Ask some specifications and possible photos

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user franc

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 620

As I known, CF-105 loading missiles in weapon bay, also, F-105 can load bombs in bomb bay. Could you tell me the size of them?
And could you show me photo in which F-105 drop bombs from bomb bay?
Am I right, the F-105 can drop bombs from bomb bay after drop the bombs from pylons of centreline?

Original post

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 5,396

This is what I remember from a conversation with an F-105 pilot I used to work with in the late 1970s...

The internal weapons bay was intended for the B43 nuclear weapon during operations over eastern Europe. It was to be delivered using a lofted trajectory from treetop level using an autopilot commanded pull up and computerized weapon release at just the right moment. As soon as the weapon left the bay, the pilot would perform a hard wingover and dive for the ground in full afterburner to escape the blast.

During the operations against North Vietnam, the center pylon was fitted after a hard-plumbed, non-droppable 390 gallon fuel tank was installed in the weapons bay. The bay doors were bolted shut unless the ground crew needed to perform maintenance on the fuel tank.

Member for

16 years 11 months

Posts: 4,674

The weapon bay's dimensions was 190 by 32 in, whereby the aft one-fourth sloped down to about 20 in; the door was a sliding design (split, internal retraction). The weapons carried internally by the F-105 were B28 and B43. The only other option was a 390 USgal tank.
The two possible belly pylons (one for a 650 USgal external tank with a wet point somewhere behind the bay) and the shorter one for a bomb-MER tacked the bay doors close. They must have been of real Kartveli strength to hold the pylons. On the F-105G I think those doors were not movable any more, since they would probably have interferred with the ALQ-105 installation.

Profile picture for user sferrin

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 9,683

The weapon bay's dimensions was 190 by 32 in, whereby the aft one-fourth sloped down to about 20 in; the door was a sliding design (split, internal retraction). The weapons carried internally by the F-105 were B28 and B43. The only other option was a 390 USgal tank.
The two possible belly pylons (one for a 650 USgal external tank with a wet point somewhere behind the bay) and the shorter one for a bomb-MER tacked the bay doors close. They must have been of real Kartveli strength to hold the pylons. On the F-105G I think those doors were not movable any more, since they would probably have interferred with the ALQ-105 installation.

You sure on the B43? I know it could be carried externally but AFAIK the only nuke it could carry internally was the stumpy version of the MK28IN. The MK43s I've seen pictures of on F-105s were all external but there was apparently an internal version carried by the F-111. Don't know if the internal version was carried by the F-105.

Attachments
Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 6,441

The Tu-160 have2 internal rotary launchers
each holding 6 × Raduga Kh-55 cruise missiles (primary armament)
or 12× Raduga Kh-15 short-range nuclear missiles

Can the Tu-160 weapons bay be configurated to carry missile like the AS-13 Kingbolt (Kh-59)?

Can the Tu-160 launch any A2A missile?

And are there any photos of the bays on the Tu-160?

Thanks

Profile picture for user niksi

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 402

And are there any photos of the bays on the Tu-160?

Thanks

Here are two: one shows the weapon bay of the Blackjack with the Kh-55SM's
while another photo shows the Blackjack's rotary launcher armed with the Kh-15.

Attachments

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 699

Can the Tu-160 weapons bay be configurated to carry missile like the AS-13 Kingbolt (Kh-59)?
I don't see why not, but then I don't see why either really. They're strategic cruise missile platforms and if you were going to put an Ovod on you might as well go the whole hog and equip it with Clubs instead. PGM delivery is what the Su-34s are supposed to be for.
Can the Tu-160 launch any A2A missile?
Not to the best of my knowledge. They did conduct concept studies into producing the Tu-160P/Tu-161, a 'fighter' version of the Tu-160 with a giant air search radar and heaps of Alamos or Adders inside for escorting a group of 'conventional' Tu-160 cruise missile launchers. The plans never amounted to anything though.
Here are two: one shows the weapon bay of the Blackjack with the Kh-55SM's
Aren't they regular Kh-55s? I believed that the distinguishing difference of the SM was that it had CFTs, which these apparently do not.
Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 4,082

....
while another photo shows the Blackjack's rotary launcher armed with the Kh-15.

I think that's the Backfire's bay and not from a Tu-160 ! See the two AS-4 on the wings.

Deino

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 6,441

[QUOTE=CommanderJB Not to the best of my knowledge. They did conduct concept studies into producing the Tu-160P/Tu-161, a 'fighter' version of the Tu-160 with a giant air search radar and heaps of Alamos or Adders inside for escorting a group of 'conventional' Tu-160 cruise missile launchers. The plans never amounted to anything though.[/QUOTE]

Right, i read about those Tu-160P plans..
Thanks for the info commanderJB.

Are there any spec's on the radar on the Tu-160?
And did it get an avionics upgrade in 2006, in that case what avionics?

Thanks

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 699

It uses two separate radars; the Obzor-K ('Clam Pipe') attack/air search radar in the nose and a downward-facing Sopka terrain-following radar. The Obzor was first installed in the Tu-95MS, but the updated version in the Tu-160 has a range of about 300km, though no conditions for this range are stated, so it could mean anything. According to this link (which in this case appears to have sourced Yefim Gordon's book 'Tu-160 Blackjack - the Russian Answer to the B-1') both the Bear and Blackjack are getting an updated Obzor with SAR and LPI modes, but again, there are no details.

Profile picture for user contrailjj

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 1,085

As I known, CF-105 loading missiles in weapon bay, also, F-105 can load bombs in bomb bay. Could you tell me the size of them?

The AVRO Canada CF-105 Arrow (no relation to Republic's F-105 Thunderchief) did not really have a 'bay', but rather a detachable pre-loaded 'palate' (external doors included) which was winched into place. Dimensions were approximately 3 ft. deep, 8 ft. wide and 18 ft. long with the missiles mounted on 'trapezes' (the F-106 trapeze system was almost identical)

http://www.avroarrow.org/images/RAE/RAE122.jpg

JJ

Profile picture for user niksi

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 402

Aren't they regular Kh-55s? I believed that the distinguishing difference of the SM was that it had CFTs, which these apparently do not.

I think that's the Backfire's bay and not from a Tu-160 ! See the two AS-4 on the wings.

Deino

Don't shoot the messenger:o

Then that would be my bad, as I didn't pay enough attention. I just wrote what I have read on Podvig's blog. To be more precise it was the comment of the 26th of January 2008 written by "Russian".

http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/01/russia_produced_new_tu160_bomb.shtml

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 12,009

Aren't they regular Kh-55s? I believed that the distinguishing difference of the SM was that it had CFTs, which these apparently do not.

Correct, those are Kh-55s. The SM adds the saddle tank capability for increased range.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 253

In reply to the originlal post, the AVRO CF-105 and the Republic F-105 were two entirely different airplanes.

As noted above, the CF-105 had a shrouded external mount for it stores. The F-105 was orginally designed with an internal bay for a single small nuclear store when it was first designed as a small, fast nuclear tactical fighter-bomber for use over Europe in the event of a general war against the WarPAC. In operations, the F-105 became a general tactical F/B airplane with it's internal bay bolted up and used for fuel carriage with little thought of weapons use.

As for the rotatable bay, might you be thinking of the McDonnell F-101? It was used operationally in this configuration with the USAF and the Canadian Armed Forces into the 1980s built with a rotating belly bay using AIM-4 and nuclear tipped AAMs against Soviet bomber attacks in the defense of NORAD.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 8

As noted above, the CF-105 had a shrouded external mount for it stores.

The Arrow had an internal weapons bay like the F-22 as shown by the official Canadian Air Force site at http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/arrowlst_e.asp

“During the test flights, the Arrow had flown at mach 1.96 and up to 50,000 feet, results that are still impressive by today's standard of fighter Aircraft design... First flown in 1958, the Arrow proved to be the fastest, most sophisticated fighter in the world at the time, with a top speed of 1,650 mph...The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor.” [This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.]

Clearly the CF-105 was 50 years ahead of its time and a fifth generation aircraft whereas the F-105 was only second generation. [Sorry, I just laughed so hard that I dribbled a bit and had to go change.]

It is interesting that both the CF-105 and F-105 flew with P&W J-75s. The Thunderchief with one 26,500 lb. rated J-75-P-19W and the Arrow with two 24,000 lb. rated J-75-P3s. An Arrow was fitted with a pair of 25,000 lb. rated Orenda Iroquois engines but it never flew. One engine “threw a blade” and it was not fixed before the government took the Joint Chiefs’ recommendation to cancel the program.

There is some evidence that an Arrow was tested with engines of 26,000 lb. maximum thrust. If so, then I expect it was with P-3s retrofitted with water injection like the P-19W’s.

P.S. Please note that the Arrow is the only aircraft in history to have achieved 1650 mph at mach 1.96. No other countrys’ aircraft has come close to duplicating this feat. [Aww, geeze, I did it again. I’m just going to go and have a bath.]