| Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/ |
|
| Bigger than MOAB http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1227 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Thu Jun 03, 2004 05:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Bigger than MOAB |
USAF Devises Ideas To Kill Underground Targets Aviation Week & Space Technology 05/17/2004, page 49 Robert Wall and Douglas Barrie Eglin AFB, Fla. Experience gained from MOAB effort shapes design for massive penetrator Bunker 'Plinking' The U.S. Air Force has sketched preliminary designs for a huge bunker-busting bomb, but questions remain about how best to attack those hard-to-defeat targets. The concept builds on experience the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) gained last year with the 21,000-lb. GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Burst bomb. The MOAB project was aimed at quickly fielding the Pentagon's largest guided bomb for combat operations in Iraq. MOAB never was employed, and production ceased after a small inventory was built. However, the design work is proving useful in devising the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), says Fred Davis, a technical director at the Air Force Research Laboratory's munitions directorate. U.S. Air Force researchers expect to draw on experience gained building the Massive Ordnance Air Burst weapon as they design a huge penetrator bomb. The huge lattice fins used to control MOAB could be exploited for the penetrator, notes Lt. Stephen Kitay, who oversaw the weapon's development. Like MOAB, MOP would be GPS-guided. But there would be major differences between the two munitions. For instance, at roughly 30,000 lb., MOP would weigh more and its steel casing would be much thicker than MOAB's to achieve the desired penetration, while at the same time being filled with smaller amount of explosive. Moreover, MOP would be smaller than MOAB and fit inside a B-2A bomber; MOAB is C-130-delivered. Operational employment altitudes also would differ: MOP is expected to be dropped from 40,000 ft.; MOAB is released at about 20,000 ft. MOP would feature four fins along its airframe to provide stability during flight. Because the weapon is supposed to penetrate, the bomb has to impact near-vertically. The controls have to be tightly managed to ensure a steep angle-of-attack; the margin is much smaller than in the case of the air burst bomb, Davis notes. Developers are exploring various design "trades" to determine the optimum material for the casing and how to create a bomb that would still be affordable. Cost has already become a concern for some USAF officials as they mull pursuing MOP, which is often referred to as "Big-BLU" outside the laboratory. Integrating the weapon on the B-2A bombers could be extremely expensive, so other options might have to be looked at, suggests one USAF representative. There's little doubt among Air Force weapon experts that enhanced target-penetration capabilities must be developed. Several officials at USAF's Air Armament Center here point out that engineering companies are offering structures advertised to be impervious to the service's 5,000-lb.-class penetrators now used to attack hardened targets. Still, there might be alternatives to a huge penetrator. USAF's Jassm stealthy cruise missile has a 1,000-lb.-class warhead with penetration capability. To bolster that feature, mission planners could arrange for two missiles to strike the same spot in quick succession, with one weapon flying down the hole created by a preceding one, notes Gerry L. Freishler, USAF program director for long-range attack. Tests have demonstrated Jassm's ability to meet the tight accuracy requirements, he notes. One technical problem any penetrator weapon would have to address is fuzing. After years of research, the Air Force has scrapped work on the Alliant Techsystems Hard-Target Smart Fuze, arguing that production problems that bedeviled the system could not be overcome. HTSF was being designed to count layers and voids to detonate a weapon at a preselected point within a target. However, military officials assert that the need for such a fuze hasn't gone away. The Pentagon--including representatives from the Navy and Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is chiefly responsible for defeating underground weapons of mass destruction storage facilities--is now studying its options. Several proposals are emerging for a new program. One would be to try to make HTSF work. Another would involve adapting the multi-event hard-target fuze designed by Thales Missile Electronics in Basingstoke, England. The Pentagon probably would insist on a U.S. partner, USAF officials note. Furthermore, the service might opt for a new development project, suggests Steve Butler, director of engineering at the Air Armament Center. The HTSF design is based on 10-year-old technology, he says, so new options may exist. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting and radical stuff! A gigantic penetrator, brings back memories of what the guided bomb they built from the British Tallboy bomb that they employed against brides on the Yalu in the Korean War... The TARZON is what I think they called it... "The 'VB-13', known as 'TARZON', was a monster, a modified license-built British Tallboy deep-penetration bomb weighing 5.44 tonnes (12,000 pounds) and 6.4 meters (21 feet) long. It had a circular forward wing and a box tail, with four rudders on fins within the tail. It was, like the German glide bombs, radio-controlled and had a flare on its tail for optical tracking." CAG out... |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Fri Jun 04, 2004 02:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd love to see what this would do against the Russian command centers in the Ural Mountains or against some hard sites like ICBM bases. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Fri Jun 04, 2004 17:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ICBM silos are easy kills Cent, you can kill them with a GBU-28 now... What we are trying to reach with the new technology is very deep bunkers with up to quadruple layering of protection with gapping to absorb the blast effects... Not to mention, super deep caves within solid rock mountians... ICBM silos can be destroyed by simple strikes on the blast doors or angular attacks on the subterranian walls on the silo from 45 degree angle bomb penetrator strikes... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|