In the news this week is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and its acceptance into USAF service.
At 14 tonnes the MOP is the heaviest air delivered bomb ever created but the tremendous engineering challenges involved with creating such a deep penetration weapon have taken some time to resolve. As much a strategic weapon as anything else it will no doubt create a reaction, driving those with something to hide deeper (more expensive) underground.
But enough of these new fangled weapons, what about when the UK ruled the roost in making things go bang in a rather spectacular fashion.
The engineering genius Barnes Wallis proposed a 10 tonne bