[TopHat]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

The bombs on the wings appear to be GBU-35s. Should be able to break those off easily, I hope (well, even better would be if they were absent from future releases of this model). The only way a Raptor will carry those (2 of them) is in the main weapons bays.

FVD

Are you discarding the GBU-35s because they are GBU-35s, or because they are not a correct combat loadout for the platform? My understanding is that the four external hardpoints can be used for either weapons or fuel stores up to 5,000 lb. capacity each, understanding that the stealth profile and aerodynamics will be compromised by doing so.

Given that this particular model is a bird assigned to a test and eval squadron, and not an operational squadron, the loadout is theoretically correct IMO. Of course, I think the loadout should be GBU-32s or -31's given that this is a model of an AF bird. IIRC, GBU-35s are solely Navy or USMC variants of the JDAM.

However, given the almost complete lack of detail on any of FM/Armour's weapons (a trait which irks me to no end!), I don't know how anyone can tell the difference between a GBU-31, -32 and -35, other than by the relative size. And since the -32 and -35 are both 1,000 pounders, forget about any distinction on an FM bird.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Are you discarding the GBU-35s because they are GBU-35s, or because they are not a correct combat loadout for the platform? My understanding is that the four external hardpoints can be used for either weapons or fuel stores up to 5,000 lb. capacity each, understanding that the stealth profile and aerodynamics will be compromised by doing so.

Given that this particular model is a bird assigned to a test and eval squadron, and not an operational squadron, the loadout is theoretically correct IMO. Of course, I think the loadout should be GBU-32s or -31's given that this is a model of an AF bird. IIRC, GBU-35s are solely Navy or USMC variants of the JDAM.

However, given the almost complete lack of detail on any of FM/Armour's weapons (a trait which irks me to no end!), I don't know how anyone can tell the difference between a GBU-31, -32 and -35, other than by the relative size. And since the -32 and -35 are both 1,000 pounders, forget about any distinction on an FM bird.

OK. To start with, no Raptor has ever flown in that configuration nor will it ever in the future. True, it is theoretically possible, IF (a bif "if") the AF ever decided to qualify it on the F-22. No way they will spend money to do that. The Small-Diameter Bomb (GBU-39) is being qualified (internal carriage, up to 8) on the aircraft and that will be the main loadout for air-to-ground.

Second, you make some valid points about guessing the type of bombs, but fact is the F-22 can only carry the 1000 lbs versions internally, so I was guessing these would be similar bombs, except externally (plus my eyeball gauge on size). You can however tell these are either GBU-31 V3s or GBU-35, the hardcase-penetrator versions (the shape tells you that right away. These are not GBU-31 V1s or GBU-32s, or GBU-38s which is the 500 pounder). Your assertion that only Navy/USMC uses 1000 pounders used to be correct, but no longer.

Therefore, if I had this model I would get rid of the bombs. They are in no way representative of either an operational or test configuration (even though, yes, in theory possible).

FVD

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Second, you make some valid points about guessing the type of bombs, but fact is the F-22 can only carry the 1000 lbs versions internally, so I was guessing these would be similar bombs, except externally (plus my eyeball gauge on size). You can however tell these are either GBU-31 V3s or GBU-35, the hardcase-penetrator versions (the shape tells you that right away. These are not GBU-31 V1s or GBU-32s, or GBU-38s which is the 500 pounder). Your assertion that only Navy/USMC uses 1000 pounders used to be correct, but no longer.

I think GBU-31s are 2,000 pounders, not 1,000 lbs.

GBU-31s would include the Mk. 84 2000 lb LDGP (Low-Drag General Purpose) bomb, the BLU-109/B 2000 lb class penetrator warhead, and the BLU-119/B Crash PAD.

I understand that both the Navy and AF have used the 1,000 pounder designated as GBU-32, with the Navy version using the BLU-110A/B or -110B/B warhead, or the standard Mk. 83 configuration. AF uses the standard Mk. 83 config.

It was also my understanding that only the Navy/USMC designated the 1,000 pounder with the BLU-110A/B or -110B/B warhead and the KMU-559 guidance kit as GBU-35 . I didn't think the AF ever used the GBU-35 designation.

I do think the Navy has reverted to designating both the Mk. 83 and the BLU-110A/B or -110B/B (formerly deignated GBU-35) as GBU-32.

[TopHat]

Yes, I thought my recollection was correct. See Note 4 below:


Known designations of GBU-32(V)/B and GBU-35(V)/B variants include:

Designation	Warhead	Guidance Kit 1	User
GBU-32(V)1/B 2	MK 83 3	KMU-559/B	U.S. Air Force
GBU-32A(V)1/B		KMU-559A/B
GBU-32B(V)1/B		KMU-559B/B
GBU-32C(V)1/B		KMU-559C/B
GBU-32(V)2/B 2	MK 83 3 or BLU-110( )/B	KMU-559/B	U.S. Navy
GBU-32A(V)2/B		KMU-559A/B
GBU-32B(V)2/B		KMU-559B/B
GBU-32C(V)2/B		KMU-559C/B
GBU-35(V)1/B 4	BLU-110( )/B	KMU-559( )/B	U.S. Navy

Notes:

• The initial KMU-559/B guidance kits were to use fin actuators with "Friction Brake" technology, but these kits were never put into production. Beginning in 2000, the "Frictiob Brake" system was replaced by a "Pin-Lock" actuator system, which is more durable and accurate. Guidance kits with pin-lock actuators are designated KMU-559A/B. Improvements to the GPS unit of the KMU-559A/B led to the KMU-559B/B kits, which have a GPS receiver with a so-called SAASM (Selective Availability/Anti-Spoofing Module), and the KMU-559C/B kits, which are equipped with SAASM/AJ (SAASM/Anti-Jam) GPS receivers.
• Because the original KMU-559/B kits were never produced, the plain GBU-32(V)1 and (V)2 designations never actually applied to stockpiled bombs.
• The visible difference between the USAF's GBU-32(V)1/B and the Navy's GBU-32(V)2/B is that the latter's MK 83, BLU-110A/B and -110B/B bombs are coated with a thermal protection layer. This gives the bombs a wrinkled grey external finish, opposed to the USAF's smooth olive drab bomb bodies.
• The U.S. Navy has abandoned the GBU-35(V)1/B nomenclature, and is now referring to all its 1000 lb class JDAMs as GBU-32(V)2/B, regardless of warhead. This is in line with nomenclature usage for 2000 lb (GBU-31(V)/B) and 500 lb (GBU-38/B) JDAMs.

Complete citation: http://www.designation-systems.net/d...html#_Variants

Also: http://www.strikenet.js.mil/201/jdam/jdam-gbu.asp

[FormerViperDriver]

Well, nothing I wrote changes based on what showed, except maybe that GBU-35 is now GBU-32 V2/B. Nowhere in my post do I imply that GBU-31s are anything but 2000 lbs. I referred to those because it's just possible that's what FM intended to represent on their F-22.

Apparently, the bombs on the FM model are Navy bombs, since as noted, the AF ones are olive drab versus the newer Navy bombs which are grey due to the special thermal protection coating (!). So maybe GBU-35 is not so wrong after all...

I used to teach all that stuff at the US Air Forces Europe Air-Ground Operations School... But sure, that was 4 years ago, and things evolve.

FVD

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Well, nothing I wrote changes based on what showed, except maybe that GBU-35 is now GBU-32 V2/B. Nowhere in my post do I imply that GBU-31s are anything but 2000 lbs. I referred to those because it's just possible that's what FM intended to represent on their F-22.

Apparently, the bombs on the FM model are Navy bombs, since as noted, the AF ones are olive drab versus the newer Navy bombs which are grey due to the special thermal protection coating (!). So maybe GBU-35 is not so wrong after all...

I used to teach all that stuff at the US Air Forces Europe Air-Ground Operations School... But sure, that was 4 years ago, and things evolve.

FVD

I didn't mean to start an argument, so I apologize if it came across that way. I thought this statement implied GBU-31s were 1,000 pounders:

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

You can however tell these are either GBU-31 V3s or GBU-35, the hardcase-penetrator versions (the shape tells you that right away).

coupled with

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

..but fact is the F-22 can only carry the 1000 lbs versions internally, so I was guessing these would be similar bombs, except externally (plus my eyeball gauge on size).

I was just curious, that's all. No worries.

Like I said, FM is notorious for being loose on the detail of the weapons loadout.

[FormerViperDriver]

Hey TopHat, no harm, no foul. Sorry if I came across the wrong way as well. I could have been a little more clear in my explanation.

There are so many variants of these bombs now, I have a hard time keeping it straight... But I try.

Bottom line though: you're unlikely to see an F-22 with external bombs, ever. I have seen them with external fuel tanks (600 Gals) and AIM-120s, though.

FVD

[Elmer]

Now that we have that settled...

What should one see when looking into the intake of an F-22? Can one see turbine blades? How about the exhaust?

And (watch FVD go nuts on this one), does this model have any exposed screw heads?


BTW, Mark, outstanding pics... keep 'em coming. You are tops!

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Looks pretty good overall, but I'll wait for them to come out with one that does not have the test pitot boom on the nose, and does not have those silly bombs on the wings (they look like GBU-31 JDAMs to me, but not even accurate at that). Also, hopefully it would have FF, AK, or TY tail codes as on operational aircraft (Langley/1FW, Elmendorf/3FW or Tyndall 325 FW). Finally, it shoud have the current paint scheme on it, which is darker and "shinier" than the one shown here (which is correct for the test birds), and they should try to get the canopy tint (gold) right also. At that point, we have a deal...FVD

FVD - I agree fully with your assessment of the new Raptor model from Armour - finally got a chance to see one. What is with this attitude that says "we gotta hang bombs on every friggin' FIGHTER we make....???? If you're gonna hang anything on the external surfaces, "when in doubt, make 'em drop (fuel) tanks"!! The test probe is fine, so long as it doesn't stay on "production-based" models. And either tint the canopy correctly as you indicated, or at least color the cockpit detail a bit - this "let's do everything in grey" business smacks of just plain cheapness; which, unfortunately, has carried over to so many Armour models in past years!! John