Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/30/2004 9:25:44 AM EST
Something like that sure would be handy considering the Iran situation. Build the sucker to penetrate deep into earth and rock and packed so full of high explosives that it would create one hell of a shock when it exploded underground. The current 2,000 and 5,000 lb bombs could probably eventually punch through far enough to do some damage. But it would take a shitload of them dumped on the same spot to have an effect. This Iranian facility is supposed to be 75 ft down, has 9' thick steel reinforced concrete walls and rests on springs. It'll be a bitch to take out.

What we need is a 10,000, 15,000 or even a 20,000 lb class weapon with similar deep penetration characteristics of the bunker buster bombs. Considering the size of such a weapon, I am not even sure our heavy bombers would be able to employ it. The bomb bay doors would likely be too short. But I'm sure we could rig up a big old cargo plane like the C-141, C-5, C-17 or even a 747 of some type to act as a bomber. Backed by air cover and SAM suppression, such a large plane could make it's way into Iran and knock the hell out of something. But instead of making it a parachute drop, make it freefall and drop the bastard from high altitude. Just one or two weapons of this type might accomplish in one or two drops what it would take hundreds of regualr bunker busters to do.

So, could we create something like this?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:28:59 AM EST
The MOAB IS a GPS / inertial gyroscope guided bomb.....
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:29:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 9:30:36 AM EST by Alien]
Seventy-five feet of hardened soil seems like an aweful lot to go through for such a large device. I wonder how many feet of soil a normal bunker buster can go through. I know they can go through multiple reinforced concrete walls like a hot knife through butter, but what about when you have that much earth on top of them?


Originally Posted By KA3B:
The MOAB IS a GPS / inertial gyroscope guided bomb.....

And it's also surface detonating if I'm not mistaken.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:31:33 AM EST
One of the advantages of the bunker buster is that it is very heavy, and it is very thin in diamater. The MOAB is just too big around, and will encounter way too much resistance when trying to going through reinforced concrete.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:31:57 AM EST
'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
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 Posted: 4:44 AM EDT (0844 GMT)


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.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:32:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 9:33:14 AM EST by ANGST]
I've seen some ideas with basically a super accurate ICBM with a single warhead. Doesn't need too much explosive 1000lbs or so as the impact would cause alot of damage at reentry velocity.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:36:51 AM EST
Is there a cumulative effect of multiple strikes with penetrating type warheads? I've wondered why we just don't hit the same point with staggered, successive waves. Seems like we have the accuracy to hit to within meters on a repeatable basis.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:38:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
'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
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 Posted: 4:44 AM EDT (0844 GMT)


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.



Yep, that's what I'm talking about right there! Too bad such a design will only reach test stage by 2006. That'll be too late to stop Iran from going nuclear. Damnit. Hell, by then the only thing that needs to be left of that freaking underground site is elbows and toenails. I dunno how we can take that sucker out. But it's gotta be done. Ground forces may have to be used in some capacity.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:38:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 9:40:03 AM EST by Torf]
You can't beat a hot war for speeding up military developments!

How long did it take the P-51 mustang to go from pencil to Japan again? 8 months?

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:39:19 AM EST
Isn't the MOAB a FAE, and thus unsutible for 'busting bunkers'? The British did use huge conventional bombs dropped from modified Lancasters to destroy targets that survived other bomb raids during WWII. They worked by creating a huge crater and shock wave in the ground. I do not know if a new 'Grand Slam' bomb would take out the facility you describe though.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:43:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:
Isn't the MOAB a FAE, and thus unsutible for 'busting bunkers'? The British did use huge conventional bombs dropped from modified Lancasters to destroy targets that survived other bomb raids during WWII. They worked by creating a huge crater and shock wave in the ground. I do not know if a new 'Grand Slam' bomb would take out the facility you describe though.

Hoppy8420



I'm not talking about using the already available MOAB. Again I said "MOAB type weapon". In other words we need a big ol' bomb the size of the MOAB but built to perform like a bunker buster. Sure, we already have the Daisy Cutters and MOABs. And yes the MOAB is GPS guided. But it isn't designed to accomplish missions like taking out deep underground facilities. We desperately need such a weapon and we need one as soon as possible.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:46:34 AM EST
I said MOAB as it is a GPS guided weapon, not that it's a "bunker buster".
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:52:57 AM EST
Do the following:

Take GBU-28 shell

Place one of these inside it:

A W-54 spherical plutonium bomb of 10 or 20 tons equivilant.

Fill the rest of the space with styrofoam or aerogel to cushon the impact.

Problem solved.

No one will be able to tell it was NOT a conventional bomb.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:56:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By Torf:
You can't beat a hot war for speeding up military developments!

How long did it take the P-51 mustang to go from pencil to Japan again? 8 months?




Not quite correct, you mean "pencil to Luftwaffe" it was designed to a British Specification and was in combat service with the RAF for nearly a year before the USAAF, who ordered it reluctantly…

The Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program (better known as the "Truman Committee", after its chairman Sen. Harry S Truman of Missouri) was given the task of investigating the system under which military production contracts were awarded during wartime conditions. They looked specifically into the reason why the Army had sat on its hands for so long before ordering any examples of the Mustang, an airplane which had such demonstrably superior performance.

First RAF combat deployment: The first Mustang I operational sortie was on July 27, 1942. Mustang Is participated in the disastrous Dieppe landings by British commandos on August 19, 1942, where it saw the first air-to-air action. During this operation, pilots of No 414 Squadron of the RCAF were attacked by Fw 190s. An American RCAF volunteer, F/O H. H. Hills, shot down one of the enemy, which was first blood for the Mustang.

First USAAF combat deployment… March of 1943, a batch of 25 F-6A/P-51s were assigned to the 154th Observation squadron at Oujda in French Morocco. This was the first US Mustang unit. The first mission was a photographic coverage of Kairouan airfield in Tunisia on April 10, 1943.

Andy… I love of Mustangs…
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 9:57:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
Is there a cumulative effect of multiple strikes with penetrating type warheads? I've wondered why we just don't hit the same point with staggered, successive waves. Seems like we have the accuracy to hit to within meters on a repeatable basis.



It is a tactic used… 'burrowing' down through a target.

Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:03:53 AM EST
Don't forget that the USA used the junk Allison V-1710, and that the P-51 did not come into its own until either the Rolls Royce Merlin or the Packard-built Merlin V-1650 was installed.



Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Torf:
You can't beat a hot war for speeding up military developments!

How long did it take the P-51 mustang to go from pencil to Japan again? 8 months?




Not quite correct, you mean "pencil to Luftwaffe" it was designed to a British Specification and was in combat service with the RAF for nearly a year before the USAAF, who ordered it reluctantly…

The Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program (better known as the "Truman Committee", after its chairman Sen. Harry S Truman of Missouri) was given the task of investigating the system under which military production contracts were awarded during wartime conditions. They looked specifically into the reason why the Army had sat on its hands for so long before ordering any examples of the Mustang, an airplane which had such demonstrably superior performance.

First RAF combat deployment: The first Mustang I operational sortie was on July 27, 1942. Mustang Is participated in the disastrous Dieppe landings by British commandos on August 19, 1942, where it saw the first air-to-air action. During this operation, pilots of No 414 Squadron of the RCAF were attacked by Fw 190s. An American RCAF volunteer, F/O H. H. Hills, shot down one of the enemy, which was first blood for the Mustang.

First USAAF combat deployment… March of 1943, a batch of 25 F-6A/P-51s were assigned to the 154th Observation squadron at Oujda in French Morocco. This was the first US Mustang unit. The first mission was a photographic coverage of Kairouan airfield in Tunisia on April 10, 1943.

Andy… I love of Mustangs…

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:07:32 AM EST
Haven't we been developing a nuclear bunker buster? I recall some talk about such during the Afghanistan campaign. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:11:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Don't forget that the USA used the junk Allison V-1710, and that the P-51 did not come into its own until either the Rolls Royce Merlin or the Packard-built Merlin V-1650 was installed.



Very true! See! the British did something VERY right in WWII… gave you one of the finest fighters of WWII…

Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:12:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Planerench:
Haven't we been developing a nuclear bunker buster? I recall some talk about such during the Afghanistan campaign. Planerench out.



Yes but its based on the B-61 H bomb. Minimum yeald is c300 tons. This is smaller, the idea would be to trap the explosion totally underground. B61 is too big for that.

Of course, why we don't use graphite coated Tungstin rods carried up by a Minuteman if you REALLLY want to get in somewhere....
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:12:59 AM EST
Congress yanked funding for the project in August at the request of the Air Force.
It's already been R & D'ed, I think the T & E part is the hold-up.


