+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    a Mother of All Bombs has been dropped in Afghanistan by the US.

    The bomb is the largest conventional bomb, second only to a small nuke device.

    The mushroom cloud resultant is very intimidating, and looks like a "mushroom cloud".

    The target was called an I.S.I.S. target

    reference: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-mo...anistan-2017-4

    Quote Four US officials with direct knowledge of the mission said the US had dropped the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, aka the "Mother of All Bombs" or "MOAB," over the Achin district of Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, which borders northwest Pakistan.

    The MOAB, which was developed during the Iraq war, is the US's largest non-nuclear bomb and had not been used in combat until now.

    It weighs 21,000 pounds and was dropped from a C-130 aircraft a little after 7 p.m. local time on Thursday.

    "This is a weapon that would be used against a large footprint on the ground," Starr said on CNN. The target in question was reportedly an ISIS complex with a camp and tunnels and where personnel were assembling.

    The area is very close to the Pakistan border, Starr said, and "is still a border that is not really controlled."

    "And they have seen ISIS develop on the Afghanistan side of the this border," she added.

    "At 7:32 pm local time today, U.S. Forces - Afghanistan conducted a strike on an ISIS-K tunnel complex in Achin district, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, as part of ongoing efforts to defeat ISIS-K in Afghanistan in 2017," US Central Command said in a statement.

    "The strike used a GBU-43 bomb dropped from a U.S. aircraft," the statement said. "The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities."

    "As ISIS-K's losses have mounted, they are using IEDs, bunkers and tunnels to thicken their defense," Gen. John W. Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said in the statement, referring to the ISIS branch in Afghanistan and Pakistan, ISIS-Khorasan. "This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K."

    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  2. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    avid (13th April 2017), Baby Steps (16th April 2017), Bill Ryan (15th April 2017), fourty-two (13th April 2017), Foxie Loxie (13th April 2017), ghostrider (14th April 2017), Jantje (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), justntime2learn (13th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), sheme (13th April 2017), TargeT (13th April 2017), tessie999 (14th April 2017), Woody (14th April 2017)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Great Britain Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd January 2013
    Age
    67
    Posts
    2,006
    Thanks
    7,723
    Thanked 7,391 times in 1,757 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Wow that sounds very serious.

  4. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by sheme (here)
    Wow that sounds very serious.

    The video explains the device


    over a mile in explosive radius, with penetration ability.. to get to tunnels, and bunker bust..
    Last edited by Bob; 13th April 2017 at 17:47.
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  5. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    Bruno (13th April 2017), Foxie Loxie (13th April 2017), Jantje (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), sheme (14th April 2017), TargeT (13th April 2017)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,731
    Thanks
    5,084
    Thanked 15,242 times in 3,072 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    That report is deliberately short of details. There must be a lot more to the way it explodes. For effective deep penetration, there has to be a sequential burst of separate explosions, with one clearing the way for the next to get deeper into the ground and so on. Although the video sounded like a single bang, I wonder if that was only because we just heard the first surface explosion and the rest were muffled enough to get lost in the general decaying rumble that we heard.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  7. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    7alon (14th April 2017), Atlas (13th April 2017), avid (13th April 2017), Bob (13th April 2017), Bruno (13th April 2017), Foxie Loxie (13th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), sheme (14th April 2017), toppy (14th April 2017)

  8. Link to Post #5
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    That report is deliberately short of details. There must be a lot more to the way it explodes. For effective deep penetration, there has to be a sequential burst of separate explosions, with one clearing the way for the next to get deeper into the ground and so on. Although the video sounded like a single bang, I wonder if that was only because we just heard the first surface explosion and the rest were muffled enough to get lost in the general decaying rumble that we heard.
    I'd love to see those details and spec's. Reports are saying Obama was afraid to use this device for fear or something like that..

