Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Pentagon's 30,000-pound bunker-buster 'superbomb' ready for use
A mock up of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator sits in bomb bay of the B-2 weapons load trainer at Whitman Air Force Base, Missouri
The biggest conventional bomb ever developed is ready to wreak destruction upon the enemies of the US. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said its record-breaking bunker-buster has become operational after years of testing.
¬"If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that," told Donley Air Force Times. "We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today."
The Pentagon has spent $330 million to develop and deliver more than 20 of the precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busters, which are designed to blast through up to 200 feet of concrete.
Although there has previously been a bigger nuclear device, the new conventional rocket is six times the weight of the previous bunker-buster used by the US Air Force, and carries an explosive payload of 5,300 pounds.
US military chiefs openly admitted the weapon was built to attack the fortified nuclear facilities of "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea. Although the Pentagon insists that it is not aimed at a specific threat, unnamed officials within the ministry have repeatedly claimed the bomb is being tailor-made to disable Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, or at least to intimidate Tehran.
Iran is working at breakneck speed to expand its Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is built inside a mountain in the heart of the country, and has previously been declared "impregnable" by senior officials in Tehran. Iran has often paraded its fast-advancing nuclear program, while denying that it intends to build a nuclear bomb.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Barnes Wallis's Grandslam bomb had a payload of about 10,000 pounds !
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
But could it blast through up to 200 feet of concrete? paul
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Probably depends on American election results.
But I don't think the Jews will sit back much longer, they must be getting twitchy with all the thing happing on there door step
They could do it alone but not with convention bombs.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the israelies are remarkably resilient when confronted with possible aggression.
many of the scientists working on iran's nuclear programme have met with very messy accidents.
if anyone from mossad is looking in it was not them that done it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul S, the grandslam weighed 1,000 pounds, and required a specially adapted Lancaster.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Alex - see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28bomb%29 the bomb weighed 22,000 lbs (10,000 kg) and contained just shy of 10,000 lbs of Torpex explosive
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith B, I doubt anyone on the Forum wants to contemplate what might happen if a war breaks out in those areas, we all know there is nothing we can do about it.
As a guess, we may be riding about in bicycles, and perhaps there won't be much traffic about, and a few airports might close down for lack of fuel.
Not to mention Dover Port.
Nah... let me get back to my dream-world, can't afford to worry about the consequences.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Oops! You're right there, Ross
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
As I said elsewhere Alexander I make sure I know my facts before I type...
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Interesting topic keith. I saw a report on the situation in Iran not so long ago and these bunkers are so far underground that at the time of the aforementioned report, the only option the West/US had was to send in masses of ground forces to neutralise the facility. Obviously this would result in loss of life on a grand scale. Sometimes weapons of mass destruction actually save lives, even though on the face of it that sounds like an anomoly. But a bunker busting bomb of such magnitude would/should get the job done without losing ground troops on a large scale.
Modern technology is saving lives in warfare...or more accurately, saving our lives in warfare. One thinks of drones for example, what a useful tool they have proved to be. Almost impossible to shoot down and even if it happens there is no loss of life. No loss of life to 'our' side.