Originally Posted By Planerench:
Haven't we been developing a nuclear bunker buster? I recall some talk about such during the Afghanistan campaign. Planerench out.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:13:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Don't forget that the USA used the junk Allison V-1710, and that the P-51 did not come into its own until either the Rolls Royce Merlin or the Packard-built Merlin V-1650 was installed.



Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Torf:
You can't beat a hot war for speeding up military developments!

How long did it take the P-51 mustang to go from pencil to Japan again? 8 months?




Not quite correct, you mean "pencil to Luftwaffe" it was designed to a British Specification and was in combat service with the RAF for nearly a year before the USAAF, who ordered it reluctantly…

The Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program (better known as the "Truman Committee", after its chairman Sen. Harry S Truman of Missouri) was given the task of investigating the system under which military production contracts were awarded during wartime conditions. They looked specifically into the reason why the Army had sat on its hands for so long before ordering any examples of the Mustang, an airplane which had such demonstrably superior performance.

First RAF combat deployment: The first Mustang I operational sortie was on July 27, 1942. Mustang Is participated in the disastrous Dieppe landings by British commandos on August 19, 1942, where it saw the first air-to-air action. During this operation, pilots of No 414 Squadron of the RCAF were attacked by Fw 190s. An American RCAF volunteer, F/O H. H. Hills, shot down one of the enemy, which was first blood for the Mustang.

First USAAF combat deployment… March of 1943, a batch of 25 F-6A/P-51s were assigned to the 154th Observation squadron at Oujda in French Morocco. This was the first US Mustang unit. The first mission was a photographic coverage of Kairouan airfield in Tunisia on April 10, 1943.

Andy… I love of Mustangs…




Good info guys. Thanks!
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:14:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Do the following:

Take GBU-28 shell

Place one of these inside it:nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W54davy2.jpg

A W-54 spherical plutonium bomb of 10 or 20 tons equivilant.

Fill the rest of the space with styrofoam or aerogel to cushon the impact.

Problem solved.

No one will be able to tell it was NOT a conventional bomb.



That sounds like a useful idea. I like it. Stuff a tactical nuke into a regular bunker buster hull and drop that bastard. Being it's a tactical nuke, you won't have to be that concerned with fallout anyway. And since it will explode underground, that really takes away any such worry. But the power of such a weapon would likely render Iran's facility into a pancake.

Me no think even 9' walls and springs will save the facility if a nuke detonation occurs right over it's ceiling. Then we can always claim it was a super penetrating MOAB or something.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:19:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Do the following:

Take GBU-28 shell

Place one of these inside it:nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W54davy2.jpg

A W-54 spherical plutonium bomb of 10 or 20 tons equivilant.

Fill the rest of the space with styrofoam or aerogel to cushon the impact.

Problem solved.

No one will be able to tell it was NOT a conventional bomb.



<snip>

Me no think even 9' walls and springs will save the facility if a nuke detonation occurs right over it's ceiling. Then we can always claim it was a super penetrating MOAB or something.



Until, of course, someone actually takes the time
to go to the site and measures the residual radiation.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:26:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Do the following:

Take GBU-28 shell

Place one of these inside it:nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W54davy2.jpg

A W-54 spherical plutonium bomb of 10 or 20 tons equivilant.

Fill the rest of the space with styrofoam or aerogel to cushon the impact.

Problem solved.

No one will be able to tell it was NOT a conventional bomb.



<snip>

Me no think even 9' walls and springs will save the facility if a nuke detonation occurs right over it's ceiling. Then we can always claim it was a super penetrating MOAB or something.



Until, of course, someone actually takes the time
to go to the site and measures the residual radiation.



Well, it is a nuke facility. I would expect to find radioactive material down there.

Hell, if this is an issue, drop them from a B-2 and keep it covert. Never even claim to have attacked. Make everyone think the Iranian site just went kaboom on it's own. There's ways of dealing with things like this.

Besides, it doesn't bother me one bit if we openly used a tac nuke on such a facility. In fact, it might be a good thing. We need to show we are willing to use our weapon advantages to deal with threats. It might teach a few of these scumback puke third world nations not to fuck with us.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:26:39 AM EST
I don't think we will have to take care of Iran. I think Israel will will. If I remember correctly, I read on ARFCOM that Israel bought or is buying some bunker busters from us. I think they will take care of the problem just like they took care of Iraqs years ago.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:29:47 AM EST
We really need a space-based system. I wonder how far a big iron ball can penetrate when dropped from space?

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:30:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Until, of course, someone actually takes the time
to go to the site and measures the residual radiation.



