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.

 

After delays, massive US bunker-buster available

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
And you get bet your bottom dollar that these things will be loaded with DEPLETED URANIUM!

Time to reduce the over flowing stockpiles...(AGAIN)


You raise a good point, and it's probably true.

DU is prevalent in this type of weapon and it's such a way to distribute waste




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
And you get bet your bottom dollar that these things will be loaded with DEPLETED URANIUM!

Time to reduce the over flowing stockpiles...(AGAIN)


You raise a good point, and it's probably true.

DU is prevalent in this type of weapon and it's such a way to distribute waste


More probably a Tungsten alloy, Tungsten has a much higher melting point than DU.

Enviormentally it is much worse...


According to recent research, at least some of the most promising tungsten alloys that have been considered as replacement for depleted uranium in penetrator ammunitions, such as tungsten-cobalt or tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloys, also possess extreme carcinogenic properties, which by far exceed those (confirmed or suspected) of depleted uranium itself: 100% of rats implanted with a pellet of such alloys developed lethal rhabdomyosarcoma within a few weeks.

Depleted uranium Ammunition



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
How much money do we really need to waste on blowing # up? Really, the US budget wasted on stupid weapons could probably feed every poor person on the planet. Damn humans.....



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Explanation: St*rred!

But ...

Rockwell B-1 Lancer [wiki]


Hardpoints: six external hardpoints for 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons currently restricted by START I treaty[73]) and three internal bomb bays for 75,000 lb (34,000 kg) of ordnance.


They might be pushing it as far as size of the bomb bays and also they may be pushing it as far as unbalancing it with single massive weight.

Also no bunker busting bombs are listed ...


Bombs:

84× Mk-82 Air inflatable retarder (AIR) general purpose (GP) bombs[158]
81× Mk-82 low drag general purpose (LDGP) bombs[159]
84× Mk-62 Quickstrike sea mines[160]
24× Mk-65 naval mines[161]
30× CBU-87/89/CBU-97 Cluster Bomb Units (CBU)[N 2]
30× CBU-103/104/105 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) CBUs
24× GBU-31 JDAM GPS guided bombs (Mk-84 GP or BLU-109 warhead)[N 3]
15× GBU-38 JDAM GPS guided bombs (Mk-82 GP warhead)[N 4]
48x GBU-38 JDAM (using rotary launcher mounted multiple ejector racks)[162]
48x GBU-54 LaserJDAM (using rotary launcher mounted multiple ejector racks)[162]
24× Mk-84 general purpose bombs
12× AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
96× or 144× GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb GPS guided bombs[N 5] (not fielded on B-1 yet)
24× AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Munitions (JASSM)
24× B61 nuclear variable-yield gravity bombs[161] (no longer carried)
24x B83 nuclear gravity bombs[161] (no longer carried)


And ...

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit [wiki]


The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (also known as the Stealth Bomber) is an American strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses; it is able to deploy both conventional and nuclear weapons. The bomber has a crew of two and can drop up to eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large air to surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.



Armament:

2 internal bays for 50,000 lb (23,000 kg) of ordnance.[59]
80× 500 lb class bombs (Mk-82) mounted on Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA)
36× 750 lb CBU class bombs on BRA
16× 2000 lb class weapons (Mk-84, JDAM-84, JDAM-109) mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)
16× B61 or B83 nuclear weapons on RLA
Later avionics and equipment improvements allow B-2A to carry JSOW, GBU-28, and GBU-57A/B as well. The Spirit is also designated as a delivery aircraft for the AGM-158 JASSM when the missile enters service.


So the B-1 is an unlikely choice and the B-52 and B-2 seems to be the only aircraft with the capacity to deploy the MOP.

GBU-57A/B [wiki]

Here is a mock up of the ordinance in a b-2 wing bomb bay ... which may unbalance the b-2 in flight.



Specifications:
Length: 20.5 feet (6.2 m)
Diameter: 31.5 inches (0.8 m)
Weight: 30,000 pounds (14 tonnes)
Warhead: 5,300 pounds (2.4 tonnes) high explosive
Penetration: 200 ft (61 m)


Personal Disclosure: So there is at least 1 bomber that can deploy the ordinance for sure and that is the B-52.

Now Iran isn't some defenseless 3rd world country ... they have ...

Surface-to-air missiles of Iran [wiki]

And ... Iran 'steals surface-to-air missiles from Libya' [telegraph.co.uk]


Iran's Revolutionary Guards have stolen dozens of sophisticated Russian-made surface-to-air missiles from Libya and smuggled them across the border to neighbouring Sudan, according to Western intelligence reports.


And although it mught not have the reach [11,000ft] to hit a B-52 or B-2 bomber it may certainly cuase problems for any other aircraft that are shielding the bombers on their run to the target.

Also the B-52 and B-2 deploy from the USA and it isnt to hard to watch the airfields wher they are stationed and simply tweet they have taken off and are underway.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


I believe you are correct on the B-1 technically, however...

The B-1 has a removable bulkhead separating the forward 2 bombay to accommodate the mounting points for the rotary launcher that can provide a 40 long bombay.



Regardless, it would be the B-2's and they wouldn't be alone. There would be accompanying cruise missile strikes on any type of obstacle that was a potential threat, large scale electronic countermeasures along with who knows what else DARPA has been working on for such an eventuality.

