What kind of dumb bombs does the UK use? Are these the American GBU series or do they make there own bombs. If they make there own which company manufactures them.
When looking at the paveway munitions that the RAF and FAA use i wondered if these are bought from America with the bombs or whether the UK just buys the seeker and fins kit and fits it to it’s own bombs?
Also when reading about the different bombs the UK uses i notice they have a large range of weapons available from dumb bombs to maverick. Does anyone have a list of the weapons the UK uses? I’m interested in the UK bomb range mainly but other weapons are also of interest. I’ve tried the web but not had much luck on the bomb types etc. I tried the RAF site but it seems to be inaccurate. It says that only the GR4 uses Paveway III but in combat aircraft magazine this month a Harrier pilot says they are going to Red Flag using Paveway III’s to destroy hardened targets.
By: superplum - 18th February 2010 at 22:58
Mk 10 is standard freefall
Mk 18 is retard version
Mk 20 has airburst fuzing – possibly retard version
Mk 13 is probably low drag with airburst
Not true! All are the same shape and almost the same weight (1000lb). Slight weight variations result from different fillings and insulation etc; all are interchangeable as such and the role is decided by fuzes and tail units. However 10s are Naval surplus (ex early-Buccaneer fuzing system) and should be in very limited stock (if any left) 13 and 18s should have been phased out. 20s and 22s are the later variants whilst 15s are concrete filled for practice (have been used in earnest to prevent collateral damage.
:).
PS, SDB is a freefall bomb per se and should not be compared to Brimstone
By: kev 99 - 14th February 2010 at 13:34
SDB has a 60 nautical mile range with a wing kit, when launched from high altitude at high speed. It is over twice the weight of Brimstone. It is intended for a different target set (e.g. bunkers), a different range of launch platforms, & different operational circumstances.
I don’t know where the 12 km figure on Wikipedia comes from, & under what circumstances that is reckoned to be the range. Neither MBDA nor the RAF gives a range. The RAF says ‘long range’, MBDA says ‘offers the capability to engage targets in the deepest parts of the battlefield beyond the range of other systems’, & ‘an effective stand-off range’.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/brimstone.cfm
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_Brimstone_97.html‘Harder hitting’ is sometimes thought a disadvantage. Brimstone is now sometime being used in Afghanistan rather than larger weapons to avoid unwanted collateral damage.
Yeah okay that 12km does sound wrong in that case, the point about the different target sets is very valid, I don’t really see them as being very comparable.
By: MadRat - 14th February 2010 at 05:19
It would be nice to connect the dots between MERs and TERs to the pylons, load limits of a hardpoint, and their related interfaces. Ever since the universal bus design weapons integration deals more with these factors and real world performance than anything else. Some of the lighter bombs actually pose a hazard to aircraft even if it would allow for a bigger spread. Some adapters physically connect but there is no serial lockout for the bus to control weapons functions. And so on, and so on…
By: swerve - 13th February 2010 at 21:42
But the SDB has a much larger range than Brimstone; approximately 60 nautical miles, compared to 12km of Brimstone, it’s also much harder hitting.
Personally I’d quite like it if we procured some SDB/SDB II once F35 becomes operational.
SDB has a 60 nautical mile range with a wing kit, when launched from high altitude at high speed. It is over twice the weight of Brimstone. It is intended for a different target set (e.g. bunkers), a different range of launch platforms, & different operational circumstances.
I don’t know where the 12 km figure on Wikipedia comes from, & under what circumstances that is reckoned to be the range. Neither MBDA nor the RAF gives a range. The RAF says ‘long range’, MBDA says ‘offers the capability to engage targets in the deepest parts of the battlefield beyond the range of other systems’, & ‘an effective stand-off range’.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/brimstone.cfm
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_Brimstone_97.html
‘Harder hitting’ is sometimes thought a disadvantage. Brimstone is now sometime being used in Afghanistan rather than larger weapons to avoid unwanted collateral damage.
By: kev 99 - 13th February 2010 at 19:21
Not that i’m aware of. They seem to be happy with the options they have available. I have a feeling (don’t quote me on it) that they like to use Brimstone in a similar role.
But the SDB has a much larger range than Brimstone; approximately 60 nautical miles, compared to 12km of Brimstone, it’s also much harder hitting.
Personally I’d quite like it if we procured some SDB/SDB II once F35 becomes operational.
By: Grim901 - 12th February 2010 at 23:55
Have there been any plans announced for the UK to procure a long range small diameter glide bomb like the USA has ?
Not that i’m aware of. They seem to be happy with the options they have available. I have a feeling (don’t quote me on it) that they like to use Brimstone in a similar role.
By: Super Nimrod - 12th February 2010 at 23:49
Have there been any plans announced for the UK to procure a long range small diameter glide bomb like the USA has ?
By: swerve - 12th February 2010 at 15:08
They didn’t move to them. They’ve always been at them.
The ‘extra 25%’ argument always applies. Why not cut the 100 to 80? Then to 64? Then to 51.2? 41? 32.8? Oops! We need a bigger bomb – what about 100 kg?
By: MadRat - 12th February 2010 at 14:43
For the marginal differences I’m surprised they’d move to such high weights. The 100-, 200-, 400-, and 800-kilogram weights would suffice. Seriously, why carry the extra 25% when it makes no real world difference in effect?
By: swerve - 12th February 2010 at 14:23
I would have thought they would standardize NATO bombs around kilograms, rather than U.S. Standard Weights.
IIRC the French use 125, 250, 500 & 1000 kg bombs.
By: MadRat - 12th February 2010 at 14:02
I would have thought they would standardize NATO bombs around kilograms, rather than U.S. Standard Weights. There’s plenty of room for 100-, 200-, 400-, and 800-kilogram versions. Not a lot of difference between a 440-pounder and a 500-pounder, just as the difference between an 880-pounder and a 1000-pounder would be moot. You can obliterate buildings with a 100-kilogram bomb with today’s precision packages, making the smaller size worthwhile. No reason you would need more than an 800-kilogram/1760-pounder, in which case you would want to move to a specialty weapon. The less fuel burnt carrying them would be a real operational savings.
By: F35b - 12th February 2010 at 09:40
I didn’t know there were so many different types all in the same weight. I take it all of these can be fitted with Paveway/JDAM kits? It would be a great capability to lose by not making our own bombs in the UK. Does the UK export any of it’s bombs still?
Look at Israel they had to get emergency supplies flown in from the US last time they went to war. This gives the US all the power. That would be unacceptable especially if the US doesn’t agree with who your bombing.
Are the bombs Mark 10, 18, 20 and 13 all 1000lb’s? What other weights does the UK make? Does it import any types? I guess the biggest bomb in the inventory is the 2000lb’s and the smallest 500lb’s or is there some 5000lb’s or 250lb’s lying around somewhere?
The telegraph says this is a 500lb’s bomb
By: Peter G - 12th February 2010 at 09:32
Mk 10 is standard freefall
Mk 18 is retard version
Mk 20 has airburst fuzing – possibly retard version
Mk 13 is probably low drag with airburst
By: Mercurius - 11th February 2010 at 16:23
The MoD expend sheets still listed 4 types of 1000lb freefall ordnance in inventory at least up the the start of last year. These are the Mk10, Mk13, Mk15 and Mk20. Also the Mk1 and Mk2 540lb weapon are shown.
To the best of my knowlege, the UK 1,000 lb bombs were the Mk 10, 13, 18, 20 & 22. The Mk13 and 18 were the original versions used in UK Paveway II, now the Mk 20 and 22 are used.
Paveway III uses the Portsmouth Aviation version of the BLU-109.
By: Jonesy - 9th February 2010 at 17:12
The MoD expend sheets still listed 4 types of 1000lb freefall ordnance in inventory at least up the the start of last year. These are the Mk10, Mk13, Mk15 and Mk20. Also the Mk1 and Mk2 540lb weapon are shown.
A new HE Insensitive Munition (HEIM) warhead to the same form-factor as the Mk20 ordnance was meant to be under MoD sponsored development and Portsmouth Aviation released some material to that effect last year. What happened to that I’m not certain to be honest!.
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th February 2010 at 16:02
So the UK no longer manufactures it’s own bombs anymore. I take it we are using up the stocks and once they are gone we will buy american?
I think the warhead is still assembled in the UK
By: F35b - 8th February 2010 at 16:21
So the UK no longer manufactures it’s own bombs anymore. I take it we are using up the stocks and once they are gone we will buy american?
By: Mercurius - 8th February 2010 at 12:47
What kind of dumb bombs does the UK use? Are these the American GBU series or do they make there own bombs. If they make there own which company manufactures them.
When looking at the paveway munitions that the RAF and FAA use i wondered if these are bought from America with the bombs or whether the UK just buys the seeker and fins kit and fits it to it’s own bombs?
The RAF has essentially consigned to ‘iron bomb’ to history. Paveway IV was essentially the final stage in a process of becoming an ‘all-PGM’ force.
In the past, the RAF bought guidance and wing kits and fitted these to its own bombs, which were mostly products of what was then Royal Ordnance. For Paveway IV, it is using a new custom-designed warhead.
By: swerve - 8th February 2010 at 10:27
You could benefit from looking at the RAF & MoD sites.
About Paveway IV –
Raytheon Systems Limited, UK, is the Coordinating Design Organisation and Prime Contractor for the Weapon System, with Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS), Tucson, responsible for the design of the warhead. General Dynamics, Dallas, is responsible for warhead case manufacture and SEI, SpA, Sardinia, provides the explosive fill. RMS also design and manufacture the Weapon Guidance Section, and Thales Missile Electronics, Basingstoke, are responsible for the design and manufacture of the fuze.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=258CEE3C-1143-EC82-2E51BABA7CCCD9DB
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RafTornadosLockOnLatestGuidedMunition.htm
Sign In
February 8, 2010 at 9:50 am