Date Posted: 16-Jul-2004
JANE’S DEFENCE WEEKLY – JULY 21, 2004
——————————————————————————–
Massive bomb to MOP up deeply buried targets
MICHAEL SIRAK JDW Staff Reporter
Washington, DC
The US Air Force plans to launch a project later this year to develop an experimental ultra-large 30,000lb (13,608kg) penetrating munition, according to service officials.
It will be optimised against hardened and deeply buried targets that existing air-delivered weapons cannot destroy, they say.
The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is leading the three-phase technology demonstration, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) programme. It builds on design studies that Boeing has conducted for the laboratory. Flight testing is envisaged around 2006.
Although the air force has no formal requirement for an ultra-large bomb, it has a concept for a ‘Big BLU’ family of massive-sized penetrator and blast munitions. The MOP demonstration will mature the technologies so that they are “on the shelf, ready to go” if a requirement emerges for a Big BLU penetrator, said Steven Butler, director of engineering at the Air Armament Center at Eglin. He told JDW that the MOP is “unlike anything” that the air force has ever built.
Interest in a big penetrating bomb is growing in some US defence circles, including the Defense Science Board (DSB), the senior policy advisory panel to the Secretary of Defense. It recommended in its February 2004 report on ‘Future Strategic Strike Forces’ that the Department of Defense “immediately undertake” a demonstration of a “bomber-delivered massive penetrator” weapon as part of a family of ultra-large bombs that would “improve conventional attack effectiveness against deep, expansive, underground tunnel facilities”.
The MOP mirrors these recommendations. It will be designed for internal carriage on the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber and B-52H Stratofortress bomber and will be employed at high altitudes to attack targets like tunnel complexes and multistorey buildings with hardened bunkers, according to an air force statement released on 2 July.
It will be guided and able to operate in GPS-disrupted environments and attack targets at elevations up to 10,000ft above sea level, according to the service.
Fred Davis, technical director of the assessment and demonstrations division in the Munitions Directorate, said the project is funded as far as ground demonstrations. However, there is no funding earmarked yet for flight testing. The laboratory would like to conduct five MOP drops.
The air force plans to select one contractor to develop the bomb. Phase one will entail six months of concept refinement, followed in phase 2 by 10 months of weapon development and ground tests and wind tunnel exercises. Phase 3 will comprise flight testing and is expected to last about 15 months.
The directorate projects that it would spend about $11.5 million up to the end of Fiscal Year 2007 to complete the demonstration.
Designing the mammoth bomb has its challenges. Davis said it is critical to be able to control the weapon’s flight and guide it to its impact point while maintaining the proper angle of attack and minimising the weapon’s deflection as it penetrates the target.
“To be able to do that with a 30,000 lb weapon is no trivial task,” he told JDW. “That is why we are doing a lot of up-front testing . . . before we proceed with any flight demonstration.”
The service has already carried out a demonstration of a large 21,000 lb (9,534kg)-class non-penetrating cousin to the MOP called the Massive Ordnance Air Burst (MOAB) weapon. It was designed to validate the technologies needed to replace the 15,000 lb (6,810kg) BLU-82 ‘Daisy Cutter’ blast munition, stocks of which are dwindling. Like the MOP, there is currently no requirement for the MOAB, although several units were available for operational use to support Operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ but were not employed.
RELATED ARTICLES
‘US Air Force still eyeing ultra-large penetrator’ (JDW 26 November 2003)
‘US panel urges radical nuclear strike balance’ (JDW 22 October 2003).
‘USAF takes new look at ‘Big BLU’-style bomb’ (JDW 30 October 2002)
‘US Air Force keeps ‘Big BLU’ option open’ (JDW 27 March 2002)
Related article: ‘Underground attack initiatives expand’ (International Defense Review 1 November 2002)
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
By: PMN1 - 22nd September 2006 at 16:36
also a fact worth noting is that with Laser guidance or GPS these new bombs will probably be more accurate then the 21,000 pounds delivered in the ww2 days
GPS and/or laser guidance ANd a 22,000lb bomb should be quite effective.
🙂
By: PMN1 - 22nd September 2006 at 14:49
Which aircraft delivered the 22,000 lb one?
Well the B29 could carry two of them later on.
By: Distiller - 22nd September 2006 at 10:20
@ drop weights excl parachute method:
# Tsar-Bomb: around 27 metric tons
# NA X-15A-2: a little bit under 26 metric tons
# Orbital Sciences Pegasus XL: 24 metric tons
# T12 bomb: about 20 metric tons
@ shooting down a MOP:
Not sure if a conventional SAM like PAC-2 wouldn’t be a better choice. Their warhead would probably not destroy the bomb’s main body, but blow off all wings and control surfaces.
By: sferrin - 20th September 2006 at 03:07
Ref> Similar controls but not the same type of guidance. That matters.
Dear Member,
I don’t understand???? You think that laser beam riding guidance (LOSAT) would be better than the PAC-3 (MM active homing to missile to target impact) would be better???
Jack E. Hammond
I don’t think it would be. That’s what I meant, I don’t know that they could make the laser beam riding method as effective as an acitve Ka-band seeker. What I’m saying is that LOSAT has an armor penetrating warhead and is VERY fast right out of the gate. I’d give a hit by a LOSAT a better chance of killing a MOP than a hit by a PAC-3. Of course it could be a case of “which will kill a bug deader a rubber mallet or a hammer?”. And PAC-3 DEFINITELY has the advantage in range. For defense against antiship missiles on the face of it it would seem LOSAT would be better than RAM if they could make the guidance system work simply because it is MUCH faster than RAM. Of course since RAM has a 95%+ kill ratio I guess they can’t complain. RAM probably has a range advantage too.
By: jackehammond - 19th September 2006 at 21:52
Ref> Similar controls but not the same type of guidance. That matters.
Dear Member,
I don’t understand???? You think that laser beam riding guidance (LOSAT) would be better than the PAC-3 (MM active homing to missile to target impact) would be better???
Jack E. Hammond
By: sferrin - 19th September 2006 at 17:43
Ref> As for what SAM to use, imagine if they swapped out RAM missiles for LOSATs. Don’t know if they could maintain the accuracy but if they could that would sure screw up an antiship missile not to mention substantially improve your reaction time. And it would probably screw up a MOP pretty good too
Dear Member,
The PAC-3 missile uses the same type of control of the missile in the terminal phase as the LOSAT with “bang” thrusters around the body 1/3 the way down from the nose.
Jack E. Hammond
Similar controls but not the same type of guidance. That matters.
By: jackehammond - 19th September 2006 at 13:04
Ref> As for what SAM to use, imagine if they swapped out RAM missiles for LOSATs. Don’t know if they could maintain the accuracy but if they could that would sure screw up an antiship missile not to mention substantially improve your reaction time. And it would probably screw up a MOP pretty good too
Dear Member,
The PAC-3 missile uses the same type of control of the missile in the terminal phase as the LOSAT with “bang” thrusters around the body 1/3 the way down from the nose.
Jack E. Hammond
By: sferrin - 19th September 2006 at 01:31
Dear Members,
Just debating for the point of debating. It would seem that the best defense against a MOP type of bomb (guided or otherwise) would be either the PAC-3 or a land based version of the Sea Wolf. As far as I know the Russians do not have any “hittite” SAM systems including the TOR. Although I have heard that the HE warheads of the TOR missiles are substaintial.
Finally, I can not remember the details, but I think the largest air droppable ability today without the parachute method out the rear deck is a converted L1011 that carries a Pegus (sp?) satillite rocket under it. Maybe another member can remember the details. I always wondered why the USAF never just designed another Tallboy/GrandSlam type bomb and used the B-52s pylons designed to launch the X-15 to drop.
Jack E. Hammond
I’m not sure what the B-52’s inner pylons are rated at. Some of the loads carried include:
D-21 & Booster ~24,000lbs doesn’t include pylon
6 AGM-129 ~22,000lbs doesn’t include pylon
6 CALCM ~26,000lbs doesn’t include pylon
X-15A2 ~57,000lbs (don’t know if they had to strengthen the area though. Probably)
As for what SAM to use, imagine if they swapped out RAM missiles for LOSATs. Don’t know if they could maintain the accuracy but if they could that would sure screw up an antiship missile not to mention substantially improve your reaction time. And it would probably screw up a MOP pretty good too 😀
By: jackehammond - 18th September 2006 at 22:39
Dear Members,
Just debating for the point of debating. It would seem that the best defense against a MOP type of bomb (guided or otherwise) would be either the PAC-3 or a land based version of the Sea Wolf. As far as I know the Russians do not have any “hittite” SAM systems including the TOR. Although I have heard that the HE warheads of the TOR missiles are substaintial.
Finally, I can not remember the details, but I think the largest air droppable ability today without the parachute method out the rear deck is a converted L1011 that carries a Pegus (sp?) satillite rocket under it. Maybe another member can remember the details. I always wondered why the USAF never just designed another Tallboy/GrandSlam type bomb and used the B-52s pylons designed to launch the X-15 to drop.
Jack E. Hammond
By: sferrin - 18th September 2006 at 06:45
Just a few points:
Last weeks’ AvWeek gave the explosive fill as around 5000lbs on the MOP with the rest being metal. Good luck to TOR unless it hits a control surface.
Some estimate penetration as 200 feet through a mixture of dirt and concrete but don’t define the type and amount of either. (Remember the 1st GBU-28 dropped penetrated to 125 feet in hard packed dirt and is still there)
The B-29 could carry 2 12,000lb Tallboys as is shown in one of the photos on the heavy bomb site given above.
The B-36 could carry 2 44,000lb T-12s. Internally. (Just a side note, one of the broken arrows was a 42,000lb Mk17/24 that got dropped while the bay doors were closed. Needless to say they didn’t slow it down much 😮
By: Spacepope - 18th September 2006 at 04:51
Dear Jack,
Love the way you begin each of your replies, very classy!
Comparing a 500lb HE bomb to the MOP is an apples to oranges analogy. Detonating an HE bomb causes destruction of the entire thing. Dinging the MOP… Well let’s just say I’m viewing it from the standpoint that it is a high amount of fast moving mass… The inertia of the round will mean it retains its effectiveness, though the CEP may substantially increase.
By: jackehammond - 13th September 2006 at 09:06
What exactly would a Roland do to a MOP? You still have a huge tungsten slug falling from some tens of thousands of feet.
In any case, if the B-2 was dropping it, wouldn’t there be some sort of high-jamming environment that the B-2 operates in to disturb SAMs?
Dear Member,
A Roland would not cause the MOP to explode true. But it would most likely damage its guidance fins, etc. Remember that a ROLAND missile during the Falklands War destroyed a 500lb bomb that a British Sea Harrier was lob bombing at the Stanley airfield. As for the Russian TOR I believe it would cause the MOP to explode in flight.
Jack E. Hammond
By: Distiller - 13th September 2006 at 08:30
This is all fine all good, now the hardest part will be to know where to drop it.
Nic
What about a turbo-proped B-36? Still a few around and still has the largest bomb bay of all. 😀
By: Nicolas10 - 13th September 2006 at 05:03
This is all fine all good, now the hardest part will be to know where to drop it.
Nic
By: bring_it_on - 12th September 2006 at 07:22
They tried other options like agent orange, napalm, nukes or MOB… No wonder terrorist use allso unfriendly ways to return anger. I think it is just a circle. The more force you use the more you get in return.
I guess the next wonder weapon against these goons should be a 2000lb bomb stuffed with rose petals ?? Maybe then they’ll strap themselves with roses and show up at checkpoints ?? Or woluld they start launching carnations into the sea of japan!!
By: Route Pack Six - 12th September 2006 at 03:47
They tried other options like agent orange, napalm, nukes or MOB… No wonder terrorist use allso unfriendly ways to return anger. I think it is just a circle. The more force you use the more you get in return.
Next time we’ll try peaceful demonstrations to call for democratic reforms. Wait, that didn’t work in China very well. The PLA crashed the party at Tianenmen Square and pretty much squashed ’em good. So you see, kicking heads in does work pretty darn good.
By: mabie - 12th September 2006 at 03:46
time for Kim Il Sung to dig deeper.
might be difficult .. he’s been dead for quite a number of years
By: bring_it_on - 11th September 2006 at 19:48
The Damn thing will probably cause an earthquake!!
By: turboshaft - 11th September 2006 at 17:15
CGI of MOP from this week’s AW&ST.
By: Spacepope - 9th November 2004 at 05:03
What exactly would a Roland do to a MOP? You still have a huge tungsten slug falling from some tens of thousands of feet.
In any case, if the B-2 was dropping it, wouldn’t there be some sort of high-jamming environment that the B-2 operates in to disturb SAMs?
Sign In
July 16, 2004 at 9:13 pm
){kind=link}