Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 18:58
by spazsinbad
Penetrate faster, harder with new AFRL weapon By Stephen Trimble on February 20, 2011

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ith-n.html

"My trip to Brazil has been unexpectedly delayed by an unplanned, extended pit-stop in Caracas, where my Boeing 767 is currently parked with a flat tire. If you detect a note of innuendo in the headline, it's the lack of sleep talking. Meanwhile, what better way to spend my first day in Venezuela than blogging about new bunker-busters! Meet the US Air Force's latest unintentional metaphor of a missile:

An Air Force Research Laboratory fact sheet with a 2011 time-stamp for public release approval tells us that a 2,000lb-class weapon with 5,000lb-class penetration capability could be available within three years.

"Future fighters will be able to deliver bunker-busting capabilities currently associated with the bomber fleet," the fact sheet says.

I found the fact sheet for the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW) in the AFRL munitions directorate booth at the Air Warfare Symposium a few days ago. The document reveals the USAF has shifted its focus on next-generation penetrator technology on a couple of different levels.

Force is a function of mass multiplied by velocity. Mass is the key design point for the free-falling, 5,000lb GBU-28 bunker buster and the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

For the next generation penetrator weapon, the AFRL appears to have shifted the focus to velocity. Packing a solid rocket propulsion system "with mission tailored boost and terminal velocities, intelligent fuzing and optimized explosive," the HVPW blasts into bunkers using speed in place of raw mass.

But the HPVW also may reflect a shift from previous interest in an air-breathing, high-speed penetrator, such as the Mach 3.0 Lockheed Martin revolutionary approach to time critical long-range strike (RATTLRS) demonstrator.

Like RATTLRS, the HPVW is designed to be carried inside the Lockheed Martin F-35's internal weapons bay, but will also enable "other fighter/bombers", the fact sheet says.

It's clear the USAF is in the market for a new penetrator weapon for the next generation bomber. Gen William Fraser, chief of Air Combat Command, actually confused the air force's message in his opening remarks at the symposium on 17 February. Fraser said that the next generation bomber would leverage several existing technologies, and he included the Massive Ordnance Penetrator on the list.

I asked Lt Gen Jim Kowalski, chief of Global Strike Command, about that the next day. He clarified that Fraser means the next generation bomber will leverage the bunker-buster effect of the massive ordnance penetrator, but not necessarily its mass. In the aforementioned force equation, that implies a shift toward higher speed, although Kowalski declined to confirm that theory."

http://apture.s3.amazonaws.com/0000012e ... C01419.JPG

Image

RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 03:49
by spazsinbad

RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 03:56
by 1st503rdsgt
Sounds similar to the Kinetic Energy Missile concept from the late 80s.

RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 05:24
by geogen
OK, I'll bite.

So what would the current 4-5k pound bomb, modified with this same multiplying busting effect have then? Equivalent to 10,000 lb worth of bunker busting?? Wow... I guess i'd just be more worried as a bad guy, with an F-15 dropping a 10,000lb equivalent buster, than an F-22/F-35 dropping a 5k equivalent... But that's just me. ;)

I hope Stephen enjoys a well deserved holiday in beautiful Brazil.

Re: RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 08:22
by Conan
geogen wrote:OK, I'll bite.

So what would the current 4-5k pound bomb, modified with this same multiplying busting effect have then? Equivalent to 10,000 lb worth of bunker busting?? Wow... I guess i'd just be more worried as a bad guy, with an F-15 dropping a 10,000lb equivalent buster, than an F-22/F-35 dropping a 5k equivalent... But that's just me. ;)

I hope Stephen enjoys a well deserved holiday in beautiful Brazil.


You'd have to steap an awfully big motor onto the back of such an already large weapon to get the same high velocity performance. Does the F-15E even have a hardpoint rating for such a large weapon?

I'd be surprised if they do...

RE: Re: RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 09:18
by shep1978
And if the targets heavily defended the F-15 doesn't have much hope of getting near it to release such a weapon yet the F-35 does.

RE: Re: RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 10:07
by discofishing
Force is a function of mass multiplied by velocity.


I thought it was acceleration and mass. Ya know, F = ma. Kinetic energy would involve velocity, K = 1/2 * m * v^2. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking at my physics book right now.

So the USAF wants to get added potential energy from a rocket motor instead of relying solely on mass?

Re: RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 13:43
by sewerrat
1st503rdsgt wrote:Sounds similar to the Kinetic Energy Missile concept from the late 80s.


Yep. 1986/87 I believe. There were 2 versions, one for fielding on ground platforms, and a lighter version for AC. The missile made it into some HUMVEE platforms, only.

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 16:12
by popcorn
The MOP weighs 30,000lbs of which 5300lbs is explosive filler. Most of the weight is in the heavy casing w/c provides its punch-through capability. With the new bunker-busters, strike fighters will now pack the punch of heavy bombers like the Spirit and Lancer.

And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 17:23
by uranus
The author said, "Force is a function of mass multiplied by velocity. Mass is the key design point for the free-falling, 5,000lb GBU-28 bunker buster and the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator."
I always thought force=1/2 mass times velocity squared. If physics hasn't changed, and I remember the formula correctly, the big dog is velocity--that's why the "high velocity" was added to the penetrator. Squaring that high velocity adds exponential? force to the penetrating blivet. See the specs. on BKEP? (ballistic runway cratering munition) for similarities...
Anyway, its a good idea.

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 18:00
by ArrowHawk
Force is mass x acceleration. Momentum is mass x velocity. Kinetic energy is one-half mass x velocity squared.

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 18:02
by ArrowHawk
And potential energy is weight x height, where weight is mass x gravity.

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2011, 09:29
by discofishing
Isn't the overall problem with these bunker busters a "potential" energy problem from the start? If the aircraft cannot support enough potential energy, then it will never transition into enough kinetic energy, right? I'm trying to test my physics knowledge here and see if two semesters worth (PHYS 1 and 2) taught me anything. Any experts out there?

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2012, 15:59
by spazsinbad
AFRL Moves Ahead on Bunker-Buster for F-35 by Graham Warwick, Jul 06, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... db096866b8

"The US Air Force Research Laboratory has awarded two more contracts under the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW) program to develop technology for a rocket-boosted bunker-buster that can fit inside an F-35.

Lockheed Martin has been awarded $1.7 million and MBDA $1.3 million, but what they will do for the money has not been revealed. In January, Raytheon received an $11 million contract to develop GPS-degraded guidance technology for the HVPW, including anti-jam GPS, angle-of-attack sensing and RF seeker....

...As conceived, the HVPW is a solid-rocket-boosted 2,000lb-class weapon with the penetration of a 5,000lb gravity bomb, design for internal carriage in an F-35 and also able to increase the load-out on other bombers and fighters...."

MORE at the JUMP - BLAST! :D http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWe ... al_p01.JPG
&
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWe ... %20FCC.jpg

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2012, 18:57
by velocityvector
Hope the following helps somebody out there visualize why adding a rocket motor to an earth penetrator - like with the old Durandel anti-runway device - is a sound idea for a given bomb size. Consider:

Acceleration - a change in velocity. Drive at a constant 65mph speed, A=0. Brake and you accelerate in a negative direction. Hit the gas pedal and you accelerate in a positive direction. Think scalar values plus a direction for rate of change. (I was taught never ever to use the term "deceleration". It's just acceleration in a direction.)

Velocity - speed. *Exponential* effect on kinetic energy. The greater the velocity for a given mass, the greater the object's energy by a square of the speed. Add two units speed, get four units contribution, add three units speed, get nine units contribution etc.

Mass - the object, in this case a bomb. Mere *linear* effect on kinetic energy, e.g., add one kilogram, get one kilogram's contribution, add two kilograms, get two kilograms contribution etc.

Kinetic Energy - has two constituents: mass and velocity.

Key concerns for a successful earth/bunker penetrator are kinetic energy (good), the bomb's friction with the earth/bunker (bad), and inertia (tendency of an object to remain moving without change).

To increase the bomb's kinetic energy (good), the most practical means is to speed it up (square) rather than to beef it up (linear). Accelerate the bomb to max velocity attainable.

Once the bomb is up to max velocity (A=0) it will stay at that value unless some other force acts on it. This is the bomb's inertia.

Friction caused by the bomb-earth interaction is the other, "opposing" force. Friction is a function of surface area and changes inertia opposite the bomb's direction of travel. Thus friction reduces kinetic energy quickly.


Friction doesn't significantly change the mass. So to keep the kinetic energy as high as possible for as long as possible to punch through earth and bunker as deeply as possible you increase the bomb's mass as much as possible for a given bomb size (surface area) and a given speed curve (high speed then slowing down).

The bomb's inertia will change more slowly versus the frictional force the heavier you make your bomb. But you want to get the bomb going as fast as possible in the first place before the friction starts operating on the bomb. And that's why you stick a rocket up it's keester. 0.02

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 12:26
by count_to_10
Calculations of penetration are complicated. Work is force times distance, so at first order penetration depth would be proportional to energy, but at higher order you have to figure in the fact that the force on the penetrator increases with increasing velocity, which in turn changes as the penetrator decelerates in the target.

Re: RE: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 13:03
by southernphantom
geogen wrote:OK, I'll bite.

So what would the current 4-5k pound bomb, modified with this same multiplying busting effect have then? Equivalent to 10,000 lb worth of bunker busting?? Wow... I guess i'd just be more worried as a bad guy, with an F-15 dropping a 10,000lb equivalent buster, than an F-22/F-35 dropping a 5k equivalent... But that's just me. ;)

I hope Stephen enjoys a well deserved holiday in beautiful Brazil.


The F-15E is rated to carry 1-3 (can't remember which) GBU-15s, which have a launch weight of around 3640lbs. I could see some kind of heavier-class weapon being a possibility for the Beagles and SAC (err...oops...meant GSC :wink:

When in doubt, apparently, add a rocket...

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 21:49
by velocityvector
count_to_10 wrote:Calculations of penetration are complicated. Work is force times distance, so at first order penetration depth would be proportional to energy, but at higher order you have to figure in the fact that the force on the penetrator increases with increasing velocity, which in turn changes as the penetrator decelerates in the target.
Granted, it's a complicated event else r&d for this class of weapons would have ceased long ago. My goal was simply to illuminate basics in view that "potential energy" and the like were suggested. No need for diff eq's. But did you *have* to say "decelerates"? That hurts my ears. There is only acceleration :|

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 22:17
by count_to_10
velocityvector wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Calculations of penetration are complicated. Work is force times distance, so at first order penetration depth would be proportional to energy, but at higher order you have to figure in the fact that the force on the penetrator increases with increasing velocity, which in turn changes as the penetrator decelerates in the target.
Granted, it's a complicated event else r&d for this class of weapons would have ceased long ago. My goal was simply to illuminate basics in view that "potential energy" and the like were suggested. No need for diff eq's. But did you *have* to say "decelerates"? That hurts my ears. There is only acceleration :|

It's okay: I specified the reference frame. :wink:
Trust a Physics Ph.D: we really do use "decelerate" in scientific discussion.

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 23:15
by velocityvector
Trust a Physics Ph.D
Then you must've been awed by my simplification and the invocation of a rocket in the keester, speaking of which ... :) (I'm a CS guy turned patient liar-patent lawyer. It's been a while since I've built physical simulations, less-so for autonomous systems.)

Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was veloc

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2012, 23:55
by count_to_10
velocityvector wrote:
Trust a Physics Ph.D
Then you must've been awed by my simplification and the invocation of a rocket in the keester, speaking of which ... :) (I'm a CS guy turned patient liar-patent lawyer. It's been a while since I've built physical simulations, less-so for autonomous systems.)

Go figure.
I'm actually a cosmologist, but have been running a lot of material simulations of small scale objects.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was v

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 09:25
by spazsinbad
Air Force bunker-busting bomb program moves forward with concept-development contract to Boeing
August 16, 2012 Posted by John Keller

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... -hvpw.html

"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., 16 Aug. 2012. Air-launched weapons experts at the Boeing Co. Defense, Space & Security segment in St. Louis will help the U.S. Air Force design a rocket-propelled bomb for the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter-bomber that can attack and destroy enemy bunkers, tunnel complexes, and other important deeply buried targets....

...Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems segment in El Segundo, Calif., won a contract last January to design and demonstrate navigation and guidance technologies to keep future generations of deep-penetrating bombs and missiles on target in conditions where signals from Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite satellites are degraded or unavailable.

The contract calls for Raytheon to develop GPS-degraded munitions guidance technology as part of the Air Force High Velocity Penetrating Weapon program, which seeks to develop technologies for a future rocket-boosted bunker-busting bomb for the F-35 and other fighter-bombers.

Awarding the contract to Raytheon were officials of the Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base. Raytheon engineers will develop guidance to provide maximum penetration for a future High Velocity Penetrating Weapon, with the ability to overcome GPS-degraded environments and direct the deep-penetrating weapon to impact angles sufficient to destroy hard, deeply buried facilities.

Raytheon experts will explore weapons-guidance technologies for anti-jam GPS, angle-of-attack sensing, guidance law and autopilot, and RF seeker and guidance techniques that could support the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon's accuracy...."

Probably best to read entire article at the URL.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was v

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 01:06
by popcorn
I can't seem to access anything but the article in it's entirety but I'm curious to learn how much stand-off range the new munition will have. Assuming the rocket is reserved for the final Kamekaze dive, maybe fit a pair of swirchblade wings to allow it to glide from,a safer distance?

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 01:29
by madrat
The F=ma formula factors in when the impact of the mass decelerates.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was v

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 01:31
by spazsinbad
Here is one previous article (with a JDAM graphic?). This old article is very similar to article above.... Another article mentioned is the same one that started this thread? Look at the second last post on the first page of this thread for the ROCKET bomb graphics.

Raytheon to develop GPS-degraded munitions guidance for High Velocity Penetrating Weapon Posted by John Keller
January 9, 2012

"EGLIN AFB, Fla., 9 Jan. 2012. Munitions guidance experts at the Raytheon Co. Space and Airborne Systems segment in El Segundo, Calif., will design and demonstrate navigation and guidance technologies that can keep new generations of deep-penetrating bombs and missiles on target in conditions where signals from Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite satellites are degraded or unavailable. Raytheon is doing the work under terms of an $11 million contract awarded Friday by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla...."

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/conten ... 1/JDAM.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was v

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 17:10
by arkadyrenko
Hmmm, I enjoy how the military is more or less assuming that GPS won't be around in a full scale war.

As for gliding, I think don't know if they will want to tie together the wings with the rocket pack. Logically, I suspect that to be a round 2 development. Get the rocket penetrator working and then worry about stand-off delivery.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was v

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 20:26
by spazsinbad
arkadyrenko opines: "....I enjoy how the military is more or less assuming that GPS won't be around in a full scale war...." Enjoy? Why this word choice.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was v

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 21:46
by arkadyrenko
I enjoy it because it is a critical, and under-reported, change in military planning for the future. It marks a fundamental change from the past 20 years, when GPS and precision bombing was all the rage, to a more realistic and more interesting future.

As it portends a return to great-power military development, much more interesting than anti-terrorism, and a new wave of technological development it is pretty interesting to me.

In either case, whether or not I enjoy it, it is a fact and will spawn a whole host of interesting elements in the future. (It also represents a potential advantage for the US, if the US can fight in a GPS denied environment, the US won't have any fear about denying GPS (or the Chinese equivalent) as part of a theater wide EW strategy)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor w

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 00:06
by popcorn
arkadyrenko wrote:Hmmm, I enjoy how the military is more or less assuming that GPS won't be around in a full scale war.

As for gliding, I think don't know if they will want to tie together the wings with the rocket pack. Logically, I suspect that to be a round 2 development. Get the rocket penetrator working and then worry about stand-off delivery.


Not much mystery or risk involve in developing a pair of wings for glide capability.. even getting the rocket technology right shouldn't be a big deal.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor w

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 00:53
by count_to_10
arkadyrenko wrote:I enjoy it because it is a critical, and under-reported, change in military planning for the future. It marks a fundamental change from the past 20 years, when GPS and precision bombing was all the rage, to a more realistic and more interesting future.

As it portends a return to great-power military development, much more interesting than anti-terrorism, and a new wave of technological development it is pretty interesting to me.

In either case, whether or not I enjoy it, it is a fact and will spawn a whole host of interesting elements in the future. (It also represents a potential advantage for the US, if the US can fight in a GPS denied environment, the US won't have any fear about denying GPS (or the Chinese equivalent) as part of a theater wide EW strategy)

At some point, the enemies of the US are going to deploy GPS guided weapons. I wonder how far along we are with area denial for that.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor w

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 01:43
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:
arkadyrenko wrote:I enjoy it because it is a critical, and under-reported, change in military planning for the future. It marks a fundamental change from the past 20 years, when GPS and precision bombing was all the rage, to a more realistic and more interesting future.

As it portends a return to great-power military development, much more interesting than anti-terrorism, and a new wave of technological development it is pretty kointeresting to me.

In either case, whether or not I enjoy it, it is a fact and will spawn a whole host of interesting elements in the future. (It also represents a potential advantage for the US, if the US can fight in a GPS denied environment, the US won't have any fear about denying GPS (or the Chinese equivalent) as part of a theater wide EW strategy)

At some point, the enemies of the US are going to deploy GPS guided weapons. I wonder how far along we are with area denial for that.


It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the country that pioneered a technology wouod also have a superior understanding of it's weaknesses and how to exploit them. The DARPA initiative to mitigate the risk of over dependency on GPS points to this.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important fact

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 02:02
by count_to_10
Probably classified. Wouldn't want to give any hints to anyone else.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important fact

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 02:07
by arkadyrenko
The other possibility, popcorn, is that the country that develops the system doesn't realize its weakness. The country becomes too dependent on the technology.

That doesn't appear to be the case here, at least for GPS. Other countries already assuredly have satellite guided munitions. If the US can develop an ability to fight in a satellite degraded environment while retaining precision strike, that would be a massive advantage. Its another step ahead of China and Russia.

About the wing kit, the only reason I'd skip the wing kit initially is to speed up the deployment of the rocket penetrator. The less elements that need to be integrated, the better.

Though, instead of the wing kit, the US should look at the French rocket propelled Laser guided bombs. Those may allow a wider range of launch altitudes and speeds for a given distance. (Doesn't force the F-35 to be at 10k ft to get x number of miles)

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 19:29
by southernphantom
The real question is whether this planning is in response to expected neutralization of GPS by the enemy, or a voluntary deactivation of the system to prevent its use by the enemy.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 23:52
by count_to_10
southernphantom wrote:The real question is whether this planning is in response to expected neutralization of GPS by the enemy, or a voluntary deactivation of the system to prevent its use by the enemy.

The Chinese seem to be setting up their own.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2012, 00:01
by popcorn
arkadyrenko wrote:The other possibility, popcorn, is that the country that develops the system doesn't realize its weakness. The country becomes too dependent on the technology.

That doesn't appear to be the case here, at least for GPS. Other countries already assuredly have satellite guided munitions. If the US can develop an ability to fight in a satellite degraded environment while retaining precision strike, that would be a massive advantage. Its another step ahead of China and Russia.

About the wing kit, the only reason I'd skip the wing kit initially is to speed up the deployment of the rocket penetrator. The less elements that need to be integrated, the better.
Development work is routinely done in parallel
Though, instead of the wing kit, the US should look at the French rocket propelled Laser guided bombs. Those may allow a wider range of launch altitudes and speeds for a given distance. (Doesn't force the F-35 to be at 10k ft to get x number of miles
Why 10K feet? Wings well above that altitude.

.....

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: And I thought the import

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2012, 03:13
by arkadyrenko
popcorn - Well see if they "do it in parallel." Really, wing kits and rocket boosts are separate issues, they can add to each other, but first they need to be developed. I don't think the USAF will take the risk of combining the two separate programs at the onset. That is all.

About the 10k feet, my point was that with a wing kit, you need a certain altitude to achieve a certain range. I think the USAF should look at the French rocket propelled LGBs as a possible weapon. That allows you to get a certain range from lower altitudes (ie 1,000 feet or lower). Also, it gives the weapon a bit faster closing time which gives point defenses less time to react.

As for the GPS, I think the US development has two legs.

1) Other countries are actively pursuing GPS area denial and spoofing technology. North Korea (and Iraq) have GPS jammers. While you can shoot at the jammers with HARMs, there could come a time when you won't have the luxury of rolling back the jamming envelop. One such case is if you're doing a deep strike against a hardened position at the beginning of a war (which, coincidentally enough, is what the rocket assisted hard target penetrator is supposed to be used for). If the Norks cross the DMZ, the US and RoK won't have enough aircraft and time to hit the GPS jammers. They'll have to deal with the massive target list of fixed assets.

2) I wouldn't be surprised if the US was developing its own area satellite navigation jamming equipment. This may become a necessity against enemies armed with their own satellite guided bombs. For example, if the US can jam or spoof the Chinese system, that may radically reduce the usefulness of cruise missiles against Guam. Imagine all the Chinese missiles routed into the sea....

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 06:34
by galoot
VV,

Not as simple a trade as you make it out to be. Stratafied direct dirt impingement as well as defensively oriented structural framing acts like NERA, imparting huge shear forces through alinear effects on deceleration which cause munition tipping, squashout and case deformation crumple as precursors breakup with ultra highspeed impact force 'square' multipliers being reflected in the rise in target resistance.

You can change this by using a system similar to a super cavitating torpedo to create a slipfield as highly energized gas wall which both provides a flow separation tangent around the weapon casing as dirt shunt. And keeps the round from tipping at unusual strike angles on in the face of reinforce target barriers.

But this requires you to make some rather drastic decisions about propulsion vs. ammunition mass as kill effects in the warhead and lost KE in digging.

The above diagram of HVPW is most assuredly faked because both for rigidity and total impulse, you want a dual sleeved weapon with the motor running all the way through to the hardened tip and the inter-cylinder space filled with the secondary fuel material for the gas generator which 'burns the other way' as it feeds ejectors at intervals around the forebody.

The kill effector system being in the structural spacers between these two cylinders with the intent to act as minor fragmentation enablers (the case is literally too hard to shatter effectively) but doing most of their damage as thermal detonation of the remaining propellant.

Which is intentional because these weapons are first and foremost deflagration killers designed to take out WMD materials and/or leadership targets by eating up the oxgen in the wake of a thermobaric blast.

The problem then becomes how much mass you are willing to -lose- as the munition mass augers it's way down through the strata on it's way to the MEF target void detonation point. Vs. how big a boom you want when you get there.

That said, bunkers are going so deep with the ready availability of ATBM and use so many sacrificial voids and other 'obstacle' hardware between layers of interest that unless you are willing to go for earthquake effect vis stratacoupling in a nuclear system, it doesn't really matter whether the delivery platform Is internal or external, an F-15E or a B-2A.

You can't make the bomb big enough or fast enough to retain the energy to dig deep enough to matter.

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 07:17
by mk82
Galoot my friend! I totally understand your point. Lets arm ourselves with photon torpedoes and super cavitate into dirt shear forces stress aluminium...giberish...giberish....giberish and so forth!

RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2013, 13:36
by uclass
Why not just pick up the SLGSM project and build a medium range ballistic missile with a 1000lb penetrator with DU tip and maybe 500lbs of HE that comes down at Mach 10? That will have the same KE as a 100,000lb bomb at Mach 1.

No need to invade enemy airspace or even take off a plane if the target is less than 2000km away.

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2013, 14:19
by bigjku
uclass wrote:Why not just pick up the SLGSM project and build a medium range ballistic missile with a 1000lb penetrator with DU tip and maybe 500lbs of HE that comes down at Mach 10? That will have the same KE as a 100,000lb bomb at Mach 1.

No need to invade enemy airspace or even take off a plane if the target is less than 2000km away.


Because firing off missiles on a ballistic trajectory is something that always sounds better in theory than in practice when you are in a confused situation with highly stressed decision makers possibly being put in a position where they may interpret a conventional attack as something else and respond accordingly.

I am skeptical of all military plans that are based on a mass firing of ballistic weapons when nuclear powers are involved.

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2013, 14:32
by lookieloo
bigjku wrote:
uclass wrote:Why not just pick up the SLGSM project and build a medium range ballistic missile with a 1000lb penetrator with DU tip and maybe 500lbs of HE that comes down at Mach 10? That will have the same KE as a 100,000lb bomb at Mach 1.

No need to invade enemy airspace or even take off a plane if the target is less than 2000km away.
Because firing off missiles on a ballistic trajectory is something that always sounds better in theory than in practice when you are in a confused situation with highly stressed decision makers possibly being put in a position where they may interpret a conventional attack as something else and respond accordingly.

I am skeptical of all military plans that are based on a mass firing of ballistic weapons when nuclear powers are involved.
Likewise. Heavy reliance on conventional ballistic (and cruise) missiles also begs the question of what to do after one's wad is shot.

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2013, 00:45
by count_to_10
Mostly, long range conventional ballistic missiles aren't distinguishable from nukes. Unless you want the President to be on the hot line every time you fire one, you are basically risking nuclear war.
Aside from the question of whether treaties have banned them already.

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2013, 14:39
by uclass
Not necessarily. A few points on that. If we start busting bunkers in the Russian and Chinese homeland, that could be seen as a reason to go nuclear for them anyway. At least against naval targets. I still don't consider war with another nuclear power on their home turf as a realistic option. I appreciate that people have gone there and thought of such options and made up contingencies and it's good to have different tools for different jobs but the likely use of a bunker buster is against a rogue state developing nuclear weapons or storing WMDs underground. I think we should be thinking more Middle East here. Trajectories can be tracked and a ballistic missile with a range of 1750-2000km going to the Middle East from the Gulf isn't going to be mistaken as going to Russia or China, especially if the volume is small. It's a relatively short flight over in 10 minutes and also has benefits as a rapid strike weapon. When other countries like India are already operating such a missile, it's seem daft to hold these kind of reservations about a medium range strike weapon that would probably be used in extremely small volume.

This isn't the same as discussing putting conventional warheads on a Trident and firing it at the Middle East from the Eastern or Western seaboard. It's not like cruise missiles can't carry nukes too and they have comparable range to the SLGSM being discussed.

count_to_10 wrote:Mostly, long range conventional ballistic missiles aren't distinguishable from nukes. Unless you want the President to be on the hot line every time you fire one, you are basically risking nuclear war.
Aside from the question of whether treaties have banned them already.

In terms of nukes they are banned, but not for conventional purposes. In the past they were never accurate enough to do the job with a conventional payload though. That has now changed. The choice is now developing and operating an expensive stealth plane, with a live crew and a fairly expensive bunker buster weapon, or using a fairly expensive ballistic bunker buster on its own with reduced risk, operational costs and timescale.

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2013, 07:40
by KamenRiderBlade
I doubt we'll ever fight Russia / China directly.

It'll probably be more proxy wars or wars for a specific territory.