    A thermobaric bomb does take the oxygen out of the air. I assume that means anyone caught in tunnels which supposedly this bomb was designed to get to, would have suffocated before the rebound thermal flash.

    BTW, I met some of the design team in Eglin AFB, their "HERD" group back in the 90's. They are very very qualified to design awesome weapons. And fast too..

    This link here http://www.weeklystandard.com/suckin...e/article/2300 is about a smaller version of a thermobaric device - here are some quotes:

    Quote The bomb is the BLU-118/B, better known as a thermobaric bomb. It was the first of its kind used in the war, although variations of the bomb have been used since Vietnam (namely, the 500-pound BLU-118 containing napalm).

    Here's how your average fuel-air bomb works: A warhead containing a canister of aerosol liquid such as ethylene oxide or an explosive powder is dropped on a target. "A small initial explosive charge bursts this canister at a predetermined height, allowing the contents to form a concentrated explosive vapor cloud. This cloud is then ignited by a second, larger charge, to generate an intense fireball and blast overpressure. . . . Even if the FAE (fuel-air explosive) fails to detonate completely, it will generate a widespread burning effect," says Jane's. "The temperature can be as high as 3,000 degrees Celsius--more than twice that generated by a conventional explosive. The blast wave can travel at approximately 10,000 feet per second."

    The Russians used thermobaric weapons during the 1994-1996 war in Chechnya and in Dagestan in 1999. According to GlobalSecurity.org, "conventional weapons could not force out the Chechens and the Russian Army looked for other ways to move them." The Russians ruled out chemical weapons and resorted to "ground-delivered thermobaric weapons." (It is believed that only the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom possess versions of the thermobaric bomb.)

    But the BLU-118/B (which Jane's believes to be the product of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's Hard Target Defeat Program Office) takes the fuel-air bomb to the next level. First, the warhead is encased in a 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombshell. Rather than exploding over a widespread area above ground, the BLU-118/B penetrates deep into the ground, through concrete barriers, and then ignites everything inside. Says editor Robert Hewson, "The bomb can be delivered by an F-15 or a B-52 or even a B-2. It's a free-falling smart bomb, guided by a laser either from another plane or from the ground and either dropped on top of a cave or in its mouth, depending on the surrounding territory--ideally you want to drop it at the mouth of the cave."

    Which makes this an ideal weapon in the current stage of the war. As Major A.C. Roper, spokesman for U.S. forces, put it, "The exact size of the enemy forces occupying a series of cave complexes is not known." And sending the Marines or the Army's 10th Mountain Division into every crawling space in the region could prove costly. So on March 2, as part of the ongoing Operation Anaconda, a thermobaric bomb was dropped on an area where suspected al Qaeda and Taliban forces were thought to be regrouping. But after the bomb was dropped, it was unclear whether the target was successfully hit or not (many suspect the latter).

    Not that this would reflect badly on the bomb itself. If a thermobaric bomb successfully hit the mouth of a cave, "it's goodbye to whoever's in that cave," says Hewson. "Even if you aren't hit by the blast, you'd be hit by the falling rubble." In other words, if you aren't incinerated, you'd probably be buried alive. "It doesn't matter. The end result is the same."

    The significance of the thermobaric bomb cannot be underestimated. The Pentagon is hoping that this weapon will be useful not only against elusive enemies in cave complexes, but also on underground facilities, like, say, a chemical or biological plant in Iraq. "The United States didn't need to use the thermobaric bomb," Hewson argues. "The overriding reason for using it was to see how it worked." Against rogue states like Iraq, the bomb could penetrate underground targets where weapons of mass destruction are believed to be in development. Hewson mentions the anthrax scenario to best illustrate the BLU-118/B's usefulness: "Dropping a conventional bomb on a possible anthrax site will have limited damage and the anthrax could then escape into the air. With a thermobaric bomb, the underground facility is not only destroyed, it's incinerated. It'll kill everything inside."
    In other words, testing out the 21,000 pound version of this on an ISIS target would or could be a precursor to a use of such, let's say North Korea, and/or Syria's biological and Chemical stocks, no matter where they are hidden... A way to take them out through incineration and burying seems like what a military strategy would be - contain destroy contain..
    Last edited by Bob; 13th April 2017 at 18:22.
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  9. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    Atlas (13th April 2017), avid (13th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), norman (13th April 2017), TargeT (13th April 2017), tessie999 (14th April 2017)

