Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Bunker Busters Bulk Up

None of them are anywhere near as cool as Deep Digger, the bunker-busting bomb that drills its way underground. But various arms of the Defense Department are working on a number of next-generation munitions, designed to take out deeply buried targets, Aviation Week writes.

mop-image57.gif

Pentagon will be testing the theory next year of whether bigger and heavier is... better for penetrators. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a behemoth of a bomb, weighing almost 30,000 lb. It is designed to "overwhelm target characterization uncertainties," according to program officials.

With 5,300 lb. of explosive material, MOP will pack more than 10 times the explosive punch of its BLU-109 [today's bunker-busting workhorse] predecessor... Optimum penetrating distance is classified, but some analysts say it is as much as 200 ft. through reinforced concrete and soil or sand...

MOP will have a blunter nose than its predecessors to keep the weapon intact during penetration... The majority of MOP's weight is actually carried in the heavy steel casing, according to AFRL [Air Force Research Lab] officials. Once the tests are finished next year, the Pentagon will decide whether to produce the MOP and begin a small stockpile...

About six years ago, AFRL officials developed the Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP), which can burrow twice the depth of the BLU-109. The weapon uses denser materials "to pack more mass into a smaller cross-section," Sands says. It is essentially a massive explosive bullet encased in a shroud that is dimensionally the same as the BLU-109. During penetration, the outer casing peals off, leaving the core to dig and detonate. The technology has been proven but has not been purchased by the Air Force, quite possibly because they need to go deeper still.

Thus, engineers have been experimenting with various steel formulations to improve the likelihood that a penetrator will survive on its path to a target without breaking up midcourse.

Through years of work, AAC and Ellwood National Forge in Irvine, Pa., have developed a very strong steel that is being used on the BLU-122, the Air Force's newest penetrator, weighing in at 5,000 lb. The team has applied for a patent for the chemical composition and manufacturing process that has produced "Eglin Steel," a strong blend estimated at one-eighth the cost of experimental metals with similar strength. Prior attempts to formulate similar steel have proved cost prohibitive. The patent for Eglin Steel -- a blend of carbon, chromium and tungsten for hardness, and of silicon and nickel for durability -- is under final review.

Latest Comments

True, but if you can seal off all the exits, who cares if they stay down there? If communication is cut off, let them suffocate down there.

Posted by: Brian at September 18, 2006 9:34 AM


Quote:
These weapons are cool and it probably doesn't hurt to have them on the shelf, but there's another big problem with underground facilities in denied areas: where are their vulnerable parts? Even if the entrances can be spotted, where do the tunnels go from there? A clever, if evil, opponent will presumably include at least a few zigs and zags to increase targeting uncertainties.
EndQuote

Some of the targets these bunker busters are intended for are tunnels deep into mountains, they are bunkers that were built in a huge hole and have been covered up by dirt/concrete/etc. So we know exactly where they are.

Iran has been using this method for large facilities that are presumed to be used for centrifuges. And when we talk about bunker busters, I would assume the sudden increased interest in them is due to Iran's activities.

Posted by: bespoke at September 15, 2006 7:52 PM


Question: if engineers can make a bomb hit a very small, precise location (say an exhaust vent), is there any reason you couldn't make bombs that play "follow-the-leader"? Acting like the teeth of a saw, could a large group of smaller munitions, striking a target in paced succession, dig deeper than one larger bomb?

Just curious; I'm in no way qualified to have an opinion one way or another, and I'd be glad to know why this wouldn't work.

Posted by: garmr at September 15, 2006 6:11 PM


Regarding the pentration depth/length ratio - I got the number from an exelent penetration technology overview right here...

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002177.html

BTW, the magic number is 4 lengths, not 5..

Posted by: Siconik at September 15, 2006 4:07 PM


Good point about the bomb length. B-52 bomb bay is 28 feet long by six foot wide. So you good put in a 27 foot long and 5 foot wide super penertrator bomb. using your formular of five times the projectile length, that gives you a penertration of 135 feet. Not counting rocket boost or special hardened casting or bomb with in a bomb or coated with teflon or some other exotic material. And dropped from over 40 thousand feet.

I mentioned before if you droped another large bomb first, blasting away soil and cement cover. Then drop your superbomb right down the same hole [[granted it would take a laser target to get that acurate.] It should be able to go even deeper than 200 feet.

On a side note, On my sugestion of using old 16" armour piercing shells as Bombs [as the Japs did at pearl harbor] Those shells can punch thru 30 feet of reinforced cement. How much damage this would do or how much damage the shock wave would do to materal below the exploding shell. I do not know!

Posted by: davids at September 15, 2006 3:34 PM


» View All 11 Comments

» Post a Comment