EGLIN STUDYING MASSIVE 30,000 POUND BOMB, 40 PERCENT BIGGER THAN MOAB! (IT'S CALLED A MOP!)

LOCAL 10 ^ | 11/08/04

[areafiftyone]

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Air Force built a weapon so big it was nicknamed "Mother of All Bombs" on the eve of the war with Iraq, but MOAB would be dwarfed by a much larger munition now under study.

The proposed Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, would weigh 30,000 pounds, nearly 40 percent more than the 21,000 pound MOAB -- officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast -- that never saw combat. MOAB, on the other hand, explodes just above the ground. It is a larger version of the BLU-84 "Daisy Cutter" that was used during the Vietnam War to blast out helicopter landing zones in jungle areas.

The 15,000-pound Daisy Cutter also was dropped during the 1991 Persian Gulf War to clear minefields and more recently to blast caves believed to be hiding terrorists in Afghanistan. MOAB can be against similar targets and structures or vehicles susceptible to surface blast damage. Both also are seen as psychological weapons that can demoralize an enemy.

During the next 16 months the Munitions Directorate at this Florida Panhandle base will look at everything from MOP's shape to its guidance. The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency is providing $500,000 in initial research money.

If the project gets beyond the initial research and development phase, MOP probably won't see its first armed drop until 2006 or later.

MOP would have inertial and satellite guidance, just like MOAB, but it would have a more slender shape so it could be dropped from high altitude by a B-52 or a B-2 stealth bomber.

The Daisy Cutter and MOAB are too bulky to be carried by sleek bombers and must be pushed out of the rear door of lower-flying and slower cargo planes.

[CholeraJoe]

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.

[tophat9000]

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?

[tophat9000]

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

[Robert A Cook PE]

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.

[CholeraJoe]

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.

[ThePythonicCow]

As long as you drop them both at the same time...

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.

[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.