LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22049 posts, RR: 51 Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6268 times:
Coincidence or not?
As things brew in Iran, or even for North Korea one day..
Quote: Boeing delivers first batch of 30,000-pound bombs to Air Force
Aerospace giant Boeing Co. has delivered the first batch of 30,000-pound bombs, each nearly five tons heavier than anything else in the military's arsenal, to the U.S. Air Force to pulverize underground enemy hide-outs.
At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs, called Massive Ordnance Penetrators. They are designed to be dropped on targets by the Boeing-made B-52 Stratofortress long-range bomber or Northrop Grumman Corp.'s B-2 stealth bomber.
As things brew in Iran, or even for North Korea one day..
I doubt it is that specific. I think the odds of a US attack on either are fairly low.
See: Israel - Iran War Possible? (by Gonzalo Nov 9 2011 in Non Aviation)
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1595 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5960 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 2): For some steel casing, a few $k of explosive, some servos and a Navman... $15M a copy??
Does anyone see a problem here???
Nope. The bulk of the money was probably for the up front R&D to design and integrate the weapon. The actual fabrication cost is probably more reasonable. Although with such a low production rate, the per unit price would be higher than usual.
Expect unit price for follow on orders to be lower.
rolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1764 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5873 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 2): For some steel casing, a few $k of explosive, some servos and a Navman... $15M a copy??
Does anyone see a problem here???
Yes. Although your description surely over-simplifies it, I think this thing is too expensive! It's a bomb, after all, I believe it can be made cheaper. It's almost as expensive as an F-16!
On the other hand, this is probably the top of the top in bunker-busting, and only to be used in very specific situations.
mffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 908 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5846 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 2): For some steel casing, a few $k of explosive, some servos and a Navman... $15M a copy??
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5827 times:
This bomb is an alternative to a nuke for some targets. $15 million is pretty small money to avoid that.
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 298 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 2): Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs,
For some steel casing, a few $k of explosive, some servos and a Navman... $15M a copy??
Does anyone see a problem here???
Not at all. This is not an ordinary bomb, rather a much needed asymmetric capability ( in our favour for once ).
According to wiki, and whatever you think of the reliability of the numbers, it does give an idea of the power.
Penetration:
200 ft (61 m) of 5,000 psi (34 MPa) reinforced concrete
26 ft (7.9 m) of 10,000 psi (69 MPa) reinforced concrete
130 ft (40 m) of moderately hard rock
Not your simple, everyday bomb. Now, of course it's possible to build bunkers that could withstand it, but since our esteemed putative targets don't know the precise numbers, hardening vital infrastructure has now become an incredible PITA, and also so much harder to hide from prying eyes.
I'm rather critical of how our money is spent at the DOD and think its budget must be cut simply to instill a minimum measure of vital discipline without which nothing much gets done, but this is a really worthwhile investment.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1595 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5292 times:
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 10): Not your simple, everyday bomb.
Saw a documentary once on these types of bombs. They have to penetrate the earth, then sense when they reach a "chamber" before exploding. As I recall, they can even be program to penetrate a number of "chambers" before exploding.
Got to be complicated designing and building sensors that can do this reliably.
I am anti-war. Conflicts can be solved sitting around a table.
How many more innocent civilians will these bombs massacre? I hope these new weapons will never get used.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
I am anti-war. Conflicts can be solved sitting around a table.
How many more innocent civilians will these bombs massacre? I hope these new weapons will never get used.
Turkey isn't trying to build nukes and is a member of NATO.
And the bombs won't kill nearly as many people as sticking your head in the sand, or assuming that crazed criminals are just looking for a chance to sit around a table and work things out.
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5431 posts, RR: 49 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5166 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12): How many more innocent civilians will these bombs massacre?
Very few unless they are living in hardened bunkers deep underground, one of the good points about the cost and scarcity of these bombs is they will not be used widely in everyday conflicts
rolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1764 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5120 times:
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 10): According to wiki, and whatever you think of the reliability of the numbers, it does give an idea of the power.
Penetration:
200 ft (61 m) of 5,000 psi (34 MPa) reinforced concrete
26 ft (7.9 m) of 10,000 psi (69 MPa) reinforced concrete
130 ft (40 m) of moderately hard rock
Yes, not your everyday bomb. But I was thinking maybe a succession of smaller (and cheaper) penetrating bombs striking at the exact same spot will achieve the same effect at a lower price.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5111 times:
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 13): Turkey isn't trying to build nukes and is a member of NATO.
As far as we know. But rest assured this has been discussed at the higher military and political echelons in Turkey. They have the means and the know-how.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5097 times:
Quoting NSMike (Reply 4): In terms of penetrating power I wonder how it compares to the old Grand Slam from WWII...
The 22,000 lb Grand Slam was designed to penetrate 20-25 feet of reinforced concrete. Whereas this weapon is designed to "to penetrate as much as 60 meters (200 feet) through 5,000 psi reinforced concrete, and 8 meters (25 feet) into 10,000 psi reinforced concrete (these number seem suspiciously high and may in fact be first in feet, not meters)."
Of that 30,000 lbs around 5,300-6,000 lbs are the actual explosive. So, approximately 80% of the weapon is casing or dedicated to the penetrator. Compare that with the 22,000 lb Grand Slam where approximately 50% was explosive. It had a concrete rather than titanium core as well.
When the RAF used the "Grand Slam" on the U-boat pens in Bremen they penetrated 2.5-4.5 meters.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5069 times:
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18): For such accuracy, you'd probably need laser guided munition. Unfortunately once the dust cloud from the first explosion goes up, there goes your laser target . . .
Which is why they would use a GPS-based inertial navigation system. Unaffected by the dust cloud. Either way as was said here:
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 10): Now, of course it's possible to build bunkers that could withstand it, but since our esteemed putative targets don't know the precise numbers, hardening vital infrastructure has now become an incredible PITA, and also so much harder to hide from prying eyes.
Designing, building and protecting a bunker that can withstand what this new bomb can penetrate effectively plants the thought in your enemy that it may not be worth their time, money or effort to try. I think Stealthz nailed it.
Quoting stealthz (Reply 14): In some ways that is the hallmark of the perfect weapon system.. to never be used.
edit: Spacepope's probably right. I got my metals confused.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1595 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5003 times:
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 19):
Which is why they would use a GPS-based inertial navigation system.
GPS is accurate for bunker buster use. But +/- a few feet is not sufficient to do what rolfen wanted to do with multiple cheaper bombs. To "spilt the arrow" you need to be accurate within a few inches.
Besides, there are a few reason why the "conga line" approach of bunker busting would not work. But do not have the expertise to debate the merit.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4980 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 2): Does anyone see a problem here???
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 6): Nope. The bulk of the money was probably for the up front R&D to design and integrate the weapon. The actual fabrication cost is probably more reasonable. Although with such a low production rate, the per unit price would be higher than usual.
Expect unit price for follow on orders to be lower.
Yeah, just wait 'til the little guy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hears about this.......
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12): I am anti-war. Conflicts can be solved sitting around a table.
Really? Didn't Chamberlin try that with Hitler in 1939? How did that work out? Chamberlin proclaimed "peace in our time" upon his return to England, later that same year Hitler invaded Poland.
But there are 20 B-2As, meaning we can strike up to 40 individual targets in a day, once the "MOP" inventory begins climbing above the 20 under contract now. After the first or second day, we can start using the B-52H.
mffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 908 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4974 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 12):
I am anti-war. Conflicts can be solved sitting around a table.
Really? Didn't Chamberlin try that with Hitler in 1939? How did that work out? Chamberlin proclaimed "peace in our time" upon his return to England, later that same year Hitler invaded Poland.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4937 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
But there are 20 B-2As, meaning we can strike up to 40 individual targets in a day, once the "MOP" inventory begins climbing above the 20 under contract now. After the first or second day, we can start using the B-52H.
Internal capacity of a H is 60,000 lbs correct? It would seem the limiting factor to how big we can make these specialty bombs is the internal payload capacity/bomb bay volume of the B-2 and B-52H.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4876 times:
personally I think this was developed when we thought Bin Ladin was still hiding in a cave... now he's not and had we used it where we found him, it would have exploded 200 ft below his house and probably blown him clear.
so would one really want to take out an underground nuclear facility with one of these? .. It would really mess our air up.
25 KC135TopBoom: Probably not so much as you think. Remember these are deep underground facilities, some radiation might be released, some burned up by the fireball,
26 MD11Engineer: Actually Wallis had a 30.000 lbs supersonic penetrating bomb designed, but there was no aircraft available during WW2 to carry it. The main purpose o
27 LMP737: The Tallboy was used to great affect in the sinking of the Tirpitz. Several of the near misses obliterated the sandbanks built up around her to preve
28 MD11Engineer: Still, both the Tallboy and the Grand Slam were downscaled versions of Wallis´s original design of a 30,000 lbs bomb, for which no aircraft could be
29 wn700driver: I'll refer you to the case of apples v oranges... A more relevant analogy would be how the previous admin and its intel/defense industry tried to mak
30 zanl188: Really? You'd rather use a nuke as a bunker buster? We'd spend the better part of a billion just cleaning up the radiation afterward. Not to mention
31 wn700driver: No, I just think this is a ridiculous waste of money. And I can't imagine the political consequences of using one of these things as being all that d
32 stealthz: Been thinking about this thing and how specialised and rare it is, there may be few political ramifications. It is intended to explode so deep that t
33 nomadd22: I was wondering about that. I thought the B-2 was good for about 38,000 lbs (16 M83s) of bombs plus the weight of 2 rotary launchers.[Edited 2011-11-
34 ZANL188: That's all it is - a big conventional bomb. I'm just stunned at your willingness to use a nuke vs a big conventional bomb. Using a single nuke on a t
35 HaveBlue: That is something I wouldn't have thought of, but of course that is perfectly correct. Damn!
36 SeJoWa: While superficially =P logical, bomb is not equal to bomb. As has been written above, this monster first burrows deep before exploding its primary lo
37 canoecarrier: And, apparently relatively few can carry still today! As "earthquake bombs" they were very effective. Mostly against soft targets like railway bridge
38 Areopagus: In no way could a Lancaster have hauled a Grand Slam up to 35,000 feet. The Wikipedia article on Grand Slam gives the release altitude of one of the
39 canoecarrier: The Bielefeld railway viaduct was attacked by the famous RAF No. 617 "Dambusters" squadron with the Grand Slam. They used a modified 'B1 Special' Lan
40 Eagleboy: I would hope that they would not need more than 20 of them. Lets assume it takes 2 for each target to insure redundancy........................how ma
41 wn700driver: Actually, you should be stunned at my willingness to do nothing at all. My whole point (perhaps not clearly made I'll admit) is the we really need to
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22049 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3857 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5431 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1283 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11362 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1764 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2738 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