Well, it is a nuke facility. I would expect to find radioactive material down there.

Hell, if this is an issue, drop them from a B-2 and keep it covert. Never even claim to have attacked. Make everyone think the Iranian site just went kaboom on it's own. There's ways of dealing with things like this.

Besides, it doesn't bother me one bit if we openly used a tac nuke on such a facility. In fact, it might be a good thing. We need to show we are willing to use our weapon advantages to deal with threats. It might teach a few of these scumback puke third world nations not to fuck with us.



I appreciate your zeal, but the fact is that all
fissionable material leaves a distinct signature
that can be traced back to the source. So unless
we created a bomb out of Iran's fissionable
material, the breadcrumbs would lead right back
to Oak Ridge, TN.

Not that I have a whole lotta problems with
that.


Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:32:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
We really need a space-based system. I wonder how far a big iron ball can penetrate when dropped from space?

GunLvr



Google "Rods from God". Space based KE
ground penetrators.


Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:33:16 AM EST
The anti-nuclear lobby is terrified that people will find out that a small nuclear bomb can do the job of a very large and awkward conventional bomb and without the enviromental backlash. Either because the bomb goes off underground OR the bomb is simply so small there is not enough material left after fission "conbustion" to severely contaminate anything, most of which would be contained by dozering the surrounding couple hundred meters of topsoil into the crater itself after the war.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:34:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
We really need a space-based system. I wonder how far a big iron ball can penetrate when dropped from space?

GunLvr



someone's been reading The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Heinlein eh?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:34:36 AM EST
A GPS guided billet of solid chrome vanadium steel, 40,000lbs in weight dropped from 50,000ft by a B1B would leave a mark… I reckon it would go though a lot of concrete and earth… Gravity is your friend!

Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:35:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Until, of course, someone actually takes the time
to go to the site and measures the residual radiation.



Well, it is a nuke facility. I would expect to find radioactive material down there.

Hell, if this is an issue, drop them from a B-2 and keep it covert. Never even claim to have attacked. Make everyone think the Iranian site just went kaboom on it's own. There's ways of dealing with things like this.

Besides, it doesn't bother me one bit if we openly used a tac nuke on such a facility. In fact, it might be a good thing. We need to show we are willing to use our weapon advantages to deal with threats. It might teach a few of these scumback puke third world nations not to fuck with us.



I appreciate your zeal, but the fact is that all
fissionable material leaves a distinct signature
that can be traced back to the source. So unless
we created a bomb out of Iran's fissionable
material, the breadcrumbs would lead right back
to Oak Ridge, TN.

Not that I have a whole lotta problems with
that.





I don't know where the idea came from that fissionable materials can be traced to their production source AFTER they have been detonated. Before perhaps but not AFTER.

The UK made one attempt at "marking" a nuclear device in a test in Austrailia in 1958, it failed.

You can tell from the fall out how "cleanly" a bomb detonated and then make inferences on the quality of material and construction but you CANNOT pinpoint a source. That is fiction.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:38:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 10:39:17 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Originally Posted By TheCynic:

You can tell from the fall out how "cleanly" a bomb detonated and then make inferences on the quality of material and construction but you CANNOT pinpoint a source. That is fiction.



This is true, the makers plate will be hard to read after the 6,000,000 degree fireball…

Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:39:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Something like that sure would be handy considering the Iran situation. Build the sucker to penetrate deep into earth and rock and packed so full of high explosives that it would create one hell of a shock when it exploded underground. The current 2,000 and 5,000 lb bombs could probably eventually punch through far enough to do some damage. But it would take a shitload of them dumped on the same spot to have an effect. This Iranian facility is supposed to be 75 ft down, has 9' thick steel reinforced concrete walls and rests on springs. It'll be a bitch to take out.

What we need is a 10,000, 15,000 or even a 20,000 lb class weapon with similar deep penetration characteristics of the bunker buster bombs. Considering the size of such a weapon, I am not even sure our heavy bombers would be able to employ it. The bomb bay doors would likely be too short. But I'm sure we could rig up a big old cargo plane like the C-141, C-5, C-17 or even a 747 of some type to act as a bomber. Backed by air cover and SAM suppression, such a large plane could make it's way into Iran and knock the hell out of something. But instead of making it a parachute drop, make it freefall and drop the bastard from high altitude. Just one or two weapons of this type might accomplish in one or two drops what it would take hundreds of regualr bunker busters to do.

So, could we create something like this?



MOAB is not compatible with that mission, it is designed for use against troops in the open...

The problem with your concept is that the bomb would be uncontrollable...

A rack full of 5,000lb penetrators will eventually do enough damage to break thru, they'll just have to send 2 or 3 B1s to deliver the goods...
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:44:05 AM EST


The Moab is a surface exploding bomb mainly designed to take out personnel.

Big BLU (Bomb Live Unit) in a 30,000 pound category is supposed to be on the way!

Or do we already have it and can't say?

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:48:05 AM EST

Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon / Big BLU
Although the Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon concept was unfunded as of 1997, in early 2002 it was reported that Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed Martin were working on a 30,000-lb. earth penetrating guided conventional weapon, said to be known as "Big BLU" or "Big Blue" [which is also the nickname of the 15,000-lb surface burst BLU-82]. Big BLU will be GPS guided and feature cobalt-alloy penetrator bomb body that enables it to penetrate to depths of up to 100 feet below the surface before detonating. The bombs are so large that a bomber such as the B-2 could carry one of them. As of March 2002 reportedly three Big BLUs had been ordered by the Air Force on an urgent basis ["Inside The Ring," By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times March 15, 2002 Pg. 10].
The Air Force is also investigating whether a similar size weapon could be used in a blast-only configuration, to replace the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter blast weapon dropped from the MC-130.

The Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon is a 20,000 lb. class precision guided, adverse weather, direct attack bomb employed on the B-52 and B-2 aircraft. It will make use of the GCU developed by the JDAM program which uses GPS aided INS for adverse weather guidance. Precision accuracy will be attained by using differential GPS (DGPS) technology demonstrated on programs such as Enhanced Differential GPS for Guidance Enhancement (EDGE) and Miniature Munition Technology Demonstration (MMTD). The weapon will make use of the JDAM interface under development for the B-52 and B-2 aircraft and would be carried internally using new suspension hardware within the bay. The warhead will be a 20,000 lb. penetrator with dense metal ballast. This concept uses the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF), an accelerometer based electronic fuze which allows control of the detonation point by layer counting, distance or time. The accelerometer senses G loads on the bomb due to deceleration as it penetrates through to the target. The fuze can distinguish between earth, concrete, rock and air.




BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:53:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
Is there a cumulative effect of multiple strikes with penetrating type warheads? I've wondered why we just don't hit the same point with staggered, successive waves. Seems like we have the accuracy to hit to within meters on a repeatable basis.

We already do just that, and it works pretty well.

We're already working on deeper penetrators, AND a penetrating bunker-buster armed with a very low yield nuke warhead.

And on top of it all, with regards to the Iranian nuke program - don't have to destroy the facility - just bomb the access points / doors / elevator shafts. And KEEP bombing them at regular intervals, until the mullahs are toppled.

Same for the main reactor they are going to use to create their Plutonium - the cooling system / turbines are HIGHLY vulnerable to technology that is already in the field. Same for the reactor containment itself.
The reactor isn't hot yet, the actual fuel isn't slated for delivery by Russia for almost another full year. We have exactly that long to destroy the reactor without spreading radioation all over the place.

And John F'in Kerry has already said that giving the nuclear fuel to Iran would magically be a GOOD idea, and achieve 'Peace'.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:02:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 11:03:50 AM EST by TheCynic]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
I don't know where the idea came from that fissionable materials can be traced to their production source AFTER they have been detonated. Before perhaps but not AFTER.

The UK made one attempt at "marking" a nuclear device in a test in Austrailia in 1958, it failed.

You can tell from the fall out how "cleanly" a bomb detonated and then make inferences on the quality of material and construction but you CANNOT pinpoint a source. That is fiction.



Doesn't this assumes that 100% of the
fissionable material is consumed in the
explosion. All US produced plutonium is
recorded by isotope makeup. If any
plutonium traces remain after the explosion
would not the same isotope ratio remain?

Serious question here, because I was under
the impression that US source materials
could be traced (before or after explosion).


<-- Woohoo: 762!
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:38:58 AM EST
How 'bout sending a B2 upgraded to drop 80 500lb. bunker busters and we just GPS "postmark" all 80 for a 10 meter spot in the ground, maybe in 10 second intervals?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:43:28 AM EST
[ no centrifuges Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
And on top of it all, with regards to the Iranian nuke program - don't have to destroy the facility - just bomb the access points / doors / elevator shafts. And KEEP bombing them at regular intervals, until the mullahs are toppled.




This is a point a lot of people keep missing… nuclear processing needs electrical power… lots of it! You just need to take down the infrastructure, specifically the power grid… no electricity = no centrifuges.

Andy
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:46:08 AM EST
Next time try reading the entire post....


Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
Is there a cumulative effect of multiple strikes with penetrating type warheads? I've wondered why we just don't hit the same point with staggered, successive waves. Seems like we have the accuracy to hit to within meters on a repeatable basis.



It is a tactic used… 'burrowing' down through a target.

Andy




Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
How 'bout sending a B2 upgraded to drop 80 500lb. bunker busters and we just GPS "postmark" all 80 for a 10 meter spot in the ground, maybe in 10 second intervals?

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:51:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
I don't know where the idea came from that fissionable materials can be traced to their production source AFTER they have been detonated. Before perhaps but not AFTER.

The UK made one attempt at "marking" a nuclear device in a test in Austrailia in 1958, it failed.

You can tell from the fall out how "cleanly" a bomb detonated and then make inferences on the quality of material and construction but you CANNOT pinpoint a source. That is fiction.



Doesn't this assumes that 100% of the
fissionable material is consumed in the
explosion. All US produced plutonium is
recorded by isotope makeup. If any
plutonium traces remain after the explosion
would not the same isotope ratio remain?

Serious question here, because I was under
the impression that US source materials
could be traced (before or after explosion).


<-- Woohoo: 762!



No, transmutation occurs from the neutron bombardment that causes the fission reaction. Elements form in a nuclear reaction that did not exist in the bomb. They are not their beforehand and scattered like in a chemical explosion.

If we captured nuclear fuel for a bomb, we could tell if it was ours or Russian or European. But if its made by someone in their back yard, we could not tell who made it only who DIDN"T make it.

And after a explosion, the fallout is determined by how well the bomb functioned, not by what was in the fuel. Other than poorly enriched fuel would generate more fallout than high quality enriched fuel. But a badly put togeather bomb with high grade fuel that partially "fizzles" would leave a high quantity of waste too.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:10:59 PM EST
I gotta be bluntly honest here. Who cares if they do trace down the source? What would be a better situation? Destroy the Iranian underground nuke facility and delay/prevent them from developing nuclear weapons? Or do nothing (or fail) and then in a few years we are tracing the source of a massive explosion here in the US that kills hundreds of thousands to Iranian materials? Frankly, I'll take the former scenario any day of the week over being PC.

If a tactical nuke will guarantee the destruction of this site where other weapons may fail, then drop the son of a bitch. Better them than us (or the Israelis).

-CH
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:40:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:54:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:
Isn't the MOAB a FAE, and thus unsutible for 'busting bunkers'? The British did use huge conventional bombs dropped from modified Lancasters to destroy targets that survived other bomb raids during WWII. They worked by creating a huge crater and shock wave in the ground. I do not know if a new 'Grand Slam' bomb would take out the facility you describe though.

Hoppy8420



The MOAB isn't an FAE. It's a normal, conventional high explosive.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:58:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
A GPS guided billet of solid chrome vanadium steel, 40,000lbs in weight dropped from 50,000ft by a B1B would leave a mark… I reckon it would go though a lot of concrete and earth… Gravity is your friend!

Andy



Unfortunately, the B-1B can't even get close to 50K...
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:06:32 PM EST
dont need too

its a ballpark bomb
just aim in the general area, its dead
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:22:24 PM EST
Wouldn't a micro-nuke bunker buster have a hell of a thermobaric effect as well?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:30:42 PM EST
The GBU-28 (made from an 8in howitzer barrel) can go down over 100ft. They were used in Gulf War 1.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:32:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Have we got any C-141 Starlifters left, or have they all been retired and chopped up by now?
CJ




www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=274819
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 2:55:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jeepster:
Is there a cumulative effect of multiple strikes with penetrating type warheads? I've wondered why we just don't hit the same point with staggered, successive waves. Seems like we have the accuracy to hit to within meters on a repeatable basis.



Depending upon how far apart they are staggered. If they are staggered too tightly, the blast from one could throw off the next. Too far apart and you'll have to plow through rubble caving back in from the first hit or even worse, the high value targets in the bunker may have time to get out.

Additionally, the really expenisve part of each bomb is the guidance package. When a bomb cost 100,000 dollars the breakdown is probably something like 10k on the bomb casing and explosives and 90K on the guidance package. I'd rather spend that money only once or twice rather than 20 times to dig down to the same target.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top