Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EGLIN STUDYING MASSIVE 30,000 POUND BOMB, 40 PERCENT BIGGER THAN MOAB! (IT'S CALLED A MOP!)
LOCAL 10 ^ | 11/08/04

Posted on 11/08/2004 11:22:55 AM PST by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 last
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Bomb bays on the B-1B, B-52H, and B-2 are about 10 feet X 15 feet, just enough for the CSRL (Common Strategic Rotary Launcher.) Capable of carrying gravity nukes, short range attack missiles or air-launched cruise missiles. Seen 'em, touched 'em, put my right hand "on the face of the sun."

I'm thinking MC-130H delivery.

121 posted on 11/09/2004 4:50:30 PM PST by CholeraJoe (I'm just three lost teeth and a neck tattoo away from being a Soccer Hooligan. Go Gunners!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Armedanddangerous

You might be able to modify a B52 bombay (I.E. remove the doors and carry the bomb semi exposed this is what was done with the WW2 24,000 pound Grand Slam bomb on Brit Lancaster and American B29… bottom line…would they make a bomb that they had no way to carry?


122 posted on 11/09/2004 4:59:52 PM PST by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I'm pretty sure Grand Slam was 24,000lb.... double the weight of the 12,000 Tallboy

The original Barnes Wallis designs for the "earthquake bomb" was going to be larger and was his first idea to destroy the Ruhr dams however the idea was scraped because it would require a new bomber designs to lift...

Barnes Wallis then came up with the bouncing bombs idea for the Ruhr dams

Later on a scaled down "earthquake bomb(the Grand Slam and smaller Tallboy) that a Brit Lancaster could carry was made to use on the German concrete sub pens an other harden bunkers

Oddly the reason for the bouncing bombs idea so you could make sure the explosion was up against the dam face was later on was done on some dams in Korea by the US Navy just using WW2 aerial torpedoes

123 posted on 11/09/2004 5:26:24 PM PST by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
B-1B has a double capability in the front bay by moving the transition section between bays one and two: they use it for the second generation cruise missiles, then (usually) add a fuel tank in the remaining section.

Don't know the B-2's specific bay dimensions since I haven't stood inside it. 8<)

B-52 can carry outside loads (such as the X-15 as pointed out above) on inner pylons. But the bay is big enough to get such a weight inside: again, length and diameter depending on the weight of the casing and the weight of the explosives.
124 posted on 11/09/2004 9:02:59 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
There has always been a fuel tank in the forward weapons bay of the B-1B. Had one spew JP-4 up to my ankles across the tarmac at Dyess in 1986. It was discovered early in testing of the Bone that gravity weapons dropped from the forward bay had a nasty tendency to impact the rear stabilizers when release was at high subsonic speeds. Don't think the Bone's the bird for this weapon, Robert.

External mounting on a Buff is possible, too big for the bays on the B-2. MC130-H, just like the Daisy Cutters.

125 posted on 11/10/2004 4:11:45 PM PST by CholeraJoe (I'm just three lost teeth and a neck tattoo away from being a Soccer Hooligan. Go Gunners!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ozidar
With the GPS accuracy, and with a sequenced hit, a pair of them could do even more damage, deeper. One to get part way in and loosen things up, the second to go deeper and break more rock.

And with our computer simulations, we could probably even work out the particular strike pattern that would have optimum damage on the intended target, given actual models of local subterranean rock structures.

This sounds like fun.

126 posted on 12/01/2004 7:41:34 PM PST by ThePythonicCow (Welcome home, Vietnam Vets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
One step further - if you don't have good intelligence as to the underground target structure and surrounding rock structure, then make two passes.

First pass, you drop some seismograph transponders and pattern of ordinary bombs, spaced out over time (a few minutes) and space (a few miles). Collect the radio transmitted seismographic data, analyze it, and you should be able to see the underground structures lit up like on an X-Ray.

Come back a few days later, with a custom package, designed to render that facility no longer operational.

Somewhat like those demolition crews that take down large buildings in urban environments - careful planning and accurate placement can do things that brute force alone can't match. Even lets you protect that Holy Mosque that is just a half kilometer away.

Combine that with brute force, and the results could be sweet indeed.

127 posted on 12/01/2004 8:52:32 PM PST by ThePythonicCow (Welcome home, Vietnam Vets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson