Northrop Grumman Pitches 30,000-Pound Guided Bomb To Air Force

Drudge Report ^ | 12/14/2001 | Matt Drudge

[Pokey78]

Northrop Grumman has briefed Air Force officials on a concept to field a 30,000-pound guided weapon, called 'Big BLU,' that could be used as a penetrator to destroy hardened targets that may house enemy leaders or weapons of mass destruction, DEFENSE DAILY reported on Friday.

The proposal may gain favor with the Pentagon as the military tries to kill Al-Qaeda leaders holed up in Afghan caves. An Air Force official said, however, that the weapon will have significant cost and schedule hurdles associated with aircraft integration, is only a concept and is not envisioned for use during the Afghan conflict.

Developing...

[finnman69]

KA BOOM!!!!!!!!

Lordy that would be a big bang.

[coloradan]

If it were a shaped charge, how wide and how deep would be the hole through, oh, say, a rock-walled cave?

[balrog666]

a concept to field a 30,000-pound guided weapon

Well, you're sure not going to carry that on an F16.

[Uncle George]

A 30,000 lb. fuel-air bomb would be more effective as all o2 would be consumed rendering all enemies lifeless leaving all evidence and supplies unharmed.

[Grut]

Shouldn't this be an IBM project?

[ZOOKER]

Well, you're sure not going to carry that on an F16.

I was thinking the same thing. What aircraft has hardpoints that can support that kind of weight?
I know some can handle the total weight (F-15) but ALL of that weight on one hard point?

[Poohbah]

Actually, all evidence and supplies would be pulverized by the concussion. FAE bombs, to quote the late John Candy, "blowed up REAL good!"

[Poohbah]

Actually, you kick it out the ramp of a C-130...

[stboz]

What about ground clearance? The vision of a fighter-bomber waddling along with a 30,000 pound chunk stuck to it is almost funny.

[paul544]

But isn't there a limit as to how big you can make a wepon that relies on air to burn? If it is fuel/air mixture that gives it its power, wouldn't there be limit to the availablity of air to fuel that kind of expolsion? Just a thought.

[DrJasper]

How about liquid oxygen.

That should add more kick and complete the burn.

[jae471]

Or the bay of a B52/B1/B2.

[balrog666]

A 30,000 lb. fuel-air bomb would be more effective as all o2 would be consumed rendering all enemies lifeless leaving all evidence and supplies unharmed.

I agree that FAE would be more effective but I think they mean to propose an even bigger penetrator-type bunker buster.

[quietolong]

The new B/C-5

[Leisler]

Put fall-off take off gear on the bomb. Have the F-16's gear retracted! I offer this design solution free to my government in exchange for a VIP viewing of the first test.

[Blueflag]

Or a C-17, so you can carry more than one, when you care to deliver the very best.

Why stop at 30,000 lbs.?

[stboz]

I remember we did some tests in the desert a number of years back where the Army built something huge and set it off. It seems like it was 90,000 and maybe a lot more pounds. Anybody else remember this?

[ZOOKER]

If the bomb was designed as a "penetrator" it would not be a FAE, since they dispense and ignite above ground level.

The C-130 offload idea is good, already done with daisy cutters. However, since this is a "penetrator" should it be dropped at a higher rate of speed? C-130's are kinda slow.

I suppose you could configure a B-1, B-52, or possibly a B-2 to carry BigBlu internally but it would take months or years to accomplish IMO.