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.

 

U.S. develops 14-ton super bomb, bigger than Russian vacuum bomb

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

U.S. develops 14-ton super bomb, bigger than Russian vacuum bomb


en.rian.ru

WASHINGTON, September 13 (RIA Novosti) - The U.S. has a 14-ton super bomb more destructive than the vacuum bomb just tested by Russia, a U.S. general said Wednesday.

The statement was made by retired Lt. General McInerney, chairman of the Iran Policy Committee, and former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 14-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Another attempt to show that we have the "bigger muscles" than Russia. How far will this go?

en.rian.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan5647
How far will this go?


Maybe they'll use them on each other



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nickh
 


Hopefully not. We don't need a nuclear war during times like these.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The MOP is actualy less powerful than the MOAB or Russian FOAB in terms of blast power. Most of the MOP's weight is in its casing and heavy metal ballast.
The MOP is for penetration of undergroud hardened targets, the MOAB and FOAB are just blast weapons and essntially useless for hardened underground targets.

Whilst the MOP sounds impressive the US military are researching a whole new class system of weapons which can gold targets even 100m ( 300 feet )underground at risk.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Take anything from en.rian.ru with a pinch of salt.

It's made wild claims in the past that haven't come true.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by infinite]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I must say that what we have here are two totally different things going on.


1) What Russia has done was another step in showing the west/America that Russia is back.
Its bomb is an "airburst type.
It is meant to destroy what is between it and the ground.
Yes, of course it will make a big hole, but that is not its main purpose.

2) The bomb that the American was talking about is in a ground "penetrating" type, meant to destroy a target below ground level.
The American general's comment was aimed mainly at Iran.
It was meant to say, we can destroy all your underground facilities and we don't even have to resort to nuclear weapons to do it.
Now think about that for a sec.
How much more acceptable will a bombing campaign against Iran would be if there was a guarantee of no nukes????
I think that would make a HUGE difference.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the statement was partially meant towards the Russian's/Russian federation.


[edit on 9/13/2007 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


Ya, the Russians like to take a lot of things we do militarily and call them a "threat" to their security. This makes me wonder if they are begging for another Cold War, so they think they can "win".



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Funny! when comparing our bomb to RUSSIA's bomb, we say there is nothing in IRAN that we can't penetrate.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This looks like it's becoming a post Cold-War arms race, my bomb is bigger than yours notion. It once again shows the US Military to be ran by meatheads with blind rage issues. Especially with the threats towards Iran. It's like watching a bully slag someone off to get a fight going.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Can a plane carry a 14 ton bomb? I don't understand! How can you load something like that?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
yes but is it environmentally friendly as the Russian bomb ?
a truly crazed race.




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
as soon as i saw the headline i was going to post a smart aleck remark...like:

anything you can do i can do better....anything you can do i can do better than you.....

however...by actually reading this page....i realize that these are two seperate classes of bombs....



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Freud's probably chuckling away in his grave at the military Oedipus-complex of all this...especially this remark...


Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate."


who needs tactics when you can shout that your willy is bigger than your opponents



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Mad Scientist is correct, I actually posted about this in the other thread. While the MOP weights more than both the MOAB and the Russian bomb it carries significantly less explosive than both and it physically a lot smaller than both. It is a deep penetrator, it does not need as much power to cause significant damage while buried deep underground.

And yes they can be loaded into aircraft, the B-2 will be upgraded to carry two of them in it's internal bays. I don't see why the BUFF or Bone couldn't carry it either, and of course there is always the C-130 and C-17.

By the way the MOP has been in development for quite some time now so it's not really a response to anything recent. It actually has a very significant purpose and real situations in which it may be needed, much more so than the MOAB or this Russian bomb.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Yeah, this does seem to be like two boys in the school yard comparing who's willy is bigger, but with much more serious consequences when it comes down to using them.

What's to say they don't just dig deeper than the 300 ft. of reported penetration.
If Iran digs deep into a mountain, and they have lots of mountains, all you can destroy is the entrance to the facility.

Let's face it, even the old and decrepit Cheyenne Mountain facility is under 2,000 ft. of solid granite.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dolomite
Can a plane carry a 14 ton bomb? I don't understand! How can you load something like that?



The B-2 has been modified to carry two of these new penetrators.

B-2 carries 30,000lb penetrators



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
It is very unlikely that Iran will build every single critical instillation under a mountain hundreds of feet deep. Yes we can destroy the entrances and of course there is always the tactical nuclear option which would render even Cheyenne useless. However one needs to consider the method of delivery. Precision was so accurate that munitions were routinely "ripple fired" in Afghanistan hitting the same exact point after a previous bomb had already done so seconds before. Extrapolate this and you see why underground is not as safe anymore.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Dolomite
 


Only 14 tons?

Russia will be lifting 100 tons of rocket to 20 KM with an AN-124 operating out of the new Space Port that they and Indonesia agreed to build. [Launching from the Equator allows greater payloads to the most common higher orbits.]

www.itar-tass.com...

Russia already has the lowest priced launch vehicles and this will replace the Soyuz for some missions at half the price.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Whilst the MOP sounds impressive the US military are researching a whole new class system of weapons which can gold targets even 100m ( 300 feet )underground at risk.


Foung a couple of links on the development of the new breed of thermobaric explosives

Nanoenergetics set to revolutionize Weaponry
[amazing what stuff you can find in the ATS archives
]

Military Reloads with Nanotech



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join