NationStates Jolt Archive

A new bomb is being studied by the US:

Eglin Studying Massive 30,000-Pound Bomb
Bomb Would Be 40 Percent Bigger Than MOAB

POSTED: 1:01 pm EST November 8, 2004
UPDATED: 1:13 pm EST November 8, 2004

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Air Force built a weapon so big it was nicknamed "Mother of All Bombs" on the eve of the war with Iraq, but MOAB would be dwarfed by a much larger munition now under study.

The proposed Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, would weigh 30,000 pounds, nearly 40 percent more than the 21,000 pound MOAB -- officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast -- that never saw combat.

"The reason it's heavier than MOAB is that it has to penetrate a target," said Fred Davis, technical director for assessment and demonstrations at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate.

MOP would be designed to explode deep in the ground or inside a structure to destroy tunnels and bunkers or topple tall buildings.

MOAB, on the other hand, explodes just above the ground. It is a larger version of the BLU-84 "Daisy Cutter" that was used during the Vietnam War to blast out helicopter landing zones in jungle areas.

The 15,000-pound Daisy Cutter also was dropped during the 1991 Persian Gulf War to clear minefields and more recently to blast caves believed to be hiding terrorists in Afghanistan.

MOAB can be against similar targets and structures or vehicles susceptible to surface blast damage. Both also are seen as psychological weapons that can demoralize an enemy.

During the next 16 months the Munitions Directorate at this Florida Panhandle base will look at everything from MOP's shape to its guidance. The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency is providing $500,000 in initial research money.

If the project gets beyond the initial research and development phase, MOP probably won't see its first armed drop until 2006 or later.

MOP would have inertial and satellite guidance, just like MOAB, but it would have a more slender shape so it could be dropped from high altitude by a B-52 or a B-2 stealth bomber.

The Daisy Cutter and MOAB are too bulky to be carried by sleek bombers and must be pushed out of the rear door of lower-flying and slower cargo planes.



Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press.

Wonder if the band MOP can sue the Department of Defence?

A new bomb is being studied by the US:

Eglin Studying Massive 30,000-Pound Bomb
Bomb Would Be 40 Percent Bigger Than MOAB

POSTED: 1:01 pm EST November 8, 2004
UPDATED: 1:13 pm EST November 8, 2004

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Air Force built a weapon so big it was nicknamed "Mother of All Bombs" on the eve of the war with Iraq, but MOAB would be dwarfed by a much larger munition now under study.

The proposed Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, would weigh 30,000 pounds, nearly 40 percent more than the 21,000 pound MOAB -- officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast -- that never saw combat.

"The reason it's heavier than MOAB is that it has to penetrate a target," said Fred Davis, technical director for assessment and demonstrations at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate.

MOP would be designed to explode deep in the ground or inside a structure to destroy tunnels and bunkers or topple tall buildings.

MOAB, on the other hand, explodes just above the ground. It is a larger version of the BLU-84 "Daisy Cutter" that was used during the Vietnam War to blast out helicopter landing zones in jungle areas.

The 15,000-pound Daisy Cutter also was dropped during the 1991 Persian Gulf War to clear minefields and more recently to blast caves believed to be hiding terrorists in Afghanistan.

MOAB can be against similar targets and structures or vehicles susceptible to surface blast damage. Both also are seen as psychological weapons that can demoralize an enemy.

During the next 16 months the Munitions Directorate at this Florida Panhandle base will look at everything from MOP's shape to its guidance. The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency is providing $500,000 in initial research money.

If the project gets beyond the initial research and development phase, MOP probably won't see its first armed drop until 2006 or later.

MOP would have inertial and satellite guidance, just like MOAB, but it would have a more slender shape so it could be dropped from high altitude by a B-52 or a B-2 stealth bomber.

The Daisy Cutter and MOAB are too bulky to be carried by sleek bombers and must be pushed out of the rear door of lower-flying and slower cargo planes.



Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press.


What? They are finally exceeding the 21,000 pound MOAB to build a 30,000 pound ground-pentrating weapon to destroy facilities through underground shock?

Wow...


This FINALLY puts them technologically ahead of the RAF in ground-penetrating conventional ordinance designs........ the 1944 RAF that is!


(22,000 pound ground penetrating ordiance used by 617 squadron of Lancaster bombers called the Grand Slam, not to be confused with the 12,000 pound Tall Boys.).


Not arguing taht 8,000 more pounds of better explosives WILL make a better impact. Still, hardly something new in ordinance design....

What? They are finally exceeding the 21,000 pound MOAB to build a 30,000 pound ground-pentrating weapon to destroy facilities through underground shock?

Wow...


This FINALLY puts them technologically ahead of the RAF in ground-penetrating conventional ordinance designs........ the 1944 RAF that is!


(22,000 pound ground penetrating ordiance used by 617 squadron of Lancaster bombers called the Grand Slam, not to be confused with the 12,000 pound Tall Boys.).


Not arguing taht 8,000 more pounds of better explosives WILL make a better impact. Still, hardly something new in ordinance design....

Actually the type of explosion is much different. And yes it is something new. Don't think the Grand Slam was all that accurate, now was it? How many of the Grand Slam bombs were used in action?

Why are you so anti-US? Do you somehow feel inadequate? Just because we blew up some Canadians by accident in Afghanistan, doesn't mean you should hate us all. :fluffle:

Actually the type of explosion is much different. And yes it is something new. Don't think the Grand Slam was all that accurate, now was it? How many of the Grand Slam bombs were used in action?

Why are you so anti-US? Do you somehow feel inadequate? Just because we blew up some Canadians by accident in Afghanistan, doesn't mean you should hate us all. :fluffle:


Well, let's look at the press clipping...

MOP would be designed to explode deep in the ground or inside a structure to destroy tunnels and bunkers or topple tall buildings.

MOAB, on the other hand, explodes just above the ground. It is a larger version of the BLU-84 "Daisy Cutter" that was used during the Vietnam War to blast out helicopter landing zones in jungle areas.



So it seems that the MOP is EXACTLY a followup to the Grand Slam, which was the original "earthquake" bomb designed for deep penetration to blow the foundations out from under buildings, aqueducts etc, and used to penetrate hardened underground structures such as the U-boat pens.

41 Grand Slams and nearly 1,000 tallboys were dropped in WWII. And yes, you ARE correct that in WWII they did not have laser-guidance systems to nail the targets. They were dropped by skilled pilots and bomadiers using visual points of reference to aim with.

But hey - if you want to argue that 50 years of building better guidance systems makes the bombs completely different.....you have a point. But not much of one.

However my original point is still valid. This, as a technology, was proven in the 40s. IT was abandoned therafter in favour of pursuing nuclear weapons. The idea being that this was a strategic bomb, and conventional strategic weapons of that size went out of favour.

The large bombers that could carry such a thing (B52s) were all tasked for dropping nukes. Configuring some for seldom-used bunker buster conventional weapons was not seriously considered I don't think.

And small fighter-bombers couldn't carry such a weapon.


Now with the B2 and retasked B52s they have the platforms available to carry such a bomb, and with the state of the world they feel that there is a need for such conventional devices (they would have been nice to have a Tora Bora).


It is not anti-american to point out that this is just a modernization of a 50-year old weapon any more than it is anti-british for them to toss out such a press release that makes no mention of it's origins but rather tries to make it sound like something so huge and diferent that the world has never seen anything like it.

Because the world DID see something just like it. 60 years ago.

<Muffled laughter> It's exactly the same shape <laughter> as a thingy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Uh, I dunno about weaponry, but...

"It's huge!"
"It's not THAT big"
"You hate America!"

A bit sensative over size, eh? xD

<Muffled laughter> It's exactly the same shape <laughter> as a thingy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

"Which I find rather ironic, cos Ive got a thingy exactly the same shape as a turnip."

you got that from howstuffworks didnt u

Awesome!! *Holds Balls*

you got that from howstuffworks didnt u

If that is directed at my reply to AKLS then its from Blackadder II.