  10. Link to Post #6
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,673
    Thanks
    18,720
    Thanked 32,961 times in 6,207 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    The MOAB (massive ordnance air burst) bomb is just a single explosion, around 2 meters off the ground... it's NOT a "bunker buster" and is mostly a psychological weapon as far as effectiveness goes.

    it WILL clear out caves very effectively if you can drop the bomb near the entrance (the shock wave will be funneled through the cave and destroy any soft targets with in).

    This is the "big stick" for the "unwashed masses"... it makes a TON of noise and surface damage (we used similar bombs, though much smaller in 'Nam & Iraq to clear forest (aka Daisy cutter)).


    This seems to explain it (and, why not use a MOAB, we only have like 13, and they are pretty useless over all):
    Quote According to a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the fact that the MOAB was dropped in the same province where Staff Sgt. Mark De Alencar of 7th Special Forces Group was killed April 8 is probably not a coincidence. "There might have been a degree of payback here as well," Bill Roggio told Air Force Times. "There's certainly nothing wrong with that, especially if you're killing your enemy."
    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Quote The bomb is the BLU-118/B, better known as a thermobaric bomb.
    .

    That's not correct, the BLU-118 (daisy cutter) is a conventional bomb.



    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    In other words, testing out the 21,000 pound version of this on an ISIS target would or could be a precursor to a use of such, let's say North Korea, and/or Syria's biological and Chemical stocks, no matter where they are hidden... A way to take them out through incineration and burying seems like what a military strategy would be - contain destroy contain..
    I highly doubt it, it's not very good at getting to "hidden" things... mostly just a devastating surface weapon.

    We do have good bunker buster bombs.. this isn't one.
    Last edited by TargeT; 13th April 2017 at 18:56.
    There was a 1: 400,000,000,000,000 chance of you being born: what have you done with your miraculous life today?

  11. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Atlas (13th April 2017), Billy (15th April 2017), Bob (13th April 2017), DNA (14th April 2017), ghostrider (14th April 2017), Hatemachines (14th April 2017), Jantje (14th April 2017), jjjones (13th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), norman (13th April 2017), seko (13th April 2017), Shannon (13th April 2017), toppy (14th April 2017), Wind (14th April 2017)

  12. Link to Post #7
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Target - what about a 1 .. 2 punch then, a bunker buster and then a thermobaric?

    Such as from my post above, within the quote this"

    "the BLU-118/B (which Jane's believes to be the product of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's Hard Target Defeat Program Office) takes the fuel-air bomb to the next level.

    First, the warhead is encased in a 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombshell.

    Rather than exploding over a widespread area above ground, the BLU-118/B penetrates deep into the ground, through concrete barriers, and then ignites everything inside. Says editor Robert Hewson".

    If a cruise is used first, then a smaller BLU-118/B buster/thermobaric is used to open up the site, in conjunction with the GBU-43/B airblast thermobaric afterwards, one would have good penetration, a 1 mile thermal burn to deal with chemicals/biologicals.

    Peel back hardened structures, eliminate ground based anti-aircraft, get to the hidden chem/biologicals, burn them all.. ??

    --update--

    I looked up on http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ns/blu-118.htm (Global security.org) some of the details of the BLU-118/B

    They are calling it a combo device, bunker busting and thermobaric

    It is the "B" designation that makes it different than a conventional bomb apparently..

