| Author |
Message |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Jul 22, 2004 - 02:02 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
I just saw this last night. I don't know if anyone else has heard about this, but it seems interesting.
http://images.cnn.com/2004/US/07/20/big.bomb/
Quote:
'Bunker busters' may grow to 30,000 pounds
U.S. Air Force seeking deep impact on hard-to-reach targets
From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It's just an idea on paper, but the U.S. Air Force is asking defense contractors how they might develop a 30,000-pound, precision-guided bomb that could destroy targets deep underground, in caves or in hardened bunkers.
Air Force officials said the proposed weapon, called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, would be substantially larger than the current penetrating bomb -- the GBU-28, a 5,000-pound weapon.
Military officials said the most likely use of such a weapon would be against underground targets such as those found in North Korea.
The Air Force initially considered the development of a 30,000-pound penetrating bomb before the Iraq war, but funding and technical challenges stifled movement.
After the invasion, Air Force weapons experts examined several bomb sites in Iraq and learned targets could not be fully destroyed using the current inventory of conventional weapons.
However, Air Force officials said they are uncertain whether the concept of a bigger bomb can be brought to reality or that there would be available funding.
The Air Force concept calls for the bomb to be deployed on B-2 or B-52 bombers. The weapon would be guided by use of Global Positioning System satellite coordinates.
Engineering obstacles must be overcome, according to Air Force officials.
One challenge would be the need to carry two bombs on an aircraft to keep the plane stable in flight. Both bombs probably would need to be dropped at the same time for the bomber to maintain level flight, officials said.
Air Force officials said the bomb's structure would incorporate some type of heavy alloy that would make up most of the weight, allowing it to penetrate the target. An advanced or "smart" fuse also would be part of the system, so that detonation would occur only after the bomb reached the target, they said.
The Air Force said it is prepared to spend $11 million on weapon design and demonstration, with testing possibly beginning in 2006.
This bomb concept, informally known as the "Big Blue," differs from the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, a 20,000-pound weapon packed with 18,000 pounds of explosives. The MOAB bomb is designed to explode above ground for destruction of widespread surface targets such as troops and tanks.
Note - "Big Blue" should be written "Big BLU". |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 19, 2013 - 9:30 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
Posted: Jul 22, 2004 - 08:22 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
Impressive, but....if there's more than one target we now do multiple sorties and are forced to drop BOTH bombs at once? Maybe I'm missing the logic (not about the weight but the premise).
When the hand-wringers in DC political circles started wetting themselves when talk of low-yield penetrating nukes was broached, I can't say I'm surprised. "OK, fine. If you won't let us develop baby-nukes we'll just do MOAB one better but put our guys at greater risk."
(apologies for being facetious) |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Jul 22, 2004 - 08:58 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
LinkF-16SimDude, I share your concerns. I posted this for a couple of reasons. First, I think this is an interesting idea. Second, I have some concerns about it. I question the usefulness of a weapon with such operational requirements (having to drop two 30,000 pound bombs at once to keep the aircraft flying).
I thought that the members of this site would be the best people to discuss this subject due to the unique depth of knowledge and experience they posess. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the political ramifications of using baby nukes. I'm not saying that this weapon is the answer, but how else can we reach these bunkers?
Thanks for taking the time to answer! |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Cylon
|
Posted: Jul 23, 2004 - 03:05 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Dec 09, 2003 - 01:16 AM
Posts: 341
Status: Offline
|
The "weight" may not necessarily mean the WEIGHT.... Just like SDB.
Cylon
God loves CCIP. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
Posted: Jul 23, 2004 - 04:21 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
Parrothead, my apologies if it sounded like I was angry with you. I wasn't. My concern was with the added risk our flyers will face if they have to drop this on multiple targets. Pilots will tell you that acceptable risk is part of the job description and they're OK with that, but that doesn't keep me from being concerned about 'em every time they put it on the line. It may be a risk we'll have to live with to get the job done.
BTW: Did I coin the term "baby nukes"? I'll be waiting for my royalty check!
You rock dude! |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Jul 23, 2004 - 08:38 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
LinkF-16SimDude, No worries! I'm sorry if it sounded like I took it that way! I try to lay out my reasoning to avoid misunderstandings - I may have to work on my technique! I have to agree about the risks. I don't know who coined the term "baby nukes", but it sounds great! Thanks for the complement, too!
Cylon,
Quote:
The "weight" may not necessarily mean the WEIGHT.... Just like SDB.
I'm afraid I don't understand. What do you mean? |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
chickenlegs
|
Posted: Jul 24, 2004 - 05:16 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Apr 10, 2004 - 06:07 PM
Posts: 328
Location: Denver, Colorado
Status: Offline
|
How much the bomb weighs does not mean it has the same amount in explosives. The net explosive weight (NEW) may only be 10,000lbs of explosives. The rest of the weight would be the hardware and metallic body of the bomb.
Have a great day
Chickenlegs |
_________________ F-4E, T-38, A-7D, F-16C Crew Chief, QA, & Other
|
|
|
|
 |
|
cmjohnson
|
Posted: Jul 24, 2004 - 05:31 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Jul 07, 2003 - 09:48 PM
Posts: 109
Status: Offline
|
Just wait and see. They'll put wings, fuel tanks, engines, and a GPS based nav system on a 30,000 pound bomb and it'll fly ITSELF to the target. And they'll send them out one at a time or in whole flocks, as needed.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that when it went off!
CJ |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
chickenlegs
|
Posted: Jul 24, 2004 - 05:34 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Apr 10, 2004 - 06:07 PM
Posts: 328
Location: Denver, Colorado
Status: Offline
|
| For as much as it's probably going to cost... It should fly itself.. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Jul 25, 2004 - 02:06 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147
|
| Good point. SDB is 250lb but only 50lb of explosive. |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|