Think Diaoyu / Senkaku Island

Taiwan

North Korea

Those are the future hot spots

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2013, 11:56
by uclass
My thoughts exactly. A short-medium range, low volume, strike on a proxy target is easily distinguishable from a full-on nuclear armageddon.

RE: Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity.

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 20:18
by spazsinbad
A LONG LONG article with more acronyms than youse can stick a poke at....

Guidance and control for bunker-busting munitions August 5, 2013 BY J.R. Wilson
"The trick for effective bunker-busting bombs is to enable the munition to penetrate deeply through dirt, concrete, rock, and into the target structure before exploding; without precise timing the bombs can't do their jobs.

Traditional deep, highly reinforced bunkers remain a major part of nearly every nation's strategy to defend its most valuable people, research labs, and command, control, communications, and computer (C4) systems. As new technologies have enabled those to go deeper-and thus more difficult to prosecute from the air-many nations also continue working on improved bunker-busting munitions, with next-generation guidance, navigation, control, and fuzing electronics, greater penetration, and more compressed explosives.

The flagship of the Air Force effort to reach that goal is the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW), which is scheduled to complete research and development in 2014. To help achieve that, the FY12/13 budgets were increased for new technologies in fuzing, warhead survivability, anti-jam GPS, terminal seeker, angle-of-attack sensing, and propulsion.

According to AFRL's Munitions Directorate (AFRL/RW), the HVPW will provide improved capability to penetrate hard, deep targets with boosted impact, mature technologies that can be applied to the 2014 Hard Target Munition DP and "buy down" risk with a survivable ordnance package, terminal guidance, and improved propulsion performance. With F-35 internal carriage loadout and able to operate in GPS degraded/denied environments, it also is intended to put more targets at risk, giving battle planners a 2000 pound weapon with 5000-pound class penetration as early as 2014....

...The Air Combat Command (ACC) is looking to the HTM to give legacy aircraft, such as the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle/F-15K Slam Eagle, all considered Generation 4.5 fighters, and 5th Gen F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, advanced capability to attack the super bunkers.

"Next-gen weapons need to be more flexible in terms of the types of targets they can address and, in some cases, may need to be smaller without sacrificing intended weapons' effects," ACC's requirements director, Col. Sam Hinote, says. "This will allow our 5th Gen fighters to have a deeper magazine [increased load-out] and more flexible targeting options."

Perhaps as early as next year, the Air Force hopes to begin work on a 1,000-pound penetrator suitable for use in stealthy weapons bays in the next decade. While specifics remain in development, the options are thought to include a 1,000-pound munition using a rocket motor for increased speed, giving it the effect of a 2,000-pound BLU-109 and possibly a 5,000-pound system without a motor....

...Guidance and navigation
"For guidance and navigation, industry has been asked to prove the weapons they are building can communicate with the Link-16 system and work with the other assets in the battlespace to be more reactive to real-time data," Nolan says. "That is especially true for systems being integrated into the JSF. The United Kingdom is putting great emphasis on that, including how data is transferred across the network."...

..."A large part of the capability in this field essentially is 5- to 10-year-old U.S. technology. Some weapons still have three types of fuzes, although most new weapons have a single fuze that can be adjusted in-flight from control platforms. The F-35's reliance on a networked battlespace and the probable need to strike deeper targets against serious air defenses will require feeding off real-time data from the network. The ability to redefine the targets and mission of a deep-strike bunker buster is guiding the state of the art in the next two or three years."..."

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... tions.html

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 02:24
by steve2267
Has anyone heard or read about the status of HVPW?

With Iran testing an intermediate range ballistic missile this past weekend, in apparent violation of recent agreements, I don't know if Iran really wants to be bearding the Lion known as Trump.

While there are not enough F-35s, IMO, at this point to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, Natanz (33°43'24.4"N 51°43'37.5"E) is apparently only buried 8m deep. That depth should not pose problems for 2000lb class penetrators. But I don't think any penetrators have been cleared / approved yet for the F-35? The F-117 delivered the GBU-27, a 2000lb Paveway III penetrator, nicknamed the Hammer to very good effect (except for the deepest structures which required the 5000lb GBU-28.)

I did not see any published information for estimated depth for the Qom facility (which appears to be at 34.883945°N 50.999023°). However, that location would appear to be buried into a rock formation in some low hills. If it's deep, it may be untouchable, although you could try to destroy all entry/egress points.

But until HVPW or its successor comes along, the only really big hammer would be GBU-28s on B-2s as even the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast is not a penetrator weapon.


(Google Earth Pro was very useful in looking at these two locations.)

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 03:53
by blindpilot
steve2267 wrote:Has anyone heard or read about the status of HVPW?

With Iran testing an intermediate range ballistic missile this past weekend, in apparent violation of recent agreements, I don't know if Iran really wants to be bearding the Lion known as Trump.

While there are not enough F-35s, IMO, at this point to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, ....

I did not see any published information for estimated depth for the Qom facility ... However, that location would appear to be buried into a rock formation in some low hills. If it's deep, it may be untouchable, although you could try to destroy all entry/egress points....the only really big hammer would be GBU-28s on B-2s ...


Well it`s just my opinion, and those who know won`t say and those that say don`t know BUT..
I`m going to guess that a B-2 with 2 30,000lb GBU-57s would make some deep holes, and the Iranians would still be trying to decide what happened after B-2 crew is back in Missouri watching Netflix. At least if I was an Iranian, I wouldn`t bet against it. Even with 1,000 F-35s and new penetrators, the B-2 is probably still the first option. The fighters can play around with digging paths through the defense systems.

