NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Must Have More Big Bombs, NOW!

August 30, 2009: Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force asked Congress for money to buy four 15 ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs. Now it wants ten, and preferably twelve. The likely targets are North Korea or Iran, and apparently the air force has developed some new information on targets that would require more MOPs, and as soon as possible.

The U.S. Air Force is also modifying some B-2 bombers so that they can carry two MOP bombs. These 21 foot long bombs have began development in 2004, with the first test models showing up in 2005. Operational characteristics (how deep the bomb can go in different types of material) have only mentioned the ability to penetrate 200 feet underground. The MOP is mostly metal, with about 18 percent of its weight devoted to explosives. It uses GPS, and inertial guidance, to find its target. The MOP is the latest of a long line of American "super bombs." B-2s are supposed to be ready to use MOP next year. Previously, the heaviest U.S. "penetrator" bombs were the 2.1 ton BLU-28 and one ton BLU-109.

MOP is not the first U.S. "super bomb." In 2003, the U.S. put into service the nine ton MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast), but this has never been used in combat. MOAB is pushed out the back of a SOCOM (Special Operations Command) MC-130E aircraft. The blast can be felt several kilometers away, and the mushroom shaped cloud (that rises to over 10,000 feet) can be seen more than 40 kilometers away.

 MOAB replaced the Vietnam era BLU-82 (Daisy Cutter ) bomb, which used a 6.3 ton slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum. MOAB uses more powerful tritonal explosives. In addition to a more powerful explosion, MOAB doesn't need a parachute, like the Daisy Cutter, but uses a GPS (like JDAM) and an aerodynamic body to detonate the bomb at a precise area. Thus the MOAB can be dropped from a higher altitude (like outside the range of machine-guns and rifles).

 MOAB can also be shoved out the back of a cargo aircraft (usually a C-130, but since the MOAB uses GPS and higher altitude drops, the C-17 can probably be used as well.) MOAB is a highly destructive and terrifying weapon. If used in combat, the force of a MOAB explosion is sufficient to knock over tanks and kill any people within several hundred meters of the detonation.

 Russia has also built a bomb similar to MOAB, but theirs contains 7.1 tons of a more powerful explosive than MOAB or MOB used, and that the blast radius of the Russia bomb is 300 meters, which is twice the size of MOAB, and larger than MOB. While MOAB is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT (the benchmark for measuring different explosives), the Russian bomb was said to be equal to 44 tons of TNT. It also appeared, from the Russian test video, that their bomb was a FAE (fuel air explosive). This could be seen from the typical FAE two stage explosion. A Russian video also showed the area surrounding the blast, and the damage was consistent with an FAE explosion, and about as powerful as MOAB. It appears that the Russians were making publicity, not a factual announcement of a new weapon.

Penetrator bombs are more high-tech than the "big bang" bombs like MOAB. There's a lot of calculations required, and attention to which materials are used and how they are put together. But if your opponent likes to bury things underground, a large penetrator bomb is just the kind of nightmare you want to have handy.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INDIA-PAKISTAN: Standing Back And Hoping For The Best


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Gerry       8/30/2009 10:13:52 PM
A big difference between the Russian bomb and that of the US is that the Russian bomb is only of value above ground. It may destroy a few city blocks and all their inhabitants, but the command bunker 25-50-100 ft below the surface will be untouched.
The US has used FAE as well in the past and found them limited in value. The Russians seem more concerned over who can make the biggest "boom" while practical value is low.
 
The 30,000 lb US penetrating bomb will make many enemy commanders uneasy. A couple of B-2s flying undetected with two  30,000 penetrators each will destroy most enemy underground bunkers in the world if the location is known. And bunkers of that size are usually known.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Likely Target   8/30/2009 11:43:07 PM
The likely target would seem to be Iran given the rapid fielding.  It certainly sounds like ordering required munitions to carry out a specific plan.  MOP might be one more reason that those saying an air campaign against Iran could not destroy enough of their nuclear infrastructure might in fact be incorrect. 
 
It would also be rather useful to let Iran know that we have weapons that can reach your most deeply buried nuclear facilities that are dropped by aircraft you can not detect.  That aside Iran might be willing to bet on the Obama administration having the political will to strike and thus the resist this leverage.  At the very least, however, it would seem the Pentagon asked for funding to flesh out a contingency plan and it was fast tracked.  Better to have options than not.
 
Quote    Reply

RtWingCon    Iran safe from Obama   8/31/2009 12:36:15 AM
Obama sending bombers into Iran? Not a chance in hell- IRan is safe. Pres Obama is like Clinton, doesn't have the stones for such a thing. No political backing within his party. North Korea still not likely either, no stones. Heck, the AF will be lucky to get the funding the buy MOP period. Israel will have to do the dirty work on Iran, the question is how will they sling a MOP into Iran. Any ideas?
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Better than nothing   8/31/2009 11:31:34 PM
While I agree with you there is little chance of this Administration striking Iran I would note the following:  There is obviously significant planning going on and ordering these specific bunker buster bombs is probably in response to requirements for specific contingency planning.  Now the Administration didn't have to order the contingency planning nor order more bombs.  At the very least it's a political statement to Iran.
 
Moreover, President Obama gave Iran a deadline.  If he does not get significantly tougher sanctions passed in the Security Council than he will look weak.  It's another political statement to those concerned that while the US wishes to pursue diplomatic channels that we are prepared to go other routes as well that might assist him getting what he wants at the UN- at least it has to be acknowledged that some people do think this way.
 
It's also worth pointing out to those concerned that the US has identified X aim points vis a vis Iran and that Y are deep bunkers that with this new purchase we are confident of destroying and thus we have confidence in our air plan in case diplomacy fails.  There might not presently be the will but increasing our capability to strike Iran is better than nothing and better than most would hope for from this Administration.
 
Finally, it should be noted that if Israel strikes Iran that Iran might foolishly give the US an excuse for us to attack them as well- such as attacking our shipping in the Gulf.  In such a case these weapons could be used.
 
Quote    Reply

leviathan    How about a double strike?   9/1/2009 12:43:07 PM
How about Israel making a very public strike and a B-2 making a secret strike at the exact same time. I can't imagine Iran would be allowing people to inspect the damage to prove that it was US strike.
 
Quote    Reply

leviathan    How about a double strike?   9/1/2009 1:18:10 PM
How about Israel making a very public strike and a B-2 making a secret strike at the exact same time. I can't imagine Iran would be allowing people to inspect the damage to prove that it was US strike.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Good Novel   9/2/2009 4:40:31 AM
It's a cute idea that belongs in a novel.  Do we keep some secrets- yes we do.  Is this operational use of X number of B-2 sorties something that would stay secret?  The answer is no.
 
Moreover, would we really risk the political fallout of striking an Muslim nation WITH Israel?  Far better to do it ourselves or let Israel do it alone.

How about Israel making a very public strike and a B-2 making a secret strike at the exact same time. I can't imagine Iran would be allowing people to inspect the damage to prove that it was US strike.

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/3/2009 3:07:22 AM

How about Israel making a very public strike and a B-2 making a secret strike at the exact same time. I can't imagine Iran would be allowing people to inspect the damage to prove that it was US strike.

They would probably tidy things up a bit, do some stage setting to make the Israeli hits look the US ones and  add some bodies and broken industrial equipment (US blows up orphanage / baby milk factory / etc.), and lay on guided tours for the press to lap it up.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy