Posted on 06/26/2018 1:50:07 PM PDT by Eddie01
The US Air Force is seeking to modify its B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers to accommodate carrying and delivering the so-called “mother of all bombs,” a creative nickname given to the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) weapon, according to a new report.
The bomb made waves last April when a US military plane dropped a GBU-43/B MOAB on an allegedly Daesh-run terrorist camp in Afghanistan. The bomb is regarded as the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the US weapons arsenal. April 13, 2017, marked the first employment of the bomb in combat.
The Air Force is seeking information from industry regarding "sources that may possess the expertise, capabilities and experience to meet the qualification requirement" to deploy the bombs onto the B-52, one of the oldest pieces of military equipment still used by the US, according to a Request For Information released June 21.
When the weapon was dropped in 2017, air crews simply released the bomb from a cradle within a C-130 cargo plane, letting gravity and Global Positioning System-satellite guidance do the rest of the work.
The Stratofortress planes have "limitations" when it comes to carrying heavy weapons beneath its wings, according to the RFI, which require modifications to carry munitions heavier than 5,000 pounds. B-52s typically carry most of their weapons in an internal weapons bay, but the bay doors are only 28 feet long and the MOAB is 30 feet long.
"When [the current external weapons pylon] was introduced, there wasn't a requirement nor did anyone foresee a need to carry weapons heavier than 5,000 lb," the document noted.
US Air Force Working on Baby ‘Mother of All Bombs’ The new external weapons pylon will need to carry "multiple weapons in the 5,000 to 20,000 lb weight class," the military procurement document says. Each MOAB clocks in right around 20,000 pounds.
As reported by Sputnik News, in the realm of non-nuclear weapons, Russia's "Father of All Bombs," a thermobaric explosive, has a power of 88,000 pounds of TNT, roughly four times the destructive capability of MOAB. MOAB is also a thermobaric weapon, or fuel air explosive, which uses dispersed fuel to create a volatile air mixture that generates a colossal percussive air blast upon detonation.
B-52s can also carry nuclear weapons, which, ironically enough, are much smaller than the MOAB yet thousands of times more powerful. The B53 thermonuclear bomb, which the B-52 could carry two of, only weighed around 8,850 lbs each, according to the Nuclear Weapons Databook.
Loring was memorialized in that cool Wargames flick. “We’re still here!”
I worked a midnight shift back then and sure don’t miss having to remove quarter inch thick ice from my car so I could drive in from York Beach.
“The 20000lb MOAB has been eclipsed by the 33000lb GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)…” [blackpacific, post 78]
Neither will eclipse the other.
They are built differently: the GBU-43 MOAB is designed for use against soft targets - stuff & people out in the open. The GBU-57 is designed for use against hardened or deeply buried targets.
GBU-57 contains 5300 pounds of high explosive for a bursting charge. GBU-43 could be termed much more “powerful” in terms of explosive content, as its bursting charge weighs 18,700 pounds.
It might help to think of the difference between an armor-piercing artillery projectile, and a general-purpose artillery shell filled with high explosive such as TNT or RDX.
The confusion may stem from the only use of GBU-43 in action: it struck a cave complex.
“...Then there’s the possibility of modifying the bomb bay to accommodate the MOAB.” [Doc91678, post 79]
I used to conduct operational tests on a number of B-52 systems. Can’t be perfectly sure - I no longer have the exact dimensions at my fingertips - but I’d say there is not much chance of increasing the size of the B-52H bomb bay.
Front and rear main wheels are mounted to bulkheads and other airframe structural members immediately forward and immediately aft of the bomb bay. They cannot be moved. The upper interior surface of the bomb bay is tight against the bottom of a fuel tank, and that cannot be moved either.
The only other option is to use mounts attached to the underwing hardpoints. Munition size there is subject to fewer constraints, but - given the weight of the munition - there might be strength limits. Hence the potential requirement for modifications.
I was stationed at Malstrom AFB when we were still flying KB-29’s and KC-97’s. My other tour was in the UK near Brize Norton, Lakenheath, Greenham Common, Fairford and Upper Heyford
When were you at Lakenheath? I was in Jr High from ‘64-’67 when my dad was in the US Navy.
I was actually stationed at Burderop Park, 7505th USAF Hospital. We were the main hospital for all the bases I mentioned. I was stationed there from Jan 1958 to Mar 60. the 7505th was as large as Wiesbaden at the time.
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.