B-2 Gets The Biggest Bomb Of All

Its probably NEW that is confusing you. NEW (Net Explosive Weight) is a standardized system of  measurement used to gauge explosive force, regardless of filler or type of ordinance. 30,000 pounds is almost certainly the Net Explosive weight of the munition, seeing as how the B-2s' standard load is 50,000 pounds, While I'm pretty sure the plane could physically lift that much, I'm betting it would have real negative consequences on its max speed and range.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

From Wikipedia

 --------------------------------------------------------------------

New chemical fillers can score pretty high on the NEW range. Thats' how a 2000 pound bomb can get 2000 pounds of explosive force out of a mere 945 pounds of explosive. Of course, there are other factors that are important other then NEW, such as chemical stability over time, and resistence to "Cookoff" in the event of a fire.

 

In regards to the explosives being only 1/6 the weight of the bomb, I'm betting what they have is a low density/ high volume filler. The Casing itself, meanwhile , is almost certainly a very dense metal like DU or Tungsten, but both of those strike me as too brittle. Perhaps a Tungsten alloy?

A Mk84 2000lb bomb is called a 2000lb bomb because it literally weighs approximately 2000lbs.  A Mk82 500lb bomb is called a 500lb bomb because it literally weighs approximately 500lbs.  Yes, I understand full well they are not exactly those weights, merely close to those weights.  It's a form of shorthand, or simplified notation, for easy reference, and to some extent harkens back through history as part of the standard nomenclature for various sizes of bombs.  Kirby is definitely correct to bring up the equivalent explosive force of various explosive fill mixtures, as that is one way to compare various bombs to a common standard, since some bombs use different explosive fill mixtures than others.  I believe the MOP uses a particularly powerful mixture, although I don't think it's twice as energetic as the filler for normal "regular" bombs.  And I suggest it's very unlikely that it uses any DU, as no bombs that I'm aware of use any DU, although I admit I do not know what the casing of the MOP is made of.

 

It's good to finally see a bomb with the capabilities of the 10 ton Grand Slam the British had in 1945. Its a pity it wasn't available in the 1990's.

 

30,000 pounds = 13.6 long ton (2240 pounds) or metric ton (1000 Kg = 2205 pounds)

2.4 tons of explosives does seem small - less than the Grand Slam which had 4 tons, but the main goal is to penetrate deep, even through reinforced concrete, and delivering over two tons of explosive, plus massive fragments, into a deep bunker should be ample.

Is it me or is the math off on this article? 30,000 lbs=15 tons. 2000 lbs=1 ton.  If the MOP carries 2.4 tons(or 4800 lbs) of explosives (which seems little compared to its overall mass) how is this 10 times the explosive power of a 2000 lbs bomb.  I know that the nominal weight of a bomb, actual weight and the weight of explosive carried are three very different things, but the math seems off to me.  According to Wikipedia a Mark 84 (nominal weight 2000 lbs) contains 945 lbs of explosive, which is roughly a fifth of the MOP.  Also, the weight to explosive ratio seems a little off.  I know penetrating bombs have relatively low explosive content but 1/6th of the weight in explosives seems too low.

The two bombs were actually designed for different purposes. 

 

The Grand Slam and Tall Boy bombs were 'earthquake bombs' designed to penetrate soil and soft rock deep enough to 'camouflet' and undermine the structures above them.  When it was first proposed to use them against heavy bunkers, such as the German submarine pens with 40' thick reinforced concrete roofs, the bomb's designer Barnes Wallis was worried that they would just bounce off or shatter, and recommended trying for near misses.  He was half right, the bombs did not bounce or shatter, but penetrated far enough to shatter concrete through the entire roof and dropping large chunks inside, so that a second bomb in the same location could easily penetrated.  But the real damage from the near misses that undermined or bust the walls, or in the case of the submarine pens generated man made tidal waves at the entrance that smashed everything inside.

 

The MOP is designed to penetrate nearly the same distance through concrete as the Grand Slam would through earth, and the concrete is assumed to have with a much greater percentage of reinforcing steel than the WWII Germans would have even considered practical.

If the US wanted to they could have a UCAV deliver a 30,000lb weapon within a year.  Utter waste of time bothering with a manned bomber dropping a weapon like this.

 

 

We could have one flying, ovre Afghanistan, inside 1 year and could begin to stand down the B-2 force, certainly the B-52 force freeing up money for health care....

According to wikipedia, the specs on the MOP are:

 

• Length: 20 ft (6 m) ^[5]
• Weight: 30,000 lb (13.6 metric tons)
• Warhead: 6,000 lb (2.7 metric tons) high explosive
• Penetration:
  • 200 feet (60 m) of 5,000 psi (35 MPa) reinforced concrete
  • 26 ft (8 m) of 10,000 psi (69 MPa) reinforced concrete
  • 130 feet (40 m) of moderately hard rock

 If someone here has more accurate info, please update the wikipedia article.

As well as things are going with the "new relationship based on mutual respect" on the Korean Peninsula, I suspect we will also soon be able to remove all US forces from Korea and Japan and divert this money to health care as well.  And now that Iran and its "great people" are taking on a more "productive" role as a new "regional security partner," this is even MORE money for health care.  Consider that along with the "stakeholder" role the Chinese are ready to assume and we should be able to decommision the entire US Navy, except for the ships we could retain to conduct global warming research.  And if we can realize the "attainable goal" of unilateral nuclear disarmament while also "capping" missile defense, this even more money for health care.  Our only real problem is going to be the unprecedented terrorist threat all of discharged military veterans will present.   

Ah, but by then we will have autonomous unmanned ucavs, well able to make sensible independent real-time fire decisions, so those vets can all be retrained as supermarket trolley collectors. Plus, if even a small percentage of the UCAV force is redeployed to iunner city crime control then we could hopefully decommision up to 75% of the entire state and federal police forces, and shift all that money over to health care as well, or better yet, Unemployment Insurance.

The US would then posses a vast army of extremely healthy, well behaved Walmart Co-Workers. Syria would tremble in awe of our purchasing power.

 

Herald