MHO
BP

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 04:29
by popcorn
The last I heard they successfully tested the thing at 2500fps and are aiming at achieving a velocity of 3900fps.

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 04:39
by steve2267
blindpilot wrote:Well it`s just my opinion, and those who know won`t say and those that say don`t know BUT..
I`m going to guess that a B-2 with 2 30,000lb GBU-57s would make some deep holes, and the Iranians would still be trying to decide what happened after B-2 crew is back in Missouri watching Netflix. At least if I was an Iranian, I wouldn`t bet against it. Even with 1,000 F-35s and new penetrators, the B-2 is probably still the first option. The fighters can play around with digging paths through the defense systems.

MHO
BP


Yeah, I had forgotten about the GBU-57 until after I had posted. Published data says the GBU-57 penetrates 200' (I am assuming of earth). The GBU-28 published earth penetration is 100' (& 20' hardened concrete).

I don't have a feel for Pres Trump very well yet. But something whispers to me that if the Iranians want to "play games" or try to intimidate Trump, and if Trump thinks (or is told) that Fordow / Qom can be made smoking holes and the Iranians will never know what hit them... then I wouldn't be surprise to hear on FoxNews one morning that Iran woke up to smoking holes in the ground, and they are trying to figure out what happened...

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 05:25
by popcorn
AFAIK the design objective for the HVPW is to provide the punch of the 5000lb GBU-58 in a 2000-lb package that fits in the F-35's internal weapons bay. Basically it would allow the strike fighter fleet to target more numerous hardened targets in a cost-effective manner. Leave the massive superbunkers to the MOP.

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 14:07
by steve2267
I am going to have to revise my first post on this thread from yesterday. From that great oracle of knowledge, Wikipedia:
Natanz is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. ... In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth.


It is a little unclear if that is 8m of concrete overhead, which would exceed the GBU-28's 6m penetration in hardened concrete. But 22m of earth plus at least 2.5m of concrete sounds like the Iranians paid attention to Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and upped their protection. Which makes sense -- they're no dummies (just irritatingly annoying.)

F-35's dropping 5000lb class penetrators (i.e. HVPW's) would therefore probably have no effect. (I wonder, then, what the Israeli's hoped to accomplish with GBU-28's and F-15's a few years ago?)

The Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) and/or DARPA have stated objectives for developing a MOP (GBU-57) follow-on that would weigh about a third as much yet penetrate as far as MOP but be able to be carried by "more affordable" aircraft. I wonder if this is the real reason, or a major reason for the development of the B-21, as a son-of-MOP carrier?

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 15:56
by Dragon029
Keep in mind that every impact is going to leave a crater; if the first HVPW doesn't work, the second will have a better chance, as will in turn the third, etc (the crater may not keep getting bigger, but the concrete will get progressively weakened).

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 19:11
by blindpilot
Dragon029 wrote:Keep in mind that every impact is going to leave a crater; if the first HVPW doesn't work, the second will have a better chance, as will in turn the third, etc (the crater may not keep getting bigger, but the concrete will get progressively weakened).


When I worked at Cheyenne Mountain under a half mile of solid granite reinforced with 20 feet plus iron bolts, we used to remind ourselves that with the weapons of the day, nothing was impenetrable. The trick is to make the effort not worth the cost. If they have to waste 4 or 5 meganukes to just go to airborne, or alternate site backups, providing no net gain, the costs might not be worth the targeting.

At least that's what we told ourselves.

In the case of the sites above, a cost benefit attack will likely achieve its goals. And at least for now the stealth platforms today will likely execute successfully ... but even so a cost benefit decision is made even then. A thumbdrive might be cheaper....

MHO
BP

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 19:27
by SpudmanWP
steve2267 wrote:It is a little unclear if that is 8m of concrete overhead, which would exceed the GBU-28's 6m penetration in hardened concrete. But 22m of earth plus at least 2.5m of concrete sounds like the Iranians paid attention to Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and upped their protection. Which makes sense -- they're no dummies (just irritatingly annoying.)

F-35's dropping 5000lb class penetrators (i.e. HVPW's) would therefore probably have no effect. (I wonder, then, what the Israeli's hoped to accomplish with GBU-28's and F-15's a few years ago?)


MOP From 50,000ft... One and Done.

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 23:39
by popcorn
The HVPW simply provides the benefit of a scalable response. Some targets will merit a MOP but there are an increasingly large number that are being buried/hardened that for which it would be overkill. or as BP notes a virus might be more appropriate.

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 04:38
by arian
steve2267 wrote:I don't have a feel for Pres Trump very well yet. But something whispers to me that if the Iranians want to "play games" or try to intimidate Trump, and if Trump thinks (or is told) that Fordow / Qom can be made smoking holes and the Iranians will never know what hit them... then I wouldn't be surprise to hear on FoxNews one morning that Iran woke up to smoking holes in the ground, and they are trying to figure out what happened...


Not to derail the thread, but one would assume there are also numerous other countries willing to lend a hand, without necessitating direct US involvement. No need to name names.

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 05:03
by steve2267
arian wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I don't have a feel for Pres Trump very well yet. But something whispers to me that if the Iranians want to "play games" or try to intimidate Trump, and if Trump thinks (or is told) that Fordow / Qom can be made smoking holes and the Iranians will never know what hit them... then I wouldn't be surprise to hear on FoxNews one morning that Iran woke up to smoking holes in the ground, and they are trying to figure out what happened...


Not to derail the thread, but one would assume there are also numerous other countries willing to lend a hand, without necessitating direct US involvement. No need to name names.


