They just don't slow down enough and don't seem to like flying on the deck. Not saying it didn't happen, but in 68 and 69; I can't remember a Phantom dropping snakeyes. A4's, A6's, A7's and F100's used them all the time. Another thing to remember was the Phantom was a major gas guzzler, and a plane leaving the coast had about twenty minutes loiter time on the border. Leaving a carrier would have been worse.

 

I would use dumb bombs of the 750lb. variety, and napalm.

gary

[twong]

Not sure what years these are but here are some USN F-4B's with Mk.82 Snake Eyes.

 

This one has a mix load and you can see a Mk.82 Snake Eye on the lowest attachment of the TER.

 

Here are a couple USMC F-4's with Mk.82 Snake Eyes.

[GW8345]

To echo what C-Cat said, Navy Phantom's didn't do much low level "air to mud" stuff in Vietnam so to me, 18 x Mk 82 Snakeyes isn't a realistic load out.

 

My dad was in VF-31 during the 72/73 cruise, he told me that the most they would do would be 12 Mk 82 "slicks" on TER's on station 1, 2, 8 and 9 with 4 x AIM-9's and 2 or 4 AIM-7's and a centerline tank.

 

The Marines flying from in country airfields did do a lot of air to mud stuff since they were doing CAS missions but the Navy didn't do that stuff.

 

The VF-114 pic that Twong post, I don't think that was an Vietnam/in country pic since both aircraft lack AIM-9's and I've never heard of a Navy F-4 going in country without at least 2 AIM-9's. I'm thinking that is a pic of the aircraft doing an Airwing training exercise, like when they go out to Fallon and practice air to mud stuff. 

 

The pic of the VF-32 Phantom, that was the USS Roosevelt's 66/67 Vietnam cruise. the mixing of bomb types (i.e. Mk 82 and Mk 83) was not authorized shortly after this pic was taken due to the ballistics of the bombs were different. Around 67/68 the Navy started to get serious with weapon delivery ballistics and safe escape so a lot of new restrictions started coming out, mixing of bombs was one of them.

 

On last point I'd like to make, just because the fin is high drag doesn't mean that it will be released in high drag mode. The Snakeye is a "pilot option" fin, which means the pilot/aircrew can choose between dropping it high drag or low drag. I have loaded thousands of Snakeye bombs on A-7's, F-14's and F-18's and many times they were released in the low drag mode (you can tell by what arming wires come back and aircrew debrief). So basically, you can put high drag's on a Navy Phantom, I just wouldn't do 18 of them and may stick with 4 x TER's with 3 x Mk 82 Snakeyes on each.

 

Just my .02 cents, YMMV.

 

GW

[Murph]

4 hours ago, twong said:

 

This one has a mix load and you can see a Mk.82 Snake Eye on the lowest attachment of the TER.

 

Here are a couple USMC F-4's with Mk.82 Snake Eyes.

 

 

 

That's interesting: an F-4B without the fairing under the nose for the IR sensor.

 

Regards,

Murph

[Mstor]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

 

That's interesting: an F-4B without the fairing under the nose for the IR sensor.

 

Regards,

Murph

 

Actually, I think the IR sensor fairing is there. Without it, I believe the nose cone would curve up more. Instead it definitely slopes down as seen with the IR sensor.

[Finn]

As mentioned 18 Snakeyes would be too many for a carrier based F-4, another example is this F-4J about to go out and lay some Mk-36 Destructors, a Mk-82 converted into a mine:

 

 

just a slight mod to the nose fuze with a white band around the body of the bomb and white stripes near where the tail section is. Note there are 3 on the outboard pylon, 2 on the inboard TER and only 1 on the other inboard TER with most likely 3 on the other outboard pylon.

 

Jari

[Wafu]

Guys, thanks for all the great information. I now see what a minefield it is to accurately load out a US Navy F-4.

 

The picture dramatically show how even in the field (on the ships) unauthorised loads could be seen, It's given me a whole evening to ponder and choose.

 

I think I'll go for a mix of air defence and ground attack with a Centre line tank, two Sparrow's fitted forward, two Sidewinders, two sets of mk82 extended fuses on wing root pylons and two outer tanks, for the range of fuel.

 

Thanks again for all your help.

 

Ian.

[Niels]

Mk117 750lbs were rarely seen on USN jets of any kind, they were "reserved" for USAF and USMC, hence these you can drop. 

