Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 4/27/2015 9:19:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2015 9:22:03 AM EDT by H46Driver]
Flying branch shopping for bunker-busting bombs

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told CNN the United States military has the capability to “shut down, set back and destroy” Iran’s nuclear program.

The highly-publicized yet classified weapon Carter was referring to is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—a behemoth, 30,000-pound bunker bomb introduced specifically to destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities.

The service’s chief scientist told House lawmakers in March that a research program to develop a 2,000-pound hard-target killer for the F-35 and other modern fighters and bombers is ready to transfer to an acquisition program

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a gigantic bomb with plenty of punching power because of its sheer size. But it only fits on the Air Force’s B-2 and B-52 bombers, whereas the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon would be compatible with more aircraft types—and overcome its relatively small size with speed.

If all conventional means fail to destroy a target, there’s the B61–11 nuclear option. The National Nuclear Security Administration is reducing its five B61 nuclear bomb variants to one, the B61–12—except for the bunker-busting variant that debuted in the 1990s.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 9:51:47 AM EDT
Would be nice to have hard target penetrator options beyond strategic bombers.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:00:31 AM EDT
Well of course we have the means, but we lack the will.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:03:31 AM EDT
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:06:30 AM EDT
War-ending(preventing), decisive first-strike, strategic airpower?

Paging Doctor Sylvan...
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:08:33 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalHeater:
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.
View Quote

You can fly an F-16 righ past all that with the right equipment.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:14:08 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalHeater:
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.
View Quote


B2.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:15:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:17:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalHeater:
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.
View Quote


They said the same thing leading up to Desert Storm.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:20:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By memphisliving:


They said the same thing leading up to Desert Storm.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By memphisliving:
Originally Posted By TacticalHeater:
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.


They said the same thing leading up to Desert Storm.


No one was fielding the S-300 then...
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:20:28 AM EDT
Lol, before the iranian nuke deal is done, zero will have us as the sole supplier to them of weapons grade plutonium.

He'll do anything to get this deal.

Zero is on the iranians side.

Txl
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:22:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2015 10:23:42 AM EDT by Qweevox]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
War-ending(preventing), decisive first-strike, strategic airpower?

Paging Doctor Sylvan...
View Quote


They aren't talking about a "war-ending" strike. They are talking about taking out a specific enemy asset. There is a difference. Only a fool, that wants to waste a lot of money, would suggest a ground offensive/police action in Iran.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:23:56 AM EDT
best option

"B61–11 nuclear option."
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:24:15 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Well of course we have the means, but we lack the will.
View Quote



This.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:28:11 AM EDT
Very expensive, but we could easily orbit a Rod from God with current tech. Space shuttle was 178k, so not much of a stretch to lob a 240k 16" gun barrel (with some guidance shoved inside).
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:30:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sebois:


No one was fielding the S-300 then...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sebois:
Originally Posted By memphisliving:
Originally Posted By TacticalHeater:
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.


They said the same thing leading up to Desert Storm.


No one was fielding the S-300 then...

s-300 is old, 1980. There are newer versions but we have the B-2

Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:30:01 AM EDT
I am going to use this term at least once today in a meeting...

Massive Ordnance Penetrator
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:32:19 AM EDT
I wonder if the Israelis have developed their own rocket powered bunker penetrating bombs which could be carried by tactical aircraft in their inventory rather than requiring heavy strategic bombers for delivery.

People have said that it wasn't posible for Israel to attack those bunkers; but now it appears there is a substitute for heavy bombers.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:33:33 AM EDT
My first thought upon reading the thread title was "B61."
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:34:54 AM EDT
Just the Wild E. Coyote suggestion, but why not make current bunker busters rocket assisted. Extra velocity should improve penetration right?
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:35:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TxLewis:
Lol, before the iranian nuke deal is done, zero will have us as the sole supplier to them of weapons grade plutonium.

He'll do anything to get this deal.

Zero is on the iranians side.

Txl
View Quote


His perceived legacy is what is most important to him. Zero does not care about the after math as he will just blame those in his wake, or Bush.

According to him his bucket list item is immigration reform aka amnesty, or at least to get all the ducks in a row to make it impossible not to give it to those he gives legal status too.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:37:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TacticalHeater:
It's one thing to have the weapon, it's another thing getting it there.


You need to get past a lot of anti-air systems.
View Quote


How good is stealth for this sort of thing? I'm not so naive to think that a stealthy shape and stealthy materials makes an airplane completely immune to all forms of detection. My question is, is it practically effective enough for a plane like a B-2 to get in and deliver such a weapon without being shot down short of the target?
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:39:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mousehunter:
Very expensive, but we could easily orbit a Rod from God with current tech. Space shuttle was 178k, so not much of a stretch to lob a 240k 16" gun barrel (with some guidance shoved inside).
View Quote


Kinetic energy weapons. Not a bad idea. Get a big piece of steel in orbit and then let gravity do the rest of the work for you.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:40:13 AM EDT
Uh, yeah, we are not going to be using B61s in some sort of strike on Iran's martial nuclear infrastructure.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:41:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
My first thought upon reading the thread title was "B61."
View Quote



We must use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons...
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:44:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:47:37 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Well of course we have the means, but we lack the will.
View Quote

This.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:48:46 AM EDT
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told CNN the United States military has the capability to “shut down, set back and destroy” Iran’s nuclear program.

The highly-publicized yet classified weapon Carter was referring to is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—a behemoth, 30,000-pound bunker bomb introduced specifically to destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities.

The service’s chief scientist told House lawmakers in March that a research program to develop a 2,000-pound hard-target killer for the F-35 and other modern fighters and bombers is ready to transfer to an acquisition program

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a gigantic bomb with plenty of punching power because of its sheer size. But it only fits on the Air Force’s B-2 and B-52 bombers, whereas the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon would be compatible with more aircraft types—and overcome its relatively small size with speed.

If all conventional means fail to destroy a target, there’s the B61–11 nuclear option. The National Nuclear Security Administration is reducing its five B61 nuclear bomb variants to one, the B61–12—except for the bunker-busting variant that debuted in the 1990s.
View Quote


"Don't worry guys. Even if Iran gets the bomb we can always shut it down if we want to."

What a pathetic attempt at changing the argument and minimizing the risk of a nuclear Iran.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:52:36 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:



We must use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
My first thought upon reading the thread title was "B61."



We must use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons...


If we mean to destroy the facilities (lol, I know), Carter has to know that the 61 is the most effective option. It was even mentioned. Personally, I have no qualms about using them in this context, though my belief that it will never happen may play into that.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:57:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:


They aren't talking about a "war-ending" strike. They are talking about taking out a specific enemy asset. There is a difference. Only a fool, that wants to waste a lot of money, would suggest a ground offensive/police action in Iran.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
War-ending(preventing), decisive first-strike, strategic airpower?

Paging Doctor Sylvan...


They aren't talking about a "war-ending" strike. They are talking about taking out a specific enemy asset. There is a difference. Only a fool, that wants to waste a lot of money, would suggest a ground offensive/police action in Iran.


Of course it's a war-ending strike.

If we could send Professor Peabody over and have him just take their machines apart, then we wouldn't need to be bombing anything in the first place. That we're talking about using force at all means we're talking war. Couch that however you like to sell it to Congress and the American people, but let's face it: It's war.

Yes, it's a war to destroy a very specific objective, but it is war nonetheless.

And if you're willing to commit one bomb, you're willing to commit two. At some point that commitment stops, and maybe we say that a forcibly disarmed Iran isn't worth the lives of American troops. Maybe we say that it's not worth using nuclear weapons. Maybe we say that 'bunker busters' are our only play, and if it doesn't work, then oh well. And if the result of that decision is a nuclear Iran, then that's that.



The point is that we've already piled on all these limitations ourselves. We all know it. Iran knows it. The only question is whether a specific piece of technology will accomplish the mission or not. For the record, I'm betting not. But I don't think we'll ever find out.

We're not prepared to commit anything more than strategic airpower, and strategic airpower isn't up to the task. So Iran will build a weapon, they'll test it, and that'll be that. Iran becomes the regional superpower, and American influence shrinks a little bit.

That last bit is what America wants anyhow, so I don't see why we'd do jack shit to change anything.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 10:59:42 AM EDT
This administration would rather sell them the nukes. Maybe even for free if they promised to use them on Israel, pay back for insulting dear leader.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:00:34 AM EDT
Capt. Ramsey: If someone asks me, should we bomb Japan? A simple yes, by all means sir, drop that fucker. Twice.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:05:58 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
My first thought upon reading the thread title was "B61."
View Quote


I like the way you think. Little buckets of instant sunshine for the win.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:22:05 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


dERP
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By mousehunter:
Very expensive, but we could easily orbit a Rod from God with current tech. Space shuttle was 178k, so not much of a stretch to lob a 240k 16" gun barrel (with some guidance shoved inside).


dERP


IAAE
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:33:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2015 11:34:32 AM EDT by AlvinYork]
none of which will be used by this administration (pack of commies) of course.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:37:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Matt_The_Hokie:
Just the Wild E. Coyote suggestion, but why not make current bunker busters rocket assisted. Extra velocity should improve penetration right?
View Quote


Yep! Force = Mass x Velocity

Either make the bombs bigger, or fall faster.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:39:55 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By supernoma:


Yep! Force = Mass x Velocity

Either make the bombs bigger, or fall faster.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By supernoma:
Originally Posted By Matt_The_Hokie:
Just the Wild E. Coyote suggestion, but why not make current bunker busters rocket assisted. Extra velocity should improve penetration right?


Yep! Force = Mass x Velocity

Either make the bombs bigger, or fall faster.

Newton weeps.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:40:44 AM EDT
Why not use assault teams to infiltrate and destroy these facilities from within?

Perhaps coordinated with attacks on the government, and the military's command?
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:42:09 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GLOCKshooter:
Why not use assault teams to infiltrate and destroy these facilities from within?
Perhaps coordinated with attacks on the government, and the military's command?

View Quote


What would your breach team look like? We can go from there.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:42:37 AM EDT
Remember back in 2008 when the world was about to go to war over the Iran nuke site thing? How something had to be done or else we'd all be dust by 2012? Remember Israel flying their training runs over the Mediterranean in preparation?
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:48:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:


What would your breach team look like? We can go from there.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
Originally Posted By GLOCKshooter:
Why not use assault teams to infiltrate and destroy these facilities from within?
Perhaps coordinated with attacks on the government, and the military's command?



What would your breach team look like? We can go from there.


Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:48:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mousehunter:
Very expensive, but we could easily orbit a Rod from God with current tech. Space shuttle was 178k, so not much of a stretch to lob a 240k 16" gun barrel (with some guidance shoved inside).
View Quote

Wait, back up...

Are you suggesting lobbing a 16" gun barrel that has been turned into a penetrator casing...

Or are you suggesting putting a 16" gun in orbit and trying to shoot shells back to Earth with it?

Neither will work. I'd just like clarification before I explain why.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:49:33 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:



We must use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
My first thought upon reading the thread title was "B61."



We must use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons...


That's exactly why we have nuclear weapons, actually.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:51:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2015 11:53:57 AM EDT by TexasRifleman1985]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesP81:


Kinetic energy weapons. Not a bad idea. Get a big piece of steel in orbit and then let gravity do the rest of the work for you.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JamesP81:
Originally Posted By mousehunter:
Very expensive, but we could easily orbit a Rod from God with current tech. Space shuttle was 178k, so not much of a stretch to lob a 240k 16" gun barrel (with some guidance shoved inside).


Kinetic energy weapons. Not a bad idea. Get a big piece of steel in orbit and then let gravity do the rest of the work for you.

Because when I think controlled high velocity atmospheric reentry, I think iron... And by iron, I mean Reinforced-Carbon-Carbon, Tungsten, various ceramics, and pretty much anything but iron...
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:51:38 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:


What would your breach team look like? We can go from there.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
Originally Posted By GLOCKshooter:
Why not use assault teams to infiltrate and destroy these facilities from within?
Perhaps coordinated with attacks on the government, and the military's command?



What would your breach team look like? We can go from there.

A sledgehammer. At least. Maybe a guy with one of those saw thingies. Dunno about the 3 foot blast door, though; maybe a crowbar or something? A long one; more leverage.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:52:01 AM EDT
The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:52:28 AM EDT
Ought to just pay Halliburton to fire up the Earthquake Thingy Tm. That ought to do it.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:52:48 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:

Wait, back up...

Are you suggesting lobbing a 16" gun barrel that has been turned into a penetrator casing...

Or are you suggesting putting a 16" gun in orbit and trying to shoot shells back to Earth with it?

Neither will work. I'd just like clarification before I explain why.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
Originally Posted By mousehunter:
Very expensive, but we could easily orbit a Rod from God with current tech. Space shuttle was 178k, so not much of a stretch to lob a 240k 16" gun barrel (with some guidance shoved inside).

Wait, back up...

Are you suggesting lobbing a 16" gun barrel that has been turned into a penetrator casing...

Or are you suggesting putting a 16" gun in orbit and trying to shoot shells back to Earth with it?

Neither will work. I'd just like clarification before I explain why.

I would like to see the net force diagram for this one.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:54:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Flying branch shopping for bunker-busting bombs

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told CNN the United States military has the capability to “shut down, set back and destroy” Iran’s nuclear program.

The highly-publicized yet classified weapon Carter was referring to is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator—a behemoth, 30,000-pound bunker bomb introduced specifically to destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities.

The service’s chief scientist told House lawmakers in March that a research program to develop a 2,000-pound hard-target killer for the F-35 and other modern fighters and bombers is ready to transfer to an acquisition program

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a gigantic bomb with plenty of punching power because of its sheer size. But it only fits on the Air Force’s B-2 and B-52 bombers, whereas the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon would be compatible with more aircraft types—and overcome its relatively small size with speed.

If all conventional means fail to destroy a target, there’s the B61–11 nuclear option. The National Nuclear Security Administration is reducing its five B61 nuclear bomb variants to one, the B61–12—except for the bunker-busting variant that debuted in the 1990s.
View Quote
View Quote

does not matter what we have. We WANT then to get a nuke. Or at least Obama does.

None of it will ever be used on Iran.
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:56:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

Newton weeps.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By supernoma:
Originally Posted By Matt_The_Hokie:
Just the Wild E. Coyote suggestion, but why not make current bunker busters rocket assisted. Extra velocity should improve penetration right?


Yep! Force = Mass x Velocity

Either make the bombs bigger, or fall faster.

Newton weeps.



ARFSCIENCE!!! Brought to you by the "plane won't take off" crew...
Link Posted: 4/27/2015 11:58:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2015 11:59:47 AM EDT by H46Driver]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:


That's exactly why we have nuclear weapons, actually.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
My first thought upon reading the thread title was "B61."



We must use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons...


That's exactly why we have nuclear weapons, actually.


You are correct. We HAVE nuclear weapons to deter the use of nuclear weapons.

That's deterrence and entirely different from preventatively, not preemptively using (employing) nuclear weapons.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top