    Here are the quoted details:

    Quote The BLU-118/B nomenclature was first reported on 21 December 2001, and this weapon is clearly unrelated to the BLU-118 500 lb. napalm canister used during the Vietnam war.

    The BLU-118/B is a penetrating warhead filled with an advanced thermobaric explosive that, when detonated, generates higher sustained blast pressures in confined spaces such as tunnels and underground facilities.

    The BLU-118/B uses the same penetrator body as the standard BLU-109 weapon. The significant difference is the replacement of the high explosive fill with a new thermobaric explosive that provides increased lethality in confined spaces.

    The BLU-118/B warhead uses a Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-143J/B to initiate the explosive. The FMU-143 fuze has been modified with a new booster and a 120-millisecond delay. All weapon guidance systems and employment options currently used with the BLU-109 warhead are compatible with the new BLU-118/B warhead.

    BLU-118/B payload candidates included PBXIH-135 [one of the Navy's new insensitive polymer bonded explosives], HAS-13, or SFAE [solid fuel air explosive] loaded into existing BLU-109 Weapon Bodies. Conventional high explosives (CHE) are characterized by a sensitivity to mechanical or thermal energy. Insensitive high explosives (IHE), on the other hand, require extraordinarily high stimuli before violent reaction occurs.

    Insensitive explosives reliably fulfil their performance, readiness and operational requirements on demand, but the violence of response to unplanned hazardous stimuli is restricted to an acceptable level.

    This means that when a munition is in a fire, hit by a fragment, bullet or high velocity projectile or subject to some other hazard the result will not be a detonation or a violent reaction of the explosive and propellant; no more than severe burning will ocur [such a deflagration is an exothermic reaction that occurs particle to particle at subsonic speed].

    Some insensitive explosives are known to react in a different way to conventional explosives. For instance, detonation reactions are slower but more energy is released in a way that has the potential to produce a lot more damage.

    The BLU-118/B bomb body can be attached to a variety of laser guidance system packages, including the GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, and GBU-28 laser guided bombs, as well as the AGM-130 missiles.
    It just seems to me, for the Syria/N. Korea chemical/biological stockpiles, a BLU-118/B buster/thermobaric used to open up the site, then use a GBU-43/B for a massive heat/thermal front to remove/incinerate any chem/biologicals which may be exposed by opening up a sealed bunker. Using the Cruise first would mess up ground strike back forces, possibly planes nearby rendered impossible to fly.. I think it's more than shock-'n'-awe going on here with the GBU-43/B test..

    Global Security dot Org also agrees with you that the GBU-43 is NOT designed to be a bunker buster.. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tions/moab.htm

    Quote Eglin Air Force Base's Air Armament Center conducted the second live test of the largest conventional bomb in the US inventory at approximately 2:30 p.m. EST 21 November 2003. Designated the GBU-43/B, the 21,700-pound bomb was launched from an MC-130E Combat Talon I aircraft flown by a crew assigned to Eglin's 46th Test Wing.
    Haaretz (Israel) http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.783372 seems to feel the GBR-43/B qualifies as an awesome terrible weapon. The aluminum/air reaction would be thermobaric.

    Quote The bomb is built by the Alabama-based aeronautics company Dynetics and weighs 9,525 kilograms (21,000 pounds), measures 9,15 meters (30 feet) and contains around 8,165 kilograms (18,000 pounds) of tritonal, a mixture of the explosive material TNT and aluminum powder. 
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...14914716300927 - "The term “thermobaric” is a compound word derived from the Greek words “therme” and “baros” meaning “heat” and “pressure” (implying the effects of temperature and pressure on the target), respectively."

    The GBU-43/B then is capable of meeting those spec's.

    Here is some science behind why GBU-43/B offers some awesome capabilities:

    Quote There has been a long bygone of studying the blast explosives, reactive metals and associated metal combustion technologies. The achievements of the development of Solid Fuel-Air-Explosive (SFAE) have been demonstrated by a 30–40% increase of internal blast over a conventional explosive. SFAE is a singular event having combined mixing and initiation of the reaction. In confined spaces, if the solid fuel is ignited early in the dispersion process, transition to full detonation is not a requirement for enhanced blast occurrence. A series of reflective shock waves generated by the detonation leads the hot detonation gases and metal particles to be mixed and the metal particles are compressed at the same time. These actions provide certain chemical kinetic support to maintain a hot environment, thus causing more metal to ignite and burn. This later-time metal combustion process produces a significant pressure rise over a longer time duration (10–50 msec). This phase is generally referred to as after burning or late-time impulse which can occur outside of where the detonation occurred and is responsible for more widespread damage.

    Aluminum has been used as the metal of choice, due to its high heat of combustion, cost and availability.

    Billets of SFAE made of aluminum provide savings in volume with increased fuel mass for blast performance. However, combustion efficiency has been an issue to be handled, especially in the case of high fuel content (35–60 wt%) with respect to the total weight of explosive composition.

    Often poor combustion efficiency is observed in many of the thermobaric warhead tests, which means the severe ineffectiveness of the weapon.

    This is due to the high ignition temperature, 2200 K, which is the typically required temperature for the proper combustion of aluminum.

    As it is known, during the burning of aluminum, heat is produced and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) is formed.

    However, the complete burning of all the metal requires maintaining the environment's hotness.
    The science page is saying: "enhanced-blast weapons are primarily designed and effective to demolish bunkers, caves and enclosed structures (see Reference [40] for a review of thermobaric weapons)"

    Reference 40: P. Marchandin, D. Watt
    A review of thermobarics, solid fuel air explosives (SFAE) and reactive metals
    Brussels, Belgium: Munitions Safety Information Analysis Center, NATO headquarters, December (2005)

    So for Afghanistan, shock and awe (intimidation), create some suck out of air from caves/tunnels, nothing really for "bunker busting" with JUST GBU-43/B,

    So if GBU-43/B was being then "tested on a live site" to note the range and effects (as was done in Nam with so many proof of concept weapons systems), that may then become one tool, for generating a large blast radius and heat. (I think would be good for burning up chem/biologicals).

    But they really should use something like the BLU-118/B series to bunker bust and get penetration.. When the can is opened, and some heat added (from the thermo of the BLU-118/B), then maybe a wide spread "clean up sanitization" may be needed to get stuff which was released from the "sealed can" (read bunker)..

    I suppose those are ways to avoid using tactical nukes, and stay away from that can of worms.. My gut is saying this "test" was more than retaliation from the enemy having killed a special forces..

    I kinda believe that it is a test of the device for use in thermal "clearing", and it could be part of one effective strategy to hit Syria's chem/bio weapons as well as N. Korea's similar.. the temperatures created and the range of the thermal cloud could be a great neutralization system, a sterilization system, for chemicals and biologicals. I just think the order of the weapons used in the attack(s) are critical for the situation at hand..
    Last edited by Bob; 14th April 2017 at 17:41. Reason: added a few more thoughts
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  13. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    Atlas (13th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), Shannon (14th April 2017), sheme (14th April 2017), TargeT (13th April 2017), toppy (14th April 2017)

  14. Link to Post #8
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,673
    Thanks
    18,720
    Thanked 32,961 times in 6,207 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Target - what about a 1 .. 2 punch then, a bunker buster and then a thermobaric?
    Well a bunker buster is sort of a "1,2 punch" in itself.. it penetrates THEN explodes (not explode for penetration) it's like a sabot round out of a tank..... that explodes after it penetrates... haha.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	MassiveOrdnancePenetrator.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	224.1 KB
ID:	35162

    Click image for larger version

Name:	38848063_story_page_with2_416pic.gif
Views:	164
Size:	23.6 KB
ID:	35163


    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    "the BLU-118/B
    haha, ignore what I said.. that is a thermo.. I was thinking BLU-82 (damn military nomenclature is confusing as hell at times).


    the MOAB isn't a thermo tho.. just a big ass bomb; the shock wave from it is more than enough to clear out a cave system... I think this was just us throwing a REALLY BIG shoe at a known cockroach hole, probably in retaliation for the SF guy that was lost (those guys have deep ties in the community).