The way forward is in diplomacy, if the U.S.A.F. puts its full weight behind it they will succeed unquestionably with all of the geo-political consequences that will follow.

Many of the Iranian nuclear facilities are rumoured to be underground large civilian populations, however exploding deep underground would also minimise collateral damage above.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 




Many of the Iranian nuclear facilities are rumoured to be underground large civilian populations, however exploding deep underground would also minimise collateral damage above.


You seem to know your "stuff", but you can't look me straight in the eye and tell me that if you vaporize something deep underground that what ever stood above it will be fine.

That's just non sense, unless I misunderstood your post please clarify.

Deep under ground explosions cause more damage, it's simple logic and physics.

What are your opinions on this based from?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


I was speculating was all Ol. I was thinking that would have worked but seeing anything short of a ICBM wont lift it off its moot. SO its not really able I guess. I Imagine these penetrate like a AP round.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


If the Airforce starts dropping bombs people are going to die, god forbid if the bombs fall on civilian infrastructure innocents will die (if you will allow the distinction between soldiers and non-combatants)

The idea behind these weapons is not to blow a giant crater in the ground, the idea is that the kinetic energy of 30,000lbs falling at 2000 ft per second allows the casing to burrow deep enough underground that when the explosives detonate all of the energy is transferred into the surrounding soil generating a localised earthquake in effect.

The more of the blast that is contained underground the more efficient the bomb is in its task, the more of the pressure wave that vents into the atmosphere the less efficient.

I know this from WWII history regarding the effectiveness of similar British designed Tallboy and Grandslam earthquake bombs as well as from declassified underground nuclear testing data that is available on the Internet.

For the record I am not in favour of military action against Iran even if they take the next step and develop a feasible weapon and declare themselves a nuclear state although I sincerely hope they do not. I would support a limited Naval action to maintain unimpeded international access through the strait of Hormuz as in the late 1980's but no further.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I thought this said, "Banker-buster" and rushed in here in my high horse ready for a celebration... only to find out it is just another war toy for the bankers to play with.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Give me a break. Military men and their deep explosive penetrators.

Misappropriation of hormones.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Why don't they just drop tons and tons of soviet Tsars all over syria and iran. Get it over and done with!!! Show them who's BOSS HOG!






posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I bet Israel gets nuked if Iran gets bombed.

As I see it, I see it as a very real possibility that Russia or China have already provided nukes to Iran in the event the US/Israel attacks it. Im not sure complete ICBMs could have been given to them without being noticed somewhere, so I think hitting the US or most of Europe wouldnt happen; I find it very likely that the warheads could have though, and those can be placed on Irans existing rockets that could easily reach Israel. Those rockets are also MIRVs (Fajr 3), making them difficult to strike down and giving them a high chance of at least one successful strike.

Does anyone actually think that attacking Iran would go down well? What if the above situation occurred? I believe the chances are NOT trivial, in fact the opposite. Quite plausible. If Israel gets nuked, the US will get involved, and then Russia and China will get involved.

It would be a M.A.D. catastrophe.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


Yep, that's why we all see Iran as a trigger for WW3.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Does this mean that the Denver Airport, if the underground base rumors aren't false, is also at risk? And, underground bases in the US, these also must be a risk? I mean, other countries must have similar technology. Maybe they just aren't announcing it, which seems better to do.

We hear about things being stolen and vanishing in the US all the time. I wonder if this will go missing, or if they will somehow manage to keep it from disappearing. My guess is that it will be better protected than the 2.4 trillion that went missing, or those nuclear weapons parts.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Well lets see what we know: A B-52 test dropped a MOP in florida. The B-2 is being overhauled to carry not one but two of these bombs. That should eliminate the weight distribution. And dont rule out a c-130 or c-17 dropping this bomb like they did with the moab!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
That is one BIG bomb, 30,000 LBs. I wonder how deep one of these bombs can go, and I would think even if you were 200 feet underground, the amount of shear power unleashed would be enough to either totally destroy, or render the undergound facilty totally useless. I wouldnt want to be on the recieving end. God forbid we ever have to use these, It sure makes you wonder.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


No, but we could ask NASA to put the thing in orbit and just let it fall on the target.

^^^ very expensive^^^^



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Because Russia is on the Syrian govt side until further notice. They want to keep their hold of the area, not blow it up. Also, if the US dropped any nuclear weapon on any of Chinas or Russias "allies" retaliation would be swift and severe.

What a beautiful weapon.
edit on 27-7-2012 by DarkSarcasm because: (no reason given)


Seriously, I can't stop watching it, like a fly to a lightbulb.
edit on 27-7-2012 by DarkSarcasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Now you are finally able to demolish those nasty bunkers, Sadam had a few that suppose to be impenetrable.
Now for Osama's bunkers



Guess they finally found the satellite dish..
Wonder what place these bombs have now war is switching to electronic battlefields?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FactFactor
Ha!



As if all the other weaponry they had wasn't enough, now they need a new weapon to justify striking Iran!

These people are too predictable...

AND THAT'S A FACT.


But it's nothing new. It went official during the Bush era... but they didn't use it. Probably it was really just on project phase, and not production.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join