Early Tornado display at Farnborough - what bombs?

[NIREP reader]

Can anyone identify these bombs please from back in the day.

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1035728

[Timelord]

Special for air display bombs. Rumour had it that a BAe engineer had been spotted carrying one under each arm.

[Ninthace]

I ended up being the proud owner of P03 for a brief while at the end of its flying career. Then management had another plan - one of several interviews during my career without benefit of chair or coffee. Say no more.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by Timelord

Special for air display bombs. Rumour had it that a BAe engineer had been spotted carrying one under each arm.

As rumoured fitted to the Jag for its motorway take off and sale to Foreign parts demo?

[MAINJAFAD]

Look like US Mk 83 1000lb bombs.

https://aeqdefense.com/product/aircraft-ordnance/

The M55 Jag carried 4 standard UK 1000lb bombs.

[GreenXCode]

MK 83s

As previous post, US Mk 83s, not far off JDAM GBU-30

[superplum]

Originally Posted by MAINJAFAD

Look like US Mk 83 1000lb bombs.

https://aeqdefense.com/product/aircraft-ordnance/

The M55 Jag carried 4 standard UK 1000lb bombs.

Scale-wise, think Mk 82s more appropriate particularly when on twin-store carriers. As for the M55, they were actually BL755.

[MAINJAFAD]

Originally Posted by superplum

Scale-wise, think Mk 82s more appropriate particularly when on twin-store carriers. As for the M55, they were actually BL755.

Couldn't tell from the photos I could find on the net and the markings look more like those of a 1000lb bomb than a BL-755.

[dctyke]

Originally Posted by Timelord

Special for air display bombs. Rumour had it that a BAe engineer had been spotted carrying one under each arm.

At the 75th anniversary we we given British Aerospace display bl755 to load onto the 1(f) GR7 static hide display. Really light weight (fibreglass?) however no way they could have flown. The only real bit was the suspension lug which was glued in, we know because two fell out and had to be re-glued. Was terrified Prince Philip would put weight on one as he walked around the ac.

[57mm]

Clearly they were WE177s........

[Timelord]

GreenX, superplumb and MAINJAFAD; No, really, they are fake bombs to make it look as if the display was being flown with a warload. No such bombs were ever seen on a production GR1.

[CAEBr]

Dave Eagles refers to the display in his book "Testing Tornado"
After the clean display of 1976 it was clear that they needed to demonstrate with a weapons load to show the aircraft in its normal environment. He writes

In September1978 I took P03 to Farnborough and this time we carried out a full show with eight 1000lb bomb shapes under fuselage and two 1500 litre fuel tanks and two ECM pods under the wings

[Mogwi]

Originally Posted by MAINJAFAD

Couldn't tell from the photos I could find on the net and the markings look more like those of a 1000lb bomb than a BL-755.

Look like mock-ups. Certainly not 1000lbs or BL 755 (no split casings).

Mog

[GreenXCode]

Fake Mk 83s

Timelord, the OP did not ask if they were fake or real, he asked what they were. They are fake Mk 83s on TSCs and actually, a preferred fit of the RSAF IDS variant in pre-1760 1553 databus days

[Dan Winterland]

Dummies of a proposed low drag bomb designed for the MRCA. Never put into production.

[tonker]

Every Airfix model I ever made including civilian types, always had a similar load out.

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by Dan Winterland

Dummies of a proposed low drag bomb designed for the MRCA. Never put into production.

Or perhaps just using the familiar design of one of the contracted threshold weapons (Mk82/83 family) that would be routinely used by almost all Tornado customers?

It seems highly unlikely that a competent test team would grab a random or immature aerodynamic shape, mount them to the TSCs and then fly them on a display aircraft. Stores carriage tends to be a bit more serious and demanding than that.

I don't subscribe to the the theory that these 'display' stores were so light that they could be carried by an individual in the manner described either - pretty hard to get an arm around the bulk of a Mk82 let alone an 83 and the weight would reflect the strength required to survive the demanding aerodynamics of under-fuselage / TSC carriage. MACE lugs also have a minimum carriage mass in order for the geometry to turn into an actual retention mechanism.

So why not display with the UK-only 1000lbs bomb? Well, even in an ideal world there is little motive in displaying an aircraft to potential customers with a weapon that they would not use. Moreover, obtaining the original clearance for TSC use was not quick or easy due to the additional girth of the UK bombs. Even with the final design the TSCs flexed and the bombs clanked against each other in flight... an interesting phenomena for a weapon(!).

Still, the UK bombs did give the aircraft a somewhat more aggressive look:

[Timelord]

I wonder what the range was in that fit!

[andytug]

NERF?

[Chewing the crud]

If I remember correctly it was from Boscombe Down to Larkhill range.