    Good description here:
    Quote The basic operational concept bears some similarity to the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, which was used to clear heavily wooded areas in the Vietnam War and in Iraq to clear mines and later as a psychological weapon against the Iraqi military. After the psychological impact of the BLU-82 on enemy soldiers was witnessed, and no BLU-82 weapons remained, the MOAB was developed partly to continue the ability to intimidate Iraqi soldiers. Pentagon officials had suggested their intention to use MOAB as an anti-personnel weapon, as part of the "shock and awe" strategy integral to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
    MOAB is big, but, a fraction of a nuclear bomb (MOAB is something like 11 tons of TNT..)
    The MOAB has roughly 0.085% of the explosive energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

    MOAB dropped on Manhattan:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	qbAenUU.png
Views:	324
Size:	235.8 KB
ID:	35164

    "Little boy" (nuclear) dropped on Manhattan:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	vhaGp8H.png
Views:	105
Size:	246.2 KB
ID:	35165
    Last edited by TargeT; 13th April 2017 at 19:31.
    There was a 1: 400,000,000,000,000 chance of you being born: what have you done with your miraculous life today?

  15. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), Bob (13th April 2017), DNA (14th April 2017), Hatemachines (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Nasu (13th April 2017), pyrangello (13th April 2017), seko (13th April 2017), Shannon (13th April 2017), toppy (14th April 2017), Wind (14th April 2017)

  16. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member kirolak's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th April 2013
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    8,986
    Thanked 4,193 times in 739 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Strange how something so lethal can look so beautifully streamlined. .

  17. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to kirolak For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), Bob (13th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (13th April 2017), Shannon (13th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017), toppy (14th April 2017)

  18. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    3,462
    Thanks
    18,909
    Thanked 19,971 times in 3,151 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Wow thats a big bomb.....



    ...my career field in the Air Force was a 46250 and loaded every munition we had in the arsenal including nukes but never a bomb that big. The biggest bombs we had back in the 70's that I recall were the thousand pounders other than napalm which was probably a little heavier as a liquid in the tank. To skirt the laws of the Geneva convention which outlawed Napalm after Vietnam we called it incindergell.

    Here's another one about big bombs
    Last edited by mojo; 13th April 2017 at 21:52.

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), Bob (13th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  20. Link to Post #11
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, is what CentCom was reporting as the appropriate device for the intended target. The name ISIS-K is new to me, on searching the CentCom website only 3 references to that name appeared, referencing the April 13 bomb drop.. ref: https://search.usa.gov/search?affili...m&query=isis-k

    However GBU-43/B is not the real biggie in the US arsenal..

    ( See in post #8 above, TargeT's first image - http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1146186 )

    The GBU-57 is a 30,000 pound bomb with a penetration capability.. to not explode until it reaches its deep target.. ref: https://theaviationist.com/2013/10/28/b-2-mop/

    GBU-57 is one of those things not talked about too much (there have been many modifications to increase penetration into hardened bunkers):


    Shown above the image of a B-2 stealth bomber carrying its GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster bomb. Versions are listed as GBU-57 A and B

    The article:

    Quote From October 2013

    By David Cenciotti
    Even if B-52s have been used to test it, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is the only aircraft in the U.S. Air Force inventory currently capable to carry and release the heaviest U.S. bomb, the 30,000-lb GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP).

    The heavy GBU-57 is a 20-foot long GPS-guided bomb believed to be able to penetrate 200 feet of concrete before exploding, thus being capable to hit and destroy deeply buried targets.

