Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

The Sunday Paper

Bunker buster test.jpg

Now imagine the close air support you could do with this puppy. Forget a nine-line brief. This is about a one-line brief. Problem with a city block in Fallujah? Level Fallujah with a single sortie. And before you go all Dr. Strangelove on us, you should know we're talking conventional ordnance here.

But this ain't a CAS weapon. It's a . . . well, the Air Force won't really say, except to say that we really need it regardless of how much it costs.

Yesterday Stars and Stripes ran an article about the Pentagon's request for $88 million to fund the development of a "deep-earth-bunker-buster."

According to the article . . .

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, is a joint project between Northrop Grumman and Boeing.

At 30,000 pounds and 20 feet long, the mass of the bomb makes it three and a half times more powerful than the most powerful weapon in the Air Force’s inventory. The bomb carries 6,000 pounds of high explosives.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, or DTRA, is helping to test the weapon, spokeswoman Cheri Abdelnour said.

The MOP’s job is to destroy deeply buried and what the military calls “hardened” targets, or those specifically reinforced to survive strikes with high explosives.

The bomb is capable of burrowing 60 meters through 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) of reinforced concrete, or 8 meters through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete.

Like all modern “smart” munitions, the weapon is virtually a mini-aircraft, with tail fins that steer the weapon in flight via preprogrammed minicomputers and an integrated global positioning system that keeps it on target, according to DTRA.

The first successful tests of the weapon took place at the end of March at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, according to the Air Force and DTRA press releases issued at the time.

The budget request is part of an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense budget supplemental request that the White House submitted Monday to Congress.

The money is in two parts: $83.5 million for continuing the development of the MOP weapon itself, including a “technology demonstration” sponsored by DTRA that would conclude at some point in fiscal 2008; and another $4.2 million to modify the B-52 bomber as a launching platform, Air Force spokeswoman Vicki Stein told Stars and Stripes on Wednesday.

Now here's the best part. The Pentagon (read "Air Force") isn't sure or won't say what the bomb is for. Although the flacks quack about the MOP as an "urgently needed, critical global strike capability to fight the war on terrorism," General Mosely, the USAF Chief of Staff said, "It’s not specifically geared at an individual country. It’s a capability discussion."

An $88 million capability discussion? Wouldn't an offsite to Vegas or -- better still -- a Webex be cheaper?

And who knew we had at Threat Reduction Agency? Isn't that DoD's job? Oh, that's right. They do threat proliferation.

And heaven forbid that we actually threaten . . . Iran. (Oh, no. I said that which shall not be said when hitting Congress up for large sums of money that will be used to justify the service's existence in the nearer term. My bust, general. Or should I say, my bunker bust, general?)

(Gouge: NC)

(Photo: Engineers examine a test penetrator after it showed the ability to burrow through hundreds of feet of solid rock before the first explosive test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Courtesy Stars and Stripes.) (H/T SMSgt. Mac.)

-- Ward

Comments

please send me any information about military;armament;army;weapons;.......

Posted by: mmoradiani at January 13, 2008 05:32 PM


Re: SMSgt Mac & The Billion Buck Bomb Truck

The drum I bang (and seem to bang daily) raps the cadence of good stewardship and husbanding of resources be they blood, treasure, or brains. But it seems to me that we've mostly become deaf -- willfully or otherwise.

The B2, like so many other programs in DoD, seems the current apogee of profligate spending.

I am no Luddite, by any stretch. The B2 truly is a marvel of American ingenuity. Its capabilities still leave me with a lingering "wow-wee." But the scenario of a billion dollar aircraft loitering at 40k+ to deliver a $250k PGM on huts, cave openings, and safe houses seems more than a trifle overdone. It is not unlike the missile mafia who advocate (with a straight face!) using Tomahawks for fire support.

While I'm certain that the B2 has a supercritical role to play in kicking down the door (nothing like the surprise of the 0200 tritonal candygram), I think its asinine to use it as a bomb truck just because it has a better electronics suite than other birds.

If the SAR and GPS packages on B2 make it so much more accurate, then share the wealth. Get those overpaid PhD weenies to incorporate the B2's electronics on the Bone, the Buff, and whatever else we've got flying.

As for the B2's FMC rating, I'm impressed. I would have expected that they'd be a bunch of hangar queens given the nature of their skin. A big BZ to ground crews. In the end, however, I'd like to see the breakout of manpower, maintenance manhours, consumables cost, etc. vis-a-vis ordnance delivered (or at least hours on station) among the various airframes. I.e., your Maserati might have a great FMC rate compared to my Subaru's, but what's the cost per mile to pickup the milk and bread?

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 30, 2007 05:06 AM


Roy,

Diminishing Iran's ability to produce HEU indigenously won't require an invasion force with tanks, only a limited application of US air power.
Our limited US objectives do not require a battle plan like OIF. USG only needs to set their program back several years and remind them we're serious, should our leaders choose to go forward with this option.
Of course, this assumes our intel community knows where to hit them to achieve these ends.
It is possible Iran has a parallel secret HEU capacity that lay undiscovered.
By the way, I've been to Iran twice since 1998 and I can assure you they already have pornography, STDs and the HPV vaccine.
The big difference there is you are beaten and jailed for the pornography.

Posted by: j house at October 29, 2007 02:10 PM


The Pentagon should integrate this beast onto an ICBM. That would be an enormous amount of kenetic energy onto the target. They'd probably get a few dozen more meters of penetration.
You wouldn't have to worry about losing air crews or $2 billion per copy aircraft. Give the Russians a warning prior to launch and set back the Iranian nuclear program a few years, at least.

Posted by: j house at October 29, 2007 10:19 AM


the B-2 advantage over conventional heavies is much more than stealth.
After the 'threat' is negated (not that you are ever certain it is truly gone until you get boots on the ground) you still need the payload delivered as precisely as possible, especially with smaller/low blast radius weapons: hence you still need something the B-2. If you refer to your handy Bomber Roadmap (Table 4 1999 edition), you will find that JDAMS were considered 'near-precision' only off the B-2. While the BUFF and BONE have improved their systems, the B-2s (with their GATS) are still the best bomb droppers.

BTW: guess which Bomber (in theater or out) had the best Mission Capable Rates in OEF and OIF

Trivia: the JDAM program is a low-cost (and lower specification) weapon that was bought in volume instead of the GAM. So the JDAM is actually a by product of the B-2 acquisistion. JDAM wasn't really all that much cheaper until the massive quantity buys (Note what happens when Congress allows Economic Order Quantities) drove unit cost down. Alas, the GAMS are probably all or almost all gone now.

Oh, and I heard it was never trust "even-striped" senior NCOs!

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 29, 2007 08:21 AM


No argument from me on coveralls versus flight suits, Chief. Doesn't make sense or seem fair.

Posted by: Ward at October 29, 2007 06:48 AM


Re: SMSgt Mac

Mac, if you spent any time in the Goat Locker while slumming with my beloved Navy, you must know that Rule #3 is "Never trust an even-numbered Chief."

During joint service that rule undoubtedly extends to even-numbered NCOs. :)

Now, how do you know when a staffer doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about? Pretty simple, really: Lots of PowerPoint, obscure white paper references, and jingo lingo. Ditto to the NCO/CPO doing the same thing. The skipper will likely just start playing with his BlackBerry; in the Mess the CMC will likely loose the sharks on the briefer.

To the point: In the early days of any conflict we'll need to do the blitz and that includes having Air Force fly from Barksdale and Whiteman. Even so, that's a VERY expensive way to put warheads on foreheads: the fuel, the wear on airframes, and flight hours on aircrews.

However, if there's any coherence at all in our Air Doctrine, we will have silenced the air-to-air and ground-to-air threats in just a few days. (You fly, you die; you radiate, we obliterate.)

Following that, there isn't much need to be super stealthy like the the B2. What's needed is just a bomb truck. Like it or not, it doesn't take a Red Flag or Top Gun grad to program a JDAM while circling at 30k or 40k. A B1, B2, or B52 circling over Tora Bora is just an aerial ammo barge for the grunts (Air Force JTACs included).

Moreover, if you don't have those grunts on the ground then all the bombing in the world is a fatuous exercise. Johnny Jihadi and Mahmoud Splodeydope will just dust themselves off and go back to business.

Yes, Naval Aviation may not carry a huge bombload like the air force white elephants, but isn't smaller supposed to be the new bigger? SDBs, reduced charge, kinetic kill, and all that hooey? That FA-18 flying from the CVN is just as capable of dropping a couple JDAMs as the big birds -- the difference is about 20 hours of flight time.

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 29, 2007 06:09 AM


Re: Wardroom Ward

Glad to see that a humble black shoe like me can still raise brown shoe hackles. ;)

While we are discussing sartorial superiority, I'm still trying to figure out how a mess of nomex wrinkles, velcro, fourteen zippers, a ratty flight deck jersey, and your piss cutter flopping in a leg pocket (what you'd call a "flight suit"), with a pair of scuffed boots last polished in Pensacola with a Hershey bar is more presentable to the public than a clean, neatly pressed pair of coveralls and polished boondockers.

I guess that some animals are more equal than others....

Cheers and VR,
Chief B.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 29, 2007 05:44 AM


I love man-made liquefaction.

Especially Made in USA, stealth deliverable liquefaction.

Posted by: RTLM at October 29, 2007 02:24 AM


If the service's Chief of Staff's main job these days is to sell the budget to Congress, Gen. Moseley needs to go home. The Air Force wants $ 88 million for a bomb designed for Iran's bunkers, says its urgently needed for the war, wants it tested in 12 months, but he wants to convince us its not for Iran by calling it a "discussion." WTF? No wonder the Air Force is in a financial crisis if he's the one making the sales pitch.

Posted by: TB at October 29, 2007 02:07 AM


Yeah sure,like they are dancing in the streets of Iraq right now,AND we can introduce pornography,sexually transmitted diseases,& the Gardasil HPV vaccine to the Iranians.Pass out the candy for that one.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 28, 2007 11:04 PM


Actually,because of the mountainous terrain(& the very nasty Kavir Desert,which swallowed up the "Desert 1" rescue mission,IF our M1 tanks & M2 Bradleys make it over & through the mountains) & the fact that the only large body of water near Tehran is the Landlocked Caspian Sea(without any canal or rivers large enough to pass large naval ships through,& besides,there is no guarantee that FORMER NATO ally Turkey would allow our navy to pass into the Black Sea to operate from there) which prevents our navy from having any influence in any attack on Iran(read Tehran City Limits),the Air Force is the only way we can go.

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 28, 2007 11:00 PM


OK, I can't resist. For those not wise in the way of the sea service, here's (one variant of) an old joke I first heard on a 'joint' program back in the day:

Q: You're going to a classifed meeting with more than five Naval representatives present. You see immediately two of them are imposters and spies. How did you know?

A: They're the only ones wearing the same color shoes.

See what 2 1/2 years on Navy bases does to your sense of humor?

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 28, 2007 07:19 PM


Shock and awe, baby! A couple of MOPs here, a MOAB there, it'll be great! The Mullahs swept away and the grateful Iranian people will welcome us with open arms. Dancing in the streets and handing out sweets to their liberators. Harmony and bliss. A cake walk...

Posted by: FirstCav at October 28, 2007 07:19 PM


RE: “flying 10,000 miles (one way) to drop a few bombs”
“Few bombs?” –Too funny!
Let’s count bombs on target: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjoMQRUWEe8
Gee, it looks almost like a ‘loop’ – they just keep going and going and going. The B-2 is the ‘Energizer Bunny’ of tritonal and steel. If you like this one, just wait until the Small Diameter Bomb gets on board.

Mmmmmm. Nothing says you care quite like sending massive mixed loads with dial-a-bomb on demand anywhere in the world with same day service. No steaming required!

Lest someone point out that if the B-2 did such a mass release in combat that it would be exposed and vulnerable to radar detection for too long a time: the challenge in this test was to target and flyout to 80 aimpoints in one pass to stress the system to the max. It is simpler and easier to do it in multiple passes.

As to Naval Air vis- -vis Long Range Strike:
From http://tinyurl.com/3y4f3f (PDF) we find:

"Even if a potential adversary decides not to contest sea-based operations this close to a coastline, limited operational reach can still complicate or limit the contributions of sea-based forces. For example, during recent operations in Afghanistan—a land-locked country with no navy and located a minimum of 400 nm from the sea (Kabul was over 900 nm)—high sortie rates by carrier strike aircraft were difficult to sustain, even when supported by land-based Air Force tankers, and the Marines had to stage most of their maneuver forces and equipment through bases in Pakistan. Operational reach would also be an issue for combat operations against an exceptionally large country with a coastline (e.g., China); even if the country does not contest the establishment of a sea base close to its shore, the expanse of the country may mean targets are simply out of reach of US weapons, aircraft, and forces......"

Bottom line and 'Manolo blogging' topics aside: Long Range and Naval Strike are two very COMPLEMENTARY forces in the early days of almost any conflict.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 28, 2007 07:07 PM


Who are you calling a shoe, chief? Them's fighting words . . . unless you're talking BROWNshoe, of course.

Posted by: Ward at October 28, 2007 06:19 PM


sweet bigger bomb nice!!!

ok thats it why can the air force find a new version of b52 and a new version of c130..........but the navy cant ungrade the guns on the 2 battleships it has.......give the marines a platform for shore bombardment that cant be sunk by a dingy full of explosives
hell take rear guns off slap on a vstol deck thats an assualt carrier!! hell yea

sigh no they get a destroyer that can sit of shore and shot 5in canon or is it 7in or railguns or lasers....i dont know just see wev've spent what 990bil!!! or somethin by now and we dont have it yet oh yea and its realy stealthy ....but its supposed to be used of shore insight of land AND ITS 700FT LONG!!!


ok ok sorry just an old argument comming to the surface sorry DT ppls, Ward

Posted by: james at October 28, 2007 05:52 PM


No its called the F-22s take out the air defense system. Gosh do people not use there imagination at all. This is why we have spend billions of dollars on stealth tech, to be able to deliver these bad boys.

The navy might be able to make more trips, but they are very limited in the size of each trip. Remember out enemy's arnt as dumb as they used to be, were going to need stuff this big to get at em.

Posted by: 22lr at October 28, 2007 05:19 PM


Howdy Boys....

Another installment in the continuing saga of "Bonzo on The Beltway." This week Bonzo uses his Darden MBA to explain the USAF budget process. Bonzo's pleas passionately to Congressman Gonzo that NOT increasing the USAF budget every year is ACTUALLY a BUDGET CUT. How're the whizbangers out at Area 51 and White Sands 'sposed to keep Rev. Dr. Gizmodo & The Gollygeewhiz Wing BUSY if'n they don't keep inventing nifty new stuff like this here SUPER BOMB? (And, Bonzo tells the Good Gentleman from Shysterville, the neutron flux discombobulator in the thing will be assembled in Mexico with parts made in his District!)

----------

More toys for the fly boys. I reckon that the boys at the staff and war colleges are STILL trying to prove that all you need is a bigger, better, sexier air-delivered weapon to win wars. This MOB looks like they've got a bigger hammer to pound away at the round peg.

Don't get me wrong, there are few things as satisfying as a great big boom, particularly when a deserving party is on the receiving end. BUT, what is it that we achieve in developing a whole new line of munitions? What will this thing achieve that we couldn't get with ten GBU-28s a few seconds apart on the same target point? Is this more "boy psychology" ("mine is bigger than yours")?

And, after Curtis LeMay's little Frankensteins are done rearranging the topography who's going to keep Mahmoud from building another Temple of Doom? Oh, right, the grunts.

One more thing, why have they made this bit of physics so frickin' hard? Too many MBAs, PhDs, and JDs, methinks. Don't send your brightest Sailor to supervise sweepers because he's gonna think too much about trying to "fix" it or "make it work better." Send the redneck who can take orders and get it done. I think that a couple of rednecks on the Great Big Bomb tiger team could have cobbled this thing together pretty quick; it worked with the original GBU-28 in ODS. It didn't take a huge R&D staff (and budget) to fill and old 8" arty tube with HE and then bolt on a LGB kit. Just ingenuity, balls, and a "get 'er done" attitude.

This is kabuki theater. Its almost as silly as Mahmoud's bit of high school marching band show last week.

Cheers,
Chief B.

P.S.: Ward and the rest of the shoes may be a pain in the ass to the regular, working Navy, BUT while the flyboys at Whiteman are flying 10,000 miles (one way) to drop a few bombs, the boys and girls of Naval Aviation will be launching their third sortie of the day. And THAT is an advantage the trash haulers can't overcome.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at October 28, 2007 05:13 PM


$88 million bucks is what the pentagon has lost down the back of it's sofa cushions. Seems a reasonable cost for a potentially very useful program. And it's a big bomb. What's not to like?

Posted by: ak at October 28, 2007 03:27 PM


One thing you have to worry about with weapons like this is knowing the actual location of the underground target. The bombs can penetrate deeply, but their radius of effect in rock isn't all that great. And, although you may know where the entry/headworks of an underground facility is, you may not know in which direction the builders tunneled once they got below the surface.

Good intelligence about such matters is highly desirable.

Posted by: Deus Vult at October 28, 2007 03:25 PM



Yes, we looked at this one a year ago -

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002774.html

And as noted then, it's a very crude and limited weapon compared to Deep Digger and its relations.

Posted by: David Hambling at October 28, 2007 01:50 PM


Blocking integration of the MOP into the B2 inventory will not prevent targeting of Iranian underground installations nor does it keep the B2 out of the battle. The planners will just look the next combination on the list for things like B2s armed with B-61s or even ICBMs. If that's what you'd rather use, so be it.

Posted by: crazy at October 28, 2007 01:32 PM


You're exactly right, Doc. That's the reality the USAF is creating before your very eyes. Eighty-eight million dollars, please!

And you might do away with pilots (hello, UCAS), but you'll never do away with naval aviation. Geez, the Tomcat singlehandedly won OEF, fer crissakes.

But thanks for pushing my buttons, all the same.

Posted by: Ward at October 28, 2007 01:06 PM


"... have it escorted by a SQ of F-22s problem solved no harm to BUFF crew"

So SAMs have magically vanished from existance while I wasn't looking? Most intersting development!

Posted by: Siconik at October 28, 2007 12:54 PM


If nothing else this bomb will make Iran have a few bad nights. Iran is spelled all over this one. Also you could stick it on a B-52, and have it escorted by a SQ of F-22s problem solved no harm to BUFF crew.

Posted by: 22lr at October 28, 2007 12:35 PM


Good grief. Has Ward gone David Axe on us? Here let me push your button: get rid of naval aviation.


OK, back to facts: ever hear of hard and deeply buried targets? That's why you need MOPs. And, these hard and deeply buried targets tend to be well defended by air defenses so putting it on a B-52 is sentencing the crew to the death penalty.


Now, if you want to give the bad guys a free-bee by letting them do whatever they want to do underground or in a mountain (Tora Bora?) then let's not buy MOP.


By the way, you can't put MOP on any existing carrier-based plane, David Axe.

Posted by: doc75 at October 28, 2007 12:11 PM


Well, the above-ground residents of Fallujah have relatively little to fear. This is a weapon that designed to be most destructive at about 80 meters below the surface. You're thinking of the 20,000lb Mother of All Bombs (MOAB), which is a very different kind of weapon.

The weirdness about MOP is this:

DTRA has had a program going for a few years to get the beast integrated on a B-52.

But last February the USAF request funds for the first time to initiate a program to integrate the weapon on the B-2.

The Democrat-controlled Congress gave the B-52 program a green light, but stepped in to block funds for the B-2 program, on the not-unwise theory that such a program is obviously intended for a near-term attack on Iran.

So the USAF lost the first battle, and is coming back for a second round with the recent supplemental request.

The MOP still has a long way to go to get on the B-2, at least 1.5 years. But if you want to punch a 6,000lb warhead through about 80 meters of turf and concrete, the MOP is your guy.

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at October 28, 2007 11:39 AM


yikes!
strike "quicer"
insert "quiver"

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 28, 2007 11:12 AM


Tora Bora
Safe No More-a

The effort to field a deep conventional penetrating weapon predates the WOT and represents the recognition since Desert Storm that our enemies would be seeking ever-deeper hidey-holes for things they want to protect.

Such a weapon is an interesting engineering challenge - make the system 'hard enough' to go as deep as you want, but not so hard as to not go off at all. Come up with a design that can be carried on existing aircraft and get the right mix of materials, fuzing, guidance and structure at a cost that keeps the bean-counters happy and Voila! You got something the warfighters can use that can do things all the other items in the quicer can't do.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at October 28, 2007 11:10 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.