It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USAF to test 30,000 lb bunker-buster in 2006

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Massive bomb to MOP up deeply buried targets

By Michael Sirak JDW Staff Reporter
Washington, DC


The US Air Force plans to launch a project later this year to develop an experimental ultra-large 30,000lb (13,608kg) penetrating munition, according to service officials.

It will be optimised against hardened and deeply buried targets that existing air-delivered weapons cannot destroy, they say.

The Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is leading the three-phase technology demonstration, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) programme. It builds on design studies that Boeing has conducted for the laboratory. Flight testing is envisaged around 2006.

Although the air force has no formal requirement for an ultra-large bomb, it has a concept for a 'Big BLU' family of massive-sized penetrator and blast munitions. The MOP demonstration will mature the technologies so that they are "on the shelf, ready to go" if a requirement emerges for a Big BLU penetrator, said Steven Butler, director of engineering at the Air Armament Center at Eglin. He told JDW that the MOP is "unlike anything" that the air force has ever built.

Interest in a big penetrating bomb is growing in some US defence circles, including the Defense Science Board (DSB), the senior policy advisory panel to the Secretary of Defense. It recommended in its February 2004 report on 'Future Strategic Strike Forces' that the Department of Defense "immediately undertake" a demonstration of a "bomber-delivered massive penetrator" weapon as part of a family of ultra-large bombs that would "improve conventional attack effectiveness against deep, expansive, underground tunnel facilities".

246 of 602 words


I would add a small rocket motor to the end of it, that way it would hit the ground at a faster speed. Thus hopefully causing it to penetrate deeper.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by NWguy83]




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Yes, this is made instead of small tactical bunker bustingnukes, which were cancelled. And the best thing is it can be carried by B-2 and B-1, while MOAB can be carried only by Herc and C-17. And I don't think the impact speed is a problem, when launched from B-2 15 000 meters high.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
how can it fit in the b-2 bomber and b-1 bomber? if i remember that u can eject a MOAB from the rear because of its size how u expect to eject from the bottom design for 2000 pound or less bombs?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
And I don't think the impact speed is a problem, when launched from B-2 15 000 meters high.


Terminal Velocity ...
A falling object can only reach that speed, no matter from how high it was dropped.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Man the pentagon has got this all twisted why go through all the expanse to build such massive beast when you can get the same or better affect with a small tactical bunker buster nuke. I wouldn't mind having small yield nuclear warhead put in a bunker buster missile.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
how can it fit in the b-2 bomber and b-1 bomber? if i remember that u can eject a MOAB from the rear because of its size how u expect to eject from the bottom design for 2000 pound or less bombs?


I don't know, but I have read about it half year ago on strategypage and they claimed it was specially developed to fit B2 and B1 bomb bays. Maybe it's not true, but that's what was written there.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Is this the same family? 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.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre
Is this the same family? 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.


It looks like it is the same thing.

Westpoint :
Man the pentagon has got this all twisted why go through all the expanse to build such massive beast when you can get the same or better affect with a small tactical bunker buster nuke. I wouldn't mind having small yield nuclear warhead put in a bunker buster missile.

Well, if you compare the health, radiation problems and the posible politacal disaster when using nukes to normal explosives I'd say the MOP is much better. If it is able to do the same job without radiation than use it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
nothing new really the brits had a 10 ton bomb in the second world war

it was designed by Barnes Wallis the same guy who designed the bouncing bomb that was used against damns.

this thing was carried by a Lancaster Bomber and dropped from 22000 feet!!

en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers


Debaser



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
This 30K bomb is perfectly suited for deeply built underground military bases that North Korea have been churning out since the end of the Korean War.

Keep in mind the state of war still exist, technically, between North Korea and the United Nations (of which the US, UK, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand were participant member-states involved in that war). There is no peace treaty ever since.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Anyone who knows me around here knows also that I can't pass up a topic on big bombs without posting a photo I took of the 43,600lb'er at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. The old T-12 is horrifying!

T-12 'Earthquake Bomb'



My apologies for the distraction.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
You still have that picture, and I just think it would be cheaper with a small tactical nuclear warhead. Also I know that the Pentagon said that they wont continue research into such weapons anymore, I think that they really are. Rumsfeld doesn't seem like the type to change his mind overnight to me.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I remember watching the video a year or two ago of when they dropped that 20k pound bomb. Made a mini mushroom cloud. Bombs are getting huge. In two years we'll be at 40k or more. The start of the mini mushroom coulds without the nukes.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You still have that picture, and I just think it would be cheaper with a small tactical nuclear warhead. Also I know that the Pentagon said that they wont continue research into such weapons anymore, I think that they really are. Rumsfeld doesn't seem like the type to change his mind overnight to me.


To put it quite simply , even a 10ton demolition or mine type fission weapon would leave an amount of radiation after detonation on the (or slightly below) the surface.

ndep.nv.gov...

some photo`s of the results of underground tests of weapons - the large crater (and picture next to it) are the result of a 100kt shot at a depth of 635 feet - which is deaper than any penetrator can go.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
The MOP wouldn't be the same size as the MOAB and would probably have smaller dimensions. This is because the MOAB was designed for blast effect therefore a high proportion of its weight is explosive fill ( probably GSX ).

The MOP on the other hand would have a smaller explosive fill with the majority of the weight being made up of DU ( or the like ) ballast. They can therefore streamline the shape into a log skinny bomb ( allowing it to fit in the B-1, B-2 bombers ). As the depth of penetration is directly proportional to the length and width of the bomb, the longer and skinnier the better - to a point of course.


PS. The fill for the MOP would probably be one of the new insensitive explosives such as CL-20 or AFX-757, thus providing it with plenty of punch.


[edit on 31-3-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Contrary to popular belief the bunker busting nuke program was never cancelled. It just did not recieve more requested funding but is still funded. We may have over a dozen functioning deployable bunker busting nukes. Why would we cancel the program anyways? So far its the only nuke thats tactically usable. We will use it in either Iran and or NK. Its perfect for vaporizing super hardened underground targets like Irans buried nuke plants and the hundereds of miles of underground NK military network that they have been building since the fifties. The above ground nuclear dispersal is amazingly minimal as the ground caves in on the blast zone. Quite possibly the only nuke that can be used without starting some panicked nuclear exchange. W will use nukes in some way. Its just a matter of time.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
The problem is that in the U.S. there are laws that prohibit the development of nukes yielding 5kt or less because its considered yields that low blur the line between nukes and conventional weapons. The Pentagon is trying to change this law and produce bunker-busting nukes in the 1-5 kt range. As of now they can only make them 6kt and up.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
you need to check out a feature in these weapons called "Dial a yeild"

You will find this information in a book called " The secret that Exploded"
By Howard Morland. This is one of the few books to make it to the US Supreme Court to stop its publishing. They said...publish it.
This book names vendors who supply materials for the weapons and also the description of how the "dial a yeild " feature works. Obviously it can be adjusted up or down ..for how much bang is desired.

Thanks
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Nice multi purpose warheads, did not know about this thanks for the info.




West Point, Out.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
How many bunkers do we have to bust anymore?.
The days of putting bunkers 100s of feet below the earth to protect something are long gone




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join