    Like bunkers in Iran, Syria or North Korea….

    There are not many images showing the GBU-57 and even less show the MOP next to its intended platform.

    That’s why the top image, taken by Jim Mumaw in Jul. 2009, is extremely interesting and rare.

    (Image credit: Jim Mumaw)
    reference: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...nd-bomb-03172/ the GBU 57

    "The bunker-busting bomb has been in development since 2004, with early tests conducted by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The hard-penetrating weapon is intended to be carried on B-2A Spirit stealth bombers, thought to be capable of carrying two of the weapons in internal bays."

    Quote The GBU-57A/B MOP project began in 2004 as a proof of technology demonstration, with early tests conducted by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency that focuses on securing and cooperatively destroying nuclear materials and bio-chemical weapons.
    "This project’s goal is a GPS-guided, hard-penetrating weapon (the GBU-57A/B MOP) that can be carried aboard B-2A Spirit bombers to defeat “a specialized set of hard and deeply buried targets” like bunkers and tunnel facilities. Some graphics show expectations of over 60 feet of concrete destroyed, and a USAF article stated that the bomb was meant to penetrate 200 feet underground before exploding."

    The Jerusalem Post reported on testing of this device, what and where it may be used:

    Quote June 7/13:

    “In an effort to show Israel and other ally states that it is capable of striking Iran’s nuclear plants, the US has recently conducted a test of its bunker buster bomb, destroying a replica of an underground nuclear facility, Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot reported on Friday.

    The nuclear facility replica, that cost millions of dollars to build, was made of concrete and buried under dozens of feet of dirt and rocks, Yediot reported.”

    Previously in 2012 the penetration ability, 28 January 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Defense had concluded that the GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator was not capable of destroying certain facilities in Iran and had submitted a request for funds to upgrade the weapon. After being upgraded, it successfully passed the test.
    Last edited by Bob; 14th April 2017 at 00:12.
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  22. Link to Post #12
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,673
    Thanks
    18,720
    Thanked 32,961 times in 6,207 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    The GBU-57 is a 30,000 pound bomb with a penetration capability.. to not explode until it reaches its deep target.. ref: https://theaviationist.com/2013/10/28/b-2-mop/

    GBU-57 is one of those things not talked about too much (there have been many modifications to increase penetration into hardened bunkers):
    the GBU 57 was our answer to nuclear fall out from Bunker Buster Nuclear bombs.... we just built a bigger conventional bomb that penetrates (tough, from my understanding the whole project was a bust, I personally think the "upgrade" thing was just a PR cover to excuse the wasted money)..
    There was a 1: 400,000,000,000,000 chance of you being born: what have you done with your miraculous life today?

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), Bob (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017)

  24. Link to Post #13
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    The GBU-57 is a 30,000 pound bomb with a penetration capability.. to not explode until it reaches its deep target.. ref: https://theaviationist.com/2013/10/28/b-2-mop/

    GBU-57 is one of those things not talked about too much (there have been many modifications to increase penetration into hardened bunkers):
    the GBU 57 was our answer to nuclear fall out from Bunker Buster Nuclear bombs.... we just built a bigger conventional bomb that penetrates (tough, from my understanding the whole project was a bust, I personally think the "upgrade" thing was just a PR cover to excuse the wasted money)..
    I was just reading that some strategists when thinking tactical nuclear uses in the theatre, want to put something like the mini-nuke on-board a GBU-57 style penetrator.. saying it is needed to keep fallout to a minimum, so why not explode a mini-nuke 200 feet underground. I can't say I understand that logic..
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  26. Link to Post #14
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    38
    Posts
    6,673
    Thanks
    18,720
    Thanked 32,961 times in 6,207 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    why not explode a mini-nuke 200 feet underground. I can't say I understand that logic..
    From what I recall the GBU-57 wasn't going much more than 30 feet... haha

    a LOT of what gets published is basically sales pitch from the various vendors
    There was a 1: 400,000,000,000,000 chance of you being born: what have you done with your miraculous life today?

  27. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), Bob (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017)

  28. Link to Post #15
    United States Avalon Member mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    3,462
    Thanks
    18,909
    Thanked 19,971 times in 3,151 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    in a way it does sound like an Hammer talk, meet the ex wife ...


  29. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), Bob (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  30. Link to Post #16
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    why not explode a mini-nuke 200 feet underground. I can't say I understand that logic..
    From what I recall the GBU-57 wasn't going much more than 30 feet... haha

    a LOT of what gets published is basically sales pitch from the various vendors
    It certainly seems hilarious what the vendors talk about. I am actually eager to see the MOP in operation to see actually what it does. Do you think it will be Iran or N. Korea that it is used first?

    Supposedly after the failed 30 foot fiasco in 2012, they upgraded something to get it to 200 feet. No idea what they did.

    Folks on other threads seem to say Trump is playing Chicken.. I don't think so.. I think maybe we are into a longterm mess, similar to Nam but with new hardware..
    Last edited by Bob; 14th April 2017 at 02:00.
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    joeecho (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  32. Link to Post #17
    United States Avalon Member mgray's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    NYC suburb
    Age
    56
    Posts
    693
    Thanks
    1,103
    Thanked 4,431 times in 632 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Perhaps this is the wrong thread, but it appears Trump is flipping on his promises and becoming war-like to placate those that are against him like Sen John McCain.
    When in doubt, do the next right thing.
    My blog: http://grayseconomy.com

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mgray For This Post:

    Bob (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017)

  34. Link to Post #18
    Avalon Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    65
    Posts
    5,680
    Thanks
    9,493
    Thanked 22,054 times in 4,970 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    Quote Posted by mgray (here)
    Perhaps this is the wrong thread, but it appears Trump is flipping on his promises and becoming war-like to placate those that are against him like Sen John McCain.
    I think such is fine here.. We're just talking about different types of bombs being used.. what their qualifications are and what their advantages and disadvantages are.

    I think the war-like attitude is something to note. Other threads are saying it is "playing chicken" or messing around with the "art of the deal"..

    I think when dealing with sociopaths such as Assad and Kim Jung Un, one needs to realize they are mentally highly unstable, schizophrenic no doubt too. Who knows what perceived demons they are battling.

    I think they need more help than the rest of the "sane" (hmm) world does.. but that won't happen. They will be terminated one way or an other by the US, or China, but Putin no doubt wants to play his games too, as he did trying to re-establish the old Soviet block.. under his authoritarian rule. That is the difference between Russia (or China) and the US, how they occupy and dictate what happens in a "taken over" country.. Look at that to see.. Who establishes Policy in those taken over countries.. If they are free, they have no policy dictated to them..
    Life is a long lesson in humility. ~James M. Barrie

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Post:

    joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  36. Link to Post #19
    Avalon Member uzn's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2015
    Location
    Earth for now
    Posts
    1,207
    Thanks
    3,783
    Thanked 8,763 times in 1,168 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US


  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to uzn For This Post:

    Bob (14th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), mojo (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

  38. Link to Post #20
    Avalon Member DNA's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th May 2011
    Location
    Snowflake, Arizona
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,290
    Thanks
    18,200
    Thanked 15,567 times in 2,998 posts

    Default Re: M.O.A.B. used in Afghanistan by the US

    I don't believe 90% of this story. Just how dangerous can cave dwelling ak carrying nomadic types be? Were they interfering with the Rockefeller-CIA opium fields? A moab would indeed send a message if that was the case.
    The conquering of self is truly greater than were one to conquer many worlds.
    Edgar Cayce

  39. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DNA For This Post:

    Atlas (14th April 2017), happyuk (16th April 2017), joeecho (14th April 2017), PurpleLama (14th April 2017), TargeT (14th April 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts