reply to post by Rob37n
If I may,
As I see it, the main difference between old bombs of the same size is
1)New explosives are much more potent than they were in WW2
2) The bombs you mention were designed to destroy "surface" targets.
3) This weapon is designed to penetrate a hardened underground bunker, hence the common name, bunker-busters
|
Originally posted by mrmonsoon
reply to post by Rob37n
If I may,
As I see it, the main difference between old bombs of the same size is
1)New explosives are much more potent than they were in WW2
2) The bombs you mention were designed to destroy "surface" targets.
3) This weapon is designed to penetrate a hardened underground bunker, hence the common name, bunker-busters
Also, the Wallis bomb travelled through water and blew up to reduce structural integrity in the dams sweet spot.
The John Holmes bomb travels through concrete!!! That is a massive difference and i too, admire the technology to execute such penetration. It's a
shame such brilliant minds are used for nefarious intent.
|
Actually, the MOP has been around for a few years. It was first tested in '07 and can be carried by B-52s now, but the 2012 deadline is associated
with the Air Force's ongoing modifications to the B-2 to carry the bomb.
Article
Article 2
|
I think you're missing my point, what I am saying is there is nothing new about designing a 10t concrete penetrating earthquake bomb. Barnes Wallis
did it in WWII, here is 2009 the new US bomb is announced as if it was a first, yes the new bomb is more powerful, penetrates deeper (sounds like the
wife's ideal man) but it's nothing new.
The Grand Slam bomb would penetrate concrete, 4.5m of heavily reinforced concrete, even deeper on ordinary ground, and it's earthquake effect was
what caused the damage, please check out my original references or other material on these bombs.
|
A bomb of this size capable of penetrating through that much concrete adding a warhead just adds icing to the cake. That kind of weight penetrating
that deep indicates an enormous amount of kinetic energy, enough to a lot of damage without even exploding. The fact that it then explodes after the
penetration is probably going to be downright devastating in a tunnel or bunker where the explosive force has less place's to go.
Now if only they'd get going on the rods from god concept, now that would be one hell of a bunker buster.
|
oh super, more weapons....
Im sure im not the only one here who thinks that weapons of this scale should never be made, im not taking about householders having firearms for
protection. This thing's goal is to do major annihilation.
no weapons would mean peace. #, rich politicians and criminals sure dont want that, divide and conquer.
don't worry, every civ has a rise and fall, we are going to hell faster every day, probably exponentially...peace will come after though.
excuse typos, insert copius amounts of sarcasm where you would deem fit.
 
|
The U.S. has several differnet bunker buster variants, both known and being developed under black budgets. How about a bomb that tunnels by itself?
Meet "Deep Digger":
The Deep Digger Bomb
|
