You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Tech
Eglin Studying Bomb Bigger Than MOAB
2004-11-08
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 being studied. 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.
The Army of Fred strikes again!
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 Reduation 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.
With the B-2, they'll never see it coming.
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.
Posted by:Steve

#22  Heh. A MOP would be a dirty bomb as a byproduct of bombing a U235 centrifuge site. That will get their attention, all right. Put a Hex on them [/pun]
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-11-08 9:53:07 PM  

#21  Nah it aint the radiation so much (although from ground zero that will be significantly in evidence) as the actual double flash, and its seismic signature, thats a unique distinction of all nuclear bombs.
Posted by: Valentine   2004-11-08 9:51:46 PM  

#20  Lauurence, its off to psyops with you!

The question is, if a MOP were used on a nuclear site, whether military or civilian, wouldn't the resulting explosion release radiation from the material already on-site? Separate from the non-radiating mushroom cloud that would result when such a large bomb is exploded, I mean. So nobody would believe that we hadn't used nukes, if that is indeed the case.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-11-08 9:47:13 PM  

#19  MOP?

Muslims Oughta Pray?
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-11-08 9:44:35 PM  

#18  Hmm, the thing would leave a small mushroom cloud. The idjits would think we've nuked them.

Imagine the fun that could be had with the world wide press if the Air Force immediately came out and denied using nukes that leave no radioactivity. "This is as stupid as the earthquake machine we tested, I mean, didn't test in Bam last year."
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2004-11-08 9:21:50 PM  

#17  BAR, Given their experience at Bam, how could the mullahs prove it wasn't an earthquake?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-08 8:33:43 PM  

#16  BAR, Given their experience at Bam, how coule the mullahs prove it wasn't an earthquake?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-08 8:33:32 PM  

#15  Two words. MUSHROOM CLOUD.
Posted by: Edward Yee   2004-11-08 8:18:39 PM  

#14  this one has Iran/NorK all over it, not Iraq

Thing is, showing a willingness to use it in Iraq, plus the effect that such use would provide in terms of visual evidence of the destruction caused might influence the NorK situation in a positive way.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-11-08 8:04:56 PM  

#13  MOAB = sub nuke. 10-4 on the MOAB.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2004-11-08 7:43:03 PM  

#12  smn, this one has Iran/NorK all over it, not Iraq
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-08 7:13:52 PM  

#11  A waste of tax payers money; they won't even use the MOAB in favorable conditions that would save even one of our troops life! Thses weapons are rapidly becoming 3rd tier tools; only deployed in cases of "high probable loss" to our side. Don't expect their use in Iraq, not enough insurgents will congregate in a one mile radius to make it cost effective!
Posted by: smn   2004-11-08 7:11:48 PM  

#10  52 was not designed to carry it in the bay but outside the bay - sort of like an X2! It don't matter if it is outside or inside - it is a one time delivery ordanance with a speacial need target assigned to it - like a nuke site or a cave or a funny looking steel tower by a river in Europe!
Posted by: Curtis LeMay   2004-11-08 6:38:40 PM  

#9  In the case of Iran, I prefer using nukes so as to blur reponsibility...

"looks like your nuclear program had some problems...we don't have any comments on your accusations"
Posted by: Frank G   2004-11-08 6:07:18 PM  

#8  is MOP easier or cheaper to produce and use than a modern nuclear bomb?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2004-11-08 6:07:15 PM  

#7  Tallboys weren't really designed to dropped from a subsonic bomber at 60,000 feet. That's enough to be hitting the ground at close to Mach 2.
Posted by: Dishman   2004-11-08 5:37:43 PM  

#6  The idea about using the Tallboy or its big brother the Grand Slam is you don't have to re-invent the wheel just put a new set of hubcaps on it.
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2004-11-08 5:13:10 PM  

#5  one of Barnes Wallis's Tallboys equipped with a GPS guidance system.
Cheaderhead, I think that's exactly what they are building. If I'm not mistaken, the B-52 was originally designed to take one of these in the bomb bay. Saw another story some where in the past that this MOP would be designed to fit in the B-2.
Posted by: Steve   2004-11-08 4:45:41 PM  

#4  cool link, CH - interesting stuff!
Posted by: Frank G   2004-11-08 4:33:55 PM  

#3  Just think we could do with one of Barnes Wallis's Tallboys equipped with a GPS guidance system. Of couse the only way we'd be able to deploy it would probably be off the Wing pylons of the BUFF although it might fit in the bomb bay

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/s,tallboy.html
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2004-11-08 4:18:37 PM  

#2  "No pork or pork by-products were used in the making of this ordnance."
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-11-08 3:49:36 PM  

#1  "Good Morning, Tehran!"
Posted by: Frank G   2004-11-08 3:38:28 PM  

00:00