LABS bombing techniques

[Jemiba]

About LABS there's a contemporary drawing on wikipedia, see below.
Here in Berlin the F-84F is remembered as the very first German fighter
aircraft to have landed in the area of West-Berlin after the war, when
two German pilots flew to Berlin due to a navigational error. Ok, this
explanation isn't accepted alltogether ... :-\

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

About LABS there's a contemporary drawing on wikipedia...

I had thought that this illustration was bogus (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/06/not-doing-it-right.html) but it was at least experimentally evaluated as a means of accomplishing the over-the-shoulder alternative of the LABs delivery (after LABs released the bomb, the pilot was free to recover anyway he thought best). There is a video on the interweb of a Navy pilot doing loops in an F7U-3 from off the deck. However, I find it hard to believe that it could possibly result in as much separation as the half-Cuban 8.

 

[SA315B]

I was told the purpose of LAB Bombing was to get the aircraft away from the bomb blast as quickly as possible therefore, as the “Over the Shoulder” profile has the aircraft flying back toward where the bomb is going to go off (don’t forget this is going to be an air burst) the “Over the Shoulder” profile doesn’t make a lick of sense.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

I was told the purpose of LAB Bombing was to get the aircraft away from the bomb blast as quickly as possible therefore, as the “Over the Shoulder” profile has the aircraft flying back toward where the bomb is going to go off (don’t forget this is going to be an air burst) the “Over the Shoulder” profile doesn’t make a lick of sense.

It was the least desirable from a separation standpoint but sometimes necessary, for example when there was no readily identifiable Initial Point (IP) far enough away from the target to be usable for the low or high angle loft. The IP (a prominent geographic or manmade feature whose location relative to the target was accurately known) was where the final approach to the beginning of the pull-up began using the LABS. Prominent meant that it had to be discernible from 100 feet or less and 500 knots far enough away to get aligned with and overfly it. (And there had to be enough checkpoints on the way to it so it was likely that the pilot would be flying toward it at that point.) If there were no handy IP (e.g. if the best approach to a target on the shoreline was coming in from the sea) or the usable IPs involved flying through heavily defended or mountainous areas, then the target itself had to become the IP. The over-the-shoulder delivery was also the most accurate.

I forgot to mention that using the target as the IP also meant that you were free to approach it from the best direction for ingress (lack of en route surface to air defenses and presence of land marks, e.g. a river) and egress (hills to get behind on the way out which would shadow you from the shock wave, thermal effect, etc.).

 

[Sundog]

However, it should be noted, the over the shoulder would have allowed the maximum amount of time to escape. Now whether or not that extra time would allow enough separation is another question. The math wouldn't be too difficult to figure out for a given speed, but I have enough to do already.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

However, it should be noted, the over the shoulder would have allowed the maximum amount of time to escape. Now whether or not that extra time would allow enough separation is another question. The math wouldn't be too difficult to figure out for a given speed, but I have enough to do already.

As I understand it, the high toss provided the greatest separation from the explosion because it provided both good hang time and, unlike the over-the-shoulder delivery, was going the other way. The low toss resulted in a release a bit farther from the target (although 45 degrees is good for artillery, aircraft speed was lost in a 4 g pull up so the bomb was moving faster when it left the airplane at the lower angle), which might be of interest if that kept you out of range of the surface to air defense umbrella; it was the least accurate. The over-the-shoulder was the most accurate, the least separation, and the most exposure to air defenses concentrated at the target itself.

 

[Sundog]

However, it should be noted, the over the shoulder would have allowed the maximum amount of time to escape. Now whether or not that extra time would allow enough separation is another question. The math wouldn't be too difficult to figure out for a given speed, but I have enough to do already.

As I understand it, the high toss provided the greatest separation from the explosion because it provided both good hang time and, unlike the over-the-shoulder delivery, was going the other way. The low toss resulted in a release a bit farther from the target (although 45 degrees is good for artillery, aircraft speed was lost in a 4 g pull up so the bomb was moving faster when it left the airplane at the lower angle), which might be of interest if that kept you out of range of the surface to air defense umbrella; it was the least accurate. The over-the-shoulder was the most accurate, the least separation, and the most exposure to air defenses concentrated at the target itself.

Thanks, that definitely makes sense.

 

[Steve Pace]

A little off topic but B-47s were LABS tested as well. -SP

 

[Arjen]

Yike. Any pictures available of those tests?

 

[Sundog]

Yike. Any pictures available of those tests?

Edit: Mods might want to move these last three posts to Aerospace under B-47 LABS since we are OT.

I have seen a picture of a B-47 practicing this at altitude when it was just past the vertical. Quite a sight to see. I think it may have been in the Wings/Airpower issue on the B-47.

How's this?
video

 

[Arjen]

Wasn't expecting this. Awesome.

 

[Spottydog4477]

Very good indeed!