 

 

[Gene K]

16 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

honestly, the Phantom was the plane you dreaded for an air strike.

 

Goodness gracious, Gary -- what is that supposed to mean????  Phantom crews of all services very capably flew all types of "air strikes", both scheduled as well as from the alert pad. I especially point to the VietNam in-country based 12th Tactical Fighter Wing at Cam Rahn Bay. 

 

Quote

 

68 and 69; I can't remember a Phantom dropping snakeyes. A4's, A6's, A7's and F100's used them all the time

 

Again ???? -  Since you covered  USAF as well as USN, your memory/experience  appears extremely limited as USAF Phantoms regularly dropped Snakeyes during that time period. 

 

Gene K

Edited March 28, 2018 by Gene K

[GW8345]

In order to turn a Mk 80 Series Bomb into a Mk 36/40/41 Destructor you need the Mk 75 Modification Kit which consisted of a Mk 32 Arming Device (nose fuze), Mk 59 Booster and a Mk 42 TDD (plus a few other bits/pieces).

 

It wasn't just a modification to the nose fuze, Destructors had a different nose fuze and a TDD installed in the tail fuze well, for Mk 80 Series Bombs, the TDD (if used) was only installed in the nose fuze well.

 

GW

[Finn]

1 hour ago, GW8345 said:

In order to turn a Mk 80 Series Bomb into a Mk 36/40/41 Destructor you need the Mk 75 Modification Kit which consisted of a Mk 32 Arming Device (nose fuze), Mk 59 Booster and a Mk 42 TDD (plus a few other bits/pieces).

 

It wasn't just a modification to the nose fuze, Destructors had a different nose fuze and a TDD installed in the tail fuze well, for Mk 80 Series Bombs, the TDD (if used) was only installed in the nose fuze well.

 

GW

 

I was referring to a modelling point of view, what you could see externally. Here is a AF F-4 with Mk-36s:

 

 

note the nose fuze and they didn't have the white markings all the time.

 

Jari

[ChesshireCat]

6 hours ago, Gene K said:

 

Goodness gracious, Gary -- what is that supposed to mean????  Phantom crews of all services very capably flew all types of "air strikes", both scheduled as well as from the alert pad. I especially point to the VietNam in-country based 12th Tactical Fighter Wing at Cam Rahn Bay. 

 

 

Again ???? -  Since you covered  USAF as well as USN, your memory/experience  appears extremely limited as USAF Phantoms regularly dropped Snakeyes during that time period. 

 

Gene K

real simple! Some airframes drop bombs more accurately than others. Compare the A6 to the F4 for example. Been there and seen it many times over. 

gary

[Gene K]

27 minutes ago, ChesshireCat said:

real simple! Some airframes drop bombs more accurately than others.

 

Gadzooks! (insert facepalm here).

 

Gene K

[Gator52]

4 hours ago, Finn said:

 

I was referring to a modelling point of view, what you could see externally. Here is a AF F-4 with Mk-36s:

 

 

note the nose fuze and they didn't have the white markings all the time.

 

Jari

 

In the absence of white markings, what gives them away as Mk36 and not Mk82? Those look like M904s on the nose to me. 

 

Thanks

 

Jonah

[Finn]

Note the dark disc, they can be seen here as well:

 

 

a F-4B with Destructors:

 

Jari

[GW8345]

7 hours ago, Finn said:

 

I was referring to a modelling point of view, what you could see externally. Here is a AF F-4 with Mk-36s:

 

 

note the nose fuze and they didn't have the white markings all the time.

 

Jari

By bad.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by GW8345

[GW8345]

For more information on bombs and fuzes, check out this PDF file;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjci-HBhpDaAhVBZN8KHa1wBQQQFghCMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnavybmr.com%2Fstudy%20material%2F14313a%2F14313A_ch1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw08OMX3ly1HH6r4WBIKsrEV

 

Also, those Mk 32 Arming Devices are an early variant and not ones that were used from the mid 70's and up. Look at figure 1-22 to see what the current Mk 32 looks like.

[Stefan buysse]

15 hours ago, Wafu said:

 

I think I'll go for a mix of air defence and ground attack with a Centre line tank, two Sparrow's fitted forward, two Sidewinders, two sets of mk82 extended fuses on wing root pylons and two outer tanks, for the range of fuel.

 

Thanks again for all your help.

 

Ian.

 

Hi,

 

Interesting thread, guys.

Thanks for that .pdf, Gary.

 

Ian,

 

It has not been mentioned here in the thread, but US Navy did not fly a lot of combat with 3 tanks. They were mostly keen to leave off the outer tanks. The outer tanks were sometimes used during carrier operations, but it's kinda rare and atypical.

I have a picture of a Phantom on the carrier with outer wingtanks dated 30 th of June 1970, not combat but during Carquals off California.

 Also, I can't for the moment recall seeing fuse extenders on Mk-82's on Navy Phantoms. I've seen them on carrier-based Skyraiders and Crusaders, but somehow not on carrier-based Phantoms. 

Fuse extenders and wingtanks would be a lot more frequent on USMC Phantoms.

 

Cheers, Stefan.

[Stefan buysse]

Hi,

 

According to Daco's "uncovering the Navy F-4" book fuse extenders were banned from carriers in 1968.

The big fire on the Forrestal in 1967 changed quite a few things: some very soon (like the M117's that seem to have gone immediately) others took more time like the ablative coating (there are pictures from 1972 that show bombs with and without it on the same aircraft).

 

Cheers, Stefan.

[Wafu]

Thanks Stefan for pointing both those things out, a rethink is in order.

 

I'll drop the tanks and go with standard 82's. I'm doing the VF-84 scheme and can only find air to air load outs in the two books I have. Wiki has this though:-  In 1965 the squadron deployed for 7 months on board Independence in the Gulf of Tonkin and flew 1507 combat sorties, logging 2200 flight hours over both North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

 

Thanks again to all that have posted, your help is very much appreciated.

[Stefan buysse]

14 minutes ago, Wafu said:

Thanks Stefan for pointing both those things out, a rethink is in order.

 

I'll drop the tanks and go with standard 82's. I'm doing the VF-84 scheme and can only find air to air load outs in the two books I have. Wiki has this though:-  In 1965 the squadron deployed for 7 months on board Independence in the Gulf of Tonkin and flew 1507 combat sorties, logging 2200 flight hours over both North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

 

Thanks again to all that have posted, your help is very much appreciated.

Hi, Ian.

 

That 1965 cruise with F-4B's was the only Vietnam cruise for VF-84. If you're building a VF-84 F-4J, these only went on East Coast cruises (Carribean, Atlantic and the Med).

They could still have dropped some Mk-82's on ranges during that time, but it would have been a fairly rare occasion.

 

Cheers, Stefan.

[Wafu]

55 minutes ago, Stefan buysse said:

Hi, Ian.

 

That 1965 cruise with F-4B's was the only Vietnam cruise for VF-84. If you're building a VF-84 F-4J, these only went on East Coast cruises (Carribean, Atlantic and the Med).

They could still have dropped some Mk-82's on ranges during that time, but it would have been a fairly rare occasion.

 

Cheers, Stefan.

 

So as I understand it, I can model my F-4J with a standard carrier load? Or do a clean winged bird with sidewinders and sparrows?

[Finn]

Here is a VF-84 F-4B with what looks like a Mk-83 on a MER on the outboard pylon:

 

 

Jari

[GW8345]

I think loading bombs on the plane even though they were not in the combat zone is fine. I have done several Med Cruises and we flew/dropped bombs during the cruise, just not as much as when we were in the combat zone. Aircrew and Ordies have to keep their qual's so we would fly bombs ever so often, plus when we went out to the Caribbean and Atlantic we would do bombs as part of Airwing training. In fact, when we did Airwing training on the boat we did a lot of bomb, 42,000 lbs in one day (we were off the coast of Puerto Rico) and that was when I was in VF-143 (would have been 44,000 lbs but we had two Mk 83's hang because the plane screwed up).

 

For the load out, I recommend the following load out;

 

Mk 82 slicks on TER's on stations 1, 2, 8 and 9

 

2 x AIM-9 Sidewinders on station 2 and 8 (depending on timeframe they will either be AIM-9B, D or G's), you can do 1 per station or 2 per station, your choice.

 

Centerline tank

 

2 x AIM-7 on the aft Sparrow stations (it was normal outside the combat zone to not load the forward Sparrow stations since you had to jettison the centerline tank in order to release the forward Sparrows)

 

From what my dad told me, they (VF-31) only flew wing tanks when they were doing cross country flights and when they flew aboard the boat, once on the boat, they were removed and stored in the ceiling of the hanger bay. When they left the boat, they were installed and flown home, then removed and stored outside the hanger.

 

hth

GW