True, but if we're talking about direct action from on high, I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a list of nations that can drop something from 40-50000' from an invisible aircraft, sorry, from an aircraft that is not there.

But hey, if thumbdrives work... but unless they have really really really good (German?) pr0n, I don't think that one will work again...

Re: Another Weapon for F-35? - HVPW

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2017, 03:18
by arian
steve2267 wrote:
arian wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I don't have a feel for Pres Trump very well yet. But something whispers to me that if the Iranians want to "play games" or try to intimidate Trump, and if Trump thinks (or is told) that Fordow / Qom can be made smoking holes and the Iranians will never know what hit them... then I wouldn't be surprise to hear on FoxNews one morning that Iran woke up to smoking holes in the ground, and they are trying to figure out what happened...


Not to derail the thread, but one would assume there are also numerous other countries willing to lend a hand, without necessitating direct US involvement. No need to name names.


True, but if we're talking about direct action from on high, I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a list of nations that can drop something from 40-50000' from an invisible aircraft, sorry, from an aircraft that is not there.

But hey, if thumbdrives work... but unless they have really really really good (German?) pr0n, I don't think that one will work again...


Well, lots of actions can be taken and dropping bunker busters from 50,000 feet is just one option. And even that would require support from other assets, and other countries (in allowing transit through their space). And lots of other targets that aren't as hardened. Israel, Saudis, UAE, Qatar, maybe some others who are fighting Iranian proxies throughout the ME etc.

Other means also include, as others have said, cyber attack, special forces or other covert actions. I'm currently reading this book called "Relentless Strike" about JSOC and how they have trained for infiltrating WMD bunkers and facilities of this kind (specifically mentioning Iran as the target), and the fact that they had undercover operatives on the ground in Iran (they published this in the book so I'm not revealing anything...and I certainly wouldn't know jack about what they do anyway). I mean, someone was killing Iranian scientists for a while, and I'm assuming that someone may not have been the US.

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 03:45
by eloise
spazsinbad wrote:AFRL Moves Ahead on Bunker-Buster for F-35 by Graham Warwick, Jul 06, 2012b8

"The US Air Force Research Laboratory has awarded two more contracts under the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon (HVPW) program to develop technology for a rocket-boosted bunker-buster that can fit inside an F-35.

Lockheed Martin has been awarded $1.7 million and MBDA $1.3 million, but what they will do for the money has not been revealed. In January, Raytheon received an $11 million contract to develop GPS-degraded guidance technology for the HVPW, including anti-jam GPS, angle-of-attack sensing and RF seeker....

...As conceived, the HVPW is a solid-rocket-boosted 2,000lb-class weapon with the penetration of a 5,000lb gravity bomb, design for internal carriage in an F-35 and also able to increase the load-out on other bombers and fighters...."

MORE at the JUMP - BLAST! :D http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWe ... al_p01.JPG
&
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWe ... %20FCC.jpg


Why does the development process take so long when it is practically a modern Disney bomb?
800px-Disney_Bomb_Diagram.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_bo ... y_bomb.png

steve2267 wrote:While there are not enough F-35s, IMO, at this point to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, Natanz (33°43'24.4"N 51°43'37.5"E) is apparently only buried 8m deep. That depth should not pose problems for 2000lb class penetrators

i think it depends on whether the facility is heavily reinforced with concrete or not, currently
GBU-39 can penetrate 1 meter (3 ft 3 inches ) of 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete
BLU-109 can penetrate 1.8 meters (5.9 ft) of 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete
BLU-116 can penetrate 2.4-3.6 meters (8-12 ft) of 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete
Even GBU-28 can only penetrate 6.7 meters (22 ft) of 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete

Quick comparison with WW II bombs:
bomb penetration concrete.png

WW II penetration bomb-RHA.png


A quick comparison with 16 inches battleship AP round.
Battleship cannon.PNG

Battle ship RHA pen.PNG

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 13:06
by hythelday
eloise wrote:i think it depends on whether the facility is heavily reinforced with concrete or not,
....
BLU-109 can penetrate 1.8 meters (5.9 ft) of 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete
Even GBU-28 can only penetrate 6.7 meters (22 ft) of 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete


Either this is a very conservative estimate, or they used 90% of sand in the cement mixture for this test:

BLU-113 is apparently 3,9m long, in the video it penetrates at least two times of own length.

Here BLU-109 goes through ~3x own length (about 2,5 meters) worth of concrete, then penetrates completely another ~1m slab and keeps going in an almost straight line up, meaning it still retained a great deal of energy.


Seems like someone is underselling penetrating capabilities of those bombs. :shock:

Re: RE: And I thought the important factor was velocity...

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 13:30
by eloise
hythelday wrote:Either this is a very conservative estimate, or they used 90% of sand in the cement mixture for this test:

BLU-113 is apparently 3,9m long, in the video it penetrates at least two times of own length.

Here BLU-109 goes through ~3x own length (about 2,5 meters) worth of concrete, then penetrates completely another ~1m slab and keeps going in an almost straight line up, meaning it still retained a great deal of energy.


Seems like someone is underselling penetrating capabilities of those bombs. :shock:

The penetration rating is against 5000 psi steel reinforced concrete, the concrete block in the video might not have reinforce steel, or they are only 3000 psi. If you look at the WW II bomb chart, they can penetrate around 21% further against 3000 PSI concrete.
SDB seem to penetrate further than its rating also
Image
There are some others estimates too.
Screenshot_20181019-191451~2.png