NO Place Safe to Hide Anymore: Introducing the USAF's GBU-57A/B 'Massive Ordinance Penetrator' (MOP)

Reaganite Republican ^ | December 20, 2011 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

10x more powerful than it's predecessor, 

the 30,000 pound bomb can penetrate 200 ft 

of hardened concrete before it goes BOOM

GBU-57A/B 

Military technology has indeed created some fearsome weapons over the last few decades, from the 5,000 lb GBU-28 Deep Throat bunker buster, to the 3x larger (15,000 lb) BLU-82 Daisycutter, roughly equivalent to the Russians' 15,650 lb ATBIP (Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power). Then there's the USAF's 22,000 lb Grand Slam 'earthquake bomb' and the 22,600 lb GBU-43 MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast), which approximates the effect of a small nuclear weapon.

But provided you were able to find shelter under -say- 150 ft. of hardened concrete, none of them were going to bother you too much. Alas, a new Boeing-produced mega-bomb has as of now altered that equation dramatically...

Just last month the USAF took delivery of the first precision-guided GBU-57A/B (Massive Ordnance Penetrator).

 

The freaking thing weighs fifteen tons and will penetrate 200 ft of hardened concrete before exploding deep underground- right on top of the target.

Perhaps the first impression of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator is really how simple it looks...  it's just BIG and accurate, with a real hard point made of a special high performance steel alloy:

This weapon is intended for just one specific purpose: to destroy the type of hardened concrete bunkers which house central command facilities, enemy leadership rat-holes, and weapons of mass destruction... and to do so without resorting to any sort of nuclear weaponry.

Understandably, the MOP development program has been accelerated in recent years as concern regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions has grown- now it's ready, and just in time.

The MOP is deployed from high altitude and allows gravity to add momentum to its 30,000 pound weight so that it hits with enormous kinetic energy. The explosive power delivered is indeed 10x more powerful than it's predecessor, the BL-109.

Put simply, the MOP hits exactly where it is intended to hit with sufficient force to bury itself 200+ feet into hardened concrete... where it explodes its 5,300 pound warhead.

The MOP is designed to be carried aboard B-2s and  B-52 bombers- but the most likely platform to be employed in delivering the MOP is the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, some of which have already been modified to carry two of the 14-metric-ton bombs...

The stealth bomber's features find plenty of synergies with the new weapon, too: the mostly composite B-2 has dramatically reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures, extraordinary aerodynamic efficiency, a long range (6000 miles) without refueling ... and a massive payload. It is hence a potent delivery system for the new MOP, as it is very difficult for defensive systems to detect, track and engage. 

And when it gets there with a couple of these suckers... oh, man.

Considering America's unlimited global aerial refueling capabilities, there is truly nowhere to hide anymore- all we need is leadership with the will and just cause.

____________________________________________________________

Global Security.org   Defense Industry Daily   h/t Speedunque  Wikipedia

[The Antiyuppie]

I would guess that anyone in the underground area would get killed by the blast if there was no actual damage to the chamber itself. This happened in some underground bunkers in Iraq.

I’ve never completely understood the logic of “going underground”. You have to get in and out. You have to get air, food, water, and communication. Find these points and fill them with rubble. After a little while, the problem is solved neat and clean. It’s the complete opposite of a “mobile force”, which has proven to be effective in modern warfare.

[SampleMan]

Without any accelaration behind it, your terminal velocity is about 122 mph

Negative. That is about the terminal velocity for a falling human, but this is much denser and will accelerate to a much higher speed, even if dropped from a baloon.

[Deaf Smith]

Even better, add a rocket motor that kicks in at 10K ft above target.

[Chaguito]

[Chaguito]

It’s TOP SECRET.

[EQAndyBuzz]

What should scare the crap out of the Iranians is not the weapon. It should be the fact that we could get in and out without them knowing about it.

[Firebirds]

Great post!

[hosepipe]

What happens when you explode two of them on the same spot?..
a few minutes/seconds apart?... does it double the depth?..

[muir_redwoods]

No better use that I can think of

[Kenny Bunk]

Galileo for you on line 2.
No matter how heavy anything is, its terminal velocity, or the acceleration due to gravity remains the same. E.G., This puppy or a feather pillow fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Air would naturally affect the lighter object more, but 9.8m/sec/sec is about it.

That's why the big firecracker has a rocket motor. Until this gizmo is tried on the Holy Well of the 12th Imam in the Holy City of Qum, I wish to hear no more about it.

I would seriously recommend that all Ayatollahs get a Green Bay Cheesehead Hat to put under their turbans. This could hurt.

[XEHRpa]

>> Without any accelaration behind it, your terminal velocity is about 122 mph

> Negative. That is about the terminal velocity for a falling human, but this is much denser and will accelerate to a much higher speed

Bzzt. Incorrect. The bomb is more aerodynamic than a falling human, therefore the weight to drag ratio is larger. Terminal velocity is

Vt = sqrt(2mg/rho A Cd)

where mg is the weight, rho is the density of air, A is the cross sectional area of the projectile, and Cd is the drag coefficient. Because a bomb doesn’t have flailing limbs that take up space without mass, its mg/A ratio is larger. Further, its shape is designed to minimize Cd, the drag coefficient.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Let’s test it on the cube in Mecca!

Pierce the cube, go into the foundation deeeeeep! Explode and turn the whole thing into pea gravel.

[Dogbert41]

For a rock. Is a 15 ton arrow dynamic bomb traveling at 550 mph then released from 60,000 ft going to accelerate or decelerate?

[SampleMan]

Further, its shape is designed to minimize Cd, the drag coefficient.

Right, so tell me again how I'm wrong about denser objects with less drag falling faster.

[SgtHooper]

I make the mental comparison to the sabo round for tank armor. Simply a rod at high velocity, but the contact dynamics certainly work without explosives. A 15 ton “rod” at 600 mph would present some interesting dynamics, no doubt. The impact g’s and resulting shock wave would be impressive. Now follow the first with a second, and yes, all gone.

[SENTINEL]

Concrete also has a tendency to crack and crumble that armor does not. Even the smallest crack followed by 100000 psi @ 3,000 degress is going to cause problems.

One thing is for sure, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this thing now matter what I was under !

[SampleMan]

No matter how heavy anything is, its terminal velocity, or the acceleration due to gravity remains the same.

Acceleration remains the same, NOT velocity. Throw a pillow and a steel ball of equal weight off of your roof onto your car and notice which one arrives first.

When air resistance is very low compared to an objects mass, gravity can certainly accelerate objects well past 123 mph. To say this isn't so, is to argue that objects don't continue to accelerate in a vacuum.

If drag coefficient acceleration is less than gravitational acceleration, you have constant increasing velocity. Compressibility creates increasing drag with speed that results in generally subsonic terminal velocities for most objects, but 123 mph is laughably slow for any object as dense and sleek as an air dropped bomb.

[SampleMan]

No matter how heavy anything is, its terminal velocity, or the acceleration due to gravity remains the same.

Acceleration remains the same, NOT velocity. Throw a pillow and a steel ball of equal weight off of your roof onto your car and notice which one arrives first.

When air resistance is very low compared to an objects mass, gravity can certainly accelerate objects well past 123 mph. To say this isn't so, is to argue that objects don't continue to accelerate in a vacuum.

If drag coefficient acceleration is less than gravitational acceleration, you have constant increasing velocity. Compressibility creates increasing drag with speed that results in generally subsonic terminal velocities for most objects, but 123 mph is laughably slow for any object as dense and sleek as an air dropped bomb.

[XEHRpa]

> Right, so tell me again how I’m wrong about denser objects with less drag falling faster.

Density is really a higher order effect. I could make an aerodynamic aluminum object fall faster than a aerodynamically unstable steel object, despite the greater density of steel. Density matters only insofar as it increases the overall mass. (Perhaps you meant to say “heavier” object with less drag).

Now, I would agree with you, that all other geometrical aspects being the same, a denser object would fall faster than an equally sized and shaped object of lower density, because of the mass difference.

Unless, of course, they were both falling in a vacuum, in which case they would both accelerate equally and neither reach terminal velocity. But that’s a hypothetical limit.

[SampleMan]

Now, I would agree with you, that all other geometrical aspects being the same, a denser object would fall faster than an equally sized and shaped object of lower density,

Yes, this was precisely my point. It may be a large bomb, but not for 30,000 lb. It is the weight of an empty fighter jet, but with a fraction of the drag. I don't know what its terminal velocity would be at standard sea-level atmospheric pressure, but I'm guessing that it will never decelerate to it, as it won't spend long enough in that thick air. That said, I'm 100% certain that even if the entire 30,000 ft drop was through sea-level density air, its terminal velocity would be a lot higher than the 123 mph assertion (probably just under Mach 1), which was the point of my original post.