Posted on 12/14/2001 7:49:42 AM PST by Pokey78
Special Forces troops after guiding a U-747 to target: "HUH? WHAT DID YOU SAY?"
Some of the bigger tactical fighter-bombers put enormous pressure on the concrete runways from which they operate. I understand that the Navy F-14 would sink into an asphalt taxiway if it were to stop rolling for any reason. (Apparently, the F-14 uses narrower tires than most other aircraft in its weight class). Imagine strapping an additional 30,000 lbs to an Air Force F-15E. I mean it might be able to lift the weight, but would the runway take it?
The robotic flying bomb might solve this problem, but what if the target isn't located? What then? Do we bring it back to the airstrip and land it? I don't want to be anywhere near that strip if that happens!
Cool sight check out some of there links
30,000 pounds is one thing--17,000 tons is another. Tho that is the yield of the WWII-enders; I think they have managed to reduce that?
I'm glad Northrop-Grumman is also proposing this.....but I've already looked at it is pretty good detail. (If anybody can contribute more to me - PLEASE email me!!!! I've included this in the DOD's BAA request already to make the B-52 racks for these size bombs, but can always add more details.)
The photo's you've posted are two different bombs.
The "smaller" one on the left is a WWII British-designed/US-built Grand Slam - which IS 22,000 lbs, dropped from a British Lancaster flying at about 180 knots - though they could only get to some 14,000 feet AGL - rather than Wallis' designed for 40,000 foot AGL. This Grand Slam bomb CAN penetrate over 75 feet of earth/rock (36 + feet of reinforced concrete). They were very, very successful in WWII - penetrating tunnels, foundations, bunkers, and submarine pens.
It is spin-stabilized, supersonic, and made from a single very-large high-alloy casting.
The Grand Slam is a bigger version of the British Tallboy of WWII - "only" 12,000 lbs, 44" diameter (some references say 38" dia, rather than the true 3'8" diameter) - and soem 800 were built and dropped in WWII. They can penetrate 50-75 feet of rock and concrete - the blast zone (surface crater) is a little over 100 feet in diameter. (Your mileage may vary of course.) Soem 845 were built and dropped in WWII.
The bomb on the RIGHT in your photos is at Aberdeen Proving Ground museum - and IS NOT the Grand Slam. It is a US Army bomb built and researched after WWII for dropping from B-36's. It is 42,000 lbs, and is some 54" in diameter, and is over 320" long with tail fins.
THOSE size bomb were dropped a couple of times after WWII at Edwards AFB, but not since. The only "name" or designation I've found for the 42,000 lb bomb is T-12. In that series, the Grand Slam is a T-14. The Tallboy is a T-10.
The B-52 "hard points" can carry the "smaller" bombs if they are properly anchored. It's VERY difficult figuring out exactly what weight and stress limits are used by the USAF, but the wing pylons have previously carried up to 20,000 lbs of various nuclear missiles. The B-52 bomb bay has previously carried as much as 26,000 lbs of nuclear missiles and their racks. The B-52's bomb bay is 28 feet long by 6 feet wide - so the Tallboy would have to be built slightly narrower than in WWII to fit side-by-side inside. No nuclear bomb is as heavy as the T-12. The B-52 fuselage is 9'-10" across.
The Tallboy weight could be the same since it could be built longer than in WWII.
There is no technical reason (OTHER than the USAF's "not-invented-here" syndrome) why either the Tallboy or Grand Slam is not being used now.
You cannot use these bombs from a cargo plane because they MUST be precisely "aimed" from extremely high altitude and dropped directly into the slipstream. (This is because of the spinning action that stabilizes the bomb as it penetrates the sound barrier.) WWII bomber could get very good accuracy - dropping it directly from the bomb bay -- the bomb stuck out into the slipstream.
The Daisy Cutter and FAE bombs are low altitude dropped, very slow bombs that are slung from parachutes .... accuracy (delays caused the time they spend "rolling" out of the back of a plane) isn't such a problem for them because the plane is slower and they are dropped from low altitude.
It's been field tested already, and can penetrate 264' of reinforced concrete at a range of 29 miles.
= )
Better to spend our money on something we'll actually use once in awhile.
The Germans tried that type weapon in WWII in their attack on the Crimea forts....took too much time, manpower, railroad cranes and effort to build, move, assemble, and then shoot that large a railway gun. rail guns aren't reasonable now.
As you (correctly) imply - it's NOT practical to reuse "all" of WWII's weapons. But some ARE effective now - like the Tallboy or Grand Slam because WWII aircraft couldn't get high enough and drop them accurately enough to be as useful as they are now.
BUT the B-52 dropped WWII-sized weapon is useable against the North Korean tunnels, arms storage areas, nuclear labs, bunkers, troop quarters, against the underground nuclear and chemical weapon labs in Libya, in Iraq, in Iran, the terrorists (now) in Afghanistan caves - and future ones in Somalia, Iraq, Iran, (or other command centers - if there are other attacks).
A B-52 delivered weapon of that size (12,000 - 24,000 lbs) IS a flexible (relatively) cheap, easily built "tool" that can remove the roof of most any current uderground facility.
Or destroy the foundations of above-ground facilities. It isn't as accurate as guided missiles, but many underground targets are not going to be precisely known anyway.
A little bit of "spread" in the delivery of a large-less expensive unguided weapon isn't a problem if the blast zone underground is from a weapon ten-times larger than that of a single very expensive guided weapon that you can't afford to drop!
I think you have to figure that GPS doesn't take too many chips in this day and age . . . all this fascination with brute force and awkwardness is odd, typed in and transmitted by cheap, gigaherz computers capable (given the right code) of guiding a missle within a gnat's eyebrow.
But you're missing the point that a precisely guided weapon HAS to have a "precisely-known" target point.
AND underground targets (if their surface entrace is known at all!) aren't precise targets.
Also, a heavier 12000 lb, deeper-penetrating weapon (dropped in a group of 4 from a single B-52) IS more effective than a small (500-2000 lbs) bomb that misses it's target.
The Americans killed a few days were in the target zone because they were trying to designate a target. An unguided bomb doesn't need the ground forces.
The aerial designation required an expensive guidance package ..... more money (by several thousands of dollars each) than the whole (more effective)unguided bomb.
A deep-penetrating bomb is spin-stabilized so it can go supersonic. A guided bomb (that is spin-stabilzed) requires expensive development and testing and flight tests and calibration just to "fly" - and can't be spin-staiblized - requires extremely complex flight controls and guidance packages .... more money. More time. More delays.
Off-the shelf guidance packages are 25,000.00 - 50,000.00 - 100,000.00 (I understand) and are useable when a single target can be accuately designated from the air or from a ground team. What happens when you don't know where the target is?
A self-propelled missile (or such device such as rocket-assisted propulsion ) is even more expensive. A single crusie missile or guided bomb used against targets in Yugoslavia was often worth more than the target it destroyed....and the target was often a "dummy" of canvas and wood.
However, I'd rather have the ability to drop as many BLU-109s with JDAMs kits into a hole one after the other until something goes 'boom' than drop one monster which requires changes to existing supply chains and weapons systems.
Heck, I even think you could drop delay fused bombs onto a grid such that their simultaneous detonation will give you a better effect for your money.
Btw, I'm not a weapons procurement guru, but I play one on FreeRepublic.
Cheers
AND underground targets (if their surface entrace is known at all!) aren't precise targets.
I dunno, if you don't even know where the entrance to the bunker is, maybe you should be working harder on recon? Predators fly around low and slow, and if they get shot down what do we lose? So spend your bucks developing a smaller, stealthier RPV--and, if it comes to that, making sure that the other guy doesn't successfully use stealty recon rpv's against you.
'cause it's hard work burrowing down enough to make it hard to kill you--and when you're down there, there you are--immobile. Unless you can use boring technology to actually maneuver underground . . . doubt it!
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.