MOAB versus the RAF Grand Slam

[UK Cousin]

Finally my tax dollars helped pay for something worth while.

[AZPhil]

Finally my tax dollars helped pay for something worth while.

About time Brother!!!!!! I think I'll increase my withholding for Next year

Semper Fi
Phil

[Glenn66]

If it was a test run prior to a strike on a "certain someone's" nuclear facilities, then it was money well spent.

Good luck getting a delivery system over that certain someone's facilities. I can't see a C-130 getting through without grief.

[Watchdog]

Good luck getting a delivery system over that certain someone's facilities. I can't see a C-130 getting through without grief.

Yes the delivery system would seem to be a very limiting factor as currently only the MC130 platform is available - or is it???

Just wondering

Regards

Mark

[Michael Ryan]

Hi, I am not a munitions buff but did work on a bomb dump in the far east for a couple of years, hence my interest in this thread. My understanding was that the idea of these super heavy bombs was not necessarily the total destruction of what they hit although no doubt they probably would, but say for example, grounding near a bridge, damm, runway or underground system etc., was the fragmentation of the integrity of the support structures. Ergo you miss a bridge by a little distance and it does not collapse but as soon as it is used, the undermining of its subsurface structural strength does the job? In the case of subsurface tunnels, I would have thought that the shock waves would collapse and crush the tunnels etc???? Expencive, yes, effective I sincerely hope so!!!

I hope Uncle Sam has a shed load of these MOABs and has the balls to use them effectively.

Regards Michael R

PS Yes Mark I was wondering that too??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

[Watchdog]

Hi, I am not a munitions buff but did work on a bomb dump in the far east for a couple of years, hence my interest in this thread. My understanding was that the idea of these super heavy bombs was not necessarily the total destruction of what they hit although no doubt they probably would, but say for example, grounding near a bridge, damm, runway or underground system etc., was the fragmentation of the integrity of the support structures. Ergo you miss a bridge by a little distance and it does not collapse but as soon as it is used, the undermining of its subsurface structural strength does the job? In the case of subsurface tunnels, I would have thought that the shock waves would collapse and crush the tunnels etc???? Expencive, yes, effective I sincerely hope so!!!

I hope Uncle Sam has a shed load of these MOABs and has the balls to use them effectively.

Regards Michael R

PS Yes Mark I was wondering that too??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

The "effective" aspect of physics here is as you say "shock" aka "blast" which does some really freaky things including travelling around corners!

Regards

Mark

[big ned]

Good luck getting a delivery system over that certain someone's facilities. I can't see a C-130 getting through without grief.

Yes the delivery system would seem to be a very limiting factor as currently only the MC130 platform is available - or is it???

Just wondering

Regards

Mark

Fair point I guess. But they could go (and may already have here) with the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000lb "Bunker Buster"beast.

The weapon is still very hush-hush, but it's been designed with the ability of the B-2 Stealth bomber to drop it, and has also been tested using the B-52 as the drop aircraft.



It was announced in 2009 that "funding and enhancements" that were requested by the Pentagon had been given the go ahead by the U.S. Congress to proceed, and the Air Force took delivery of 20 bombs, designed to be delivered by the B-2 bomber in September 2011, but there was talk of "delays" in the test schedule and things went rather quiet then.

In February 2012, Congress approved $81.6 million to further develop and improve the weapon. And as of March 2012, there is a reported "operational stockpile" available. A 2013 report stated that the development had been a success, and B-2 integration testing began that year. Since then information has been severely lacking from both the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command and the Pentagon as to the MOP's further development and possible deployment.

However, on BBC Radio 5 on Friday, a U.S. spokeswoman described the apparent MOAB dropped on Nangarhar province as a "Massive Ordnance Penetrator" and again as "MOP" describing how it was designed to work like a Grand Slam.

Did she accidently mention something we're not supposed to know about?? Are they now pushing the MOAB story to cover up the fact that it was the first operational drop of the new mega bomb?? Who knows, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this were the case!

More info on the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator can be found here for those interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massiv...r#cite_note-12

"Never believe everything the news tell you", as we know Donald Trump has been pushing the "Fake News" theme for sometime now. Who's to say he and his government won't use it themselves when it suits the situation???

Regards, Ned.

[m3bobby]

The MOAB is a Thermobaric weapon designed to set fire to the air and drag in the air form hundreds of meters around the point of detonation (usually air burst). A biproduct of this is the blast and earthquake effect you get from any explosion.

All munitions have a storage life and an exposed life. Disposing of these life expired munitions is usually carried out by the cheapest method. Smaller munitions such as artillery shells and small bombs can be low or high ordered by EOD. Larger munitions such as cruise missiles may go for dismantling at laboratories depending on quantity and cost. The MOAB is such a specialist weapon that EOD would need a huge Dem area and the cost of dismantaling a single weapon is much higher than any one wants to pay. So the cheapest method of disposal is to use it. I would bet my life that the MOAB used had been in Afghan for years and in and out of the box dozens of times accruing exposed life. It's use was probably down to costs as well as a show of force.

One things for sure, if anyone on either side saw it, you would never forget it.

Oh and the Russians have a much bigger bomb nick names FOAB, father of all bombs.

[HPL2008]

"Never believe everything the news tell you", as we know Donald Trump has been pushing the "Fake News" theme for sometime now. Who's to say he and his government won't use it themselves when it suits the situation???

No, Ned, this is quite impossible, for in that case, it wouldn't be "fake news", but "alternative facts".

[big ned]

The MOAB is a Thermobaric weapon designed to set fire to the air and drag in the air form hundreds of meters around the point of detonation (usually air burst). A biproduct of this is the blast and earthquake effect you get from any explosion.

All munitions have a storage life and an exposed life. Disposing of these life expired munitions is usually carried out by the cheapest method. Smaller munitions such as artillery shells and small bombs can be low or high ordered by EOD. Larger munitions such as cruise missiles may go for dismantling at laboratories depending on quantity and cost. The MOAB is such a specialist weapon that EOD would need a huge Dem area and the cost of dismantaling a single weapon is much higher than any one wants to pay. So the cheapest method of disposal is to use it. I would bet my life that the MOAB used had been in Afghan for years and in and out of the box dozens of times accruing exposed life. It's use was probably down to costs as well as a show of force.

One things for sure, if anyone on either side saw it, you would never forget it.

Oh and the Russians have a much bigger bomb nick names FOAB, father of all bombs.

It's funny you should mention that! I have it on good authority from two seperate sources that just such a bomb was known to have been lying idle on Kandahar Air Base for some considerable amount of time, and wondered myself if this was the weapon used in Nangahar province, it makes a lot of sense.

Regards, Ned.