Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Solo

Strange bombs from Eduard

Recommended Posts

In recent months Eduard launched two strange bombs, about I can not find anything in internet:

PAVE Way I Mk 83 Hi Speed LGB Non-Thermally Protected 1/48

GBU-11 1/48

There will be another one on July:

PAVE Way I Mk 83 Hi Speed LGB Non-Thermally Protected 1/48

Anyone can explain me what those bombs are, when and where wer used and what aircraft could carry them?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are Vietnam vintage. The GBU-11 is a 3000-lb. laser guided bomb primarily used in the Vietnam era made by adding laser guidance and fins to a M118E1 bomb. Same with the Mk 83 - guidance kit and fins added to an Mk 83 bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World Airpower Journal did a book about the F-4 Phantom II

It had a wonderful section near the back full of useful information with old bombs like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And "non-thermally protected" means they have the smooth finish for Air Force use, not the rough finish for Navy use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, I see there are few new interesting Phantom weapon configuration thanks to Eduard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like 3 2000lb ones and one 3000lb LGB waiting to be loaded:

 

Trailer with 200 lb pave way bombs.

 

Jari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk 83 LGBs were Navy only and used mostly by the A-4 & A-6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question regarding the GBU-11: I wasn't able to find pictures of operational loadouts in Vietnam. Osprey's book Operation Linebacker I 1972 has an illustration on its cover, but there is only a short text of a mission using them. So my question: what was a typical loadout? 1 or 2 GBU-11, ECM pods,..?

And which squadrons used them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pic i seen, no longer available on the web, had a 3000lb LGB on the right inboard pylon and a 2000lb LGB on the right side, nothing on the belly. You can always add a ECM in one of the forward missile wells if you wish. Here is one on the trailer with a 2000lb on behind it:

 

Trailer with 3000 lb bomb.

 

Jari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 6:22 PM, ElectroSoldier said:

World Airpower Journal did a book about the F-4 Phantom II

It had a wonderful section near the back full of useful information with old bombs like this.

Hi could you write me what exactly number has this World Airpower Journal ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help with the exact number, but the title should be McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andy_e said:

I can't help with the exact number, but the title should be McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies.

Is the monographic Spirit in the Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kurnass77 said:

Is the monographic Spirit in the Sky

That’s a great book.   Mandatory for anyone interested in the F-4.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is this video that shows a few LGBs loaded, not to clear or close up but you can make out the shapes of them:

 

 

Jari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 7:33 PM, pigsty said:

And "non-thermally protected" means they have the smooth finish for Air Force use, not the rough finish for Navy use.

Normally yes however as Mr Vark rightly says  the Mk 83 was a navy weapon inspite of there being no thermal protective coating.

 

Buddy lasing was common back then so the carrier doesnt need to carry or even be capable of carrying a laser designator of any type.

 

The book is very common

WAPJ McDonnell F-4 Phantom Spirit in the skies

ISBN 1-874023-28-X

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thermal coating didn't come around until 72 and then it wasn't widely in service until 73 so seeing GBU's with no thermal coating during the Vietnam War isn't surprising. During the late stages of the war, it wasn't uncommon to see both TP and NTP bombs mixed on the same aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

Thermal coating didn't come around until 72 and then it wasn't widely in service until 73 so seeing GBU's with no thermal coating during the Vietnam War isn't surprising. During the late stages of the war, it wasn't uncommon to see both TP and NTP bombs mixed on the same aircraft

I saw the rough finish on bombs in 68, right after Tet calmed down. Not many, but a few dozen.

gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, ChesshireCat said:

I saw the rough finish on bombs in 68, right after Tet calmed down. Not many, but a few dozen.

gary

Don't know what you saw on those bombs but it wasn't thermal protection coating.

 

TP coating development started after the Forrestal fire but kicked into high gear after the Enterprise fire. The first bombs didn't start to reach the fleet until late 71 early 72 and the supply was sporadic, a steady supple of TP bombs didn't happen until 73.

 

Also, in the early days TP bombs went to the ships and were not sent to shore units. Even today it's rare to see a TP bomb on a shore based plane.

Edited by GW8345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here are some Mk-82s on a F-4D, note not a particularly smooth finish as that is how they were made, click on the pic to zoom in:

 

Mk 82 unfused.

 

Edit: Here is the pic with a M-118 LGB:

66-8815.jpg

 

Jari

Edited by Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your posts, very much appreciated!

Jari, the video you postes shows some very interesting loadouts. The pic from your last post is one of the few images of the M-118 which I found on a Phantom. It seems that there is a GBU-10 on the left inboard pylon?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GW8345 said:

Don't know what you saw on those bombs but it wasn't thermal protection coating.

 

TP coating development started after the Forrestal fire but kicked into high gear after the Enterprise fire. The first bombs didn't start to reach the fleet until late 71 early 72 and the supply was sporadic, a steady supple of TP bombs didn't happen until 73.

 

Also, in the early days TP bombs went to the ships and were not sent to shore units. Even today it's rare to see a TP bomb on a shore based plane.

During Tet in 68, the bomb dump and the napalm storage was blown up, as well as the POL. I sat on a hill top a little south and got a ring side seat( out on an LP). The bombs were going off about every three to five minutes for the whole next day! We were into Chu Lai daily to get drinking water and dump the trash, and the route took us right past these areas. Of course we didn't go up that road for about a week. When we finally got the go ahead from the MP's, there still was nothing in there but burnt up stuff. But our trip took us right past the flight line (what was left), and we saw these bombs that were very rough looking, with a cast iron look to them. They were unloading them right out of an LST and bringing them strait to the airbase. Perhaps they're something different; I don't know, but they were not machined on the outside. Even the napalm canisters looked different. They had a pointed nose while the others had a flat nose. They flew them into Danang or Cam Rhon, and transferred them onto LST's. Same for jet fuel I might add. That was quite an event to watch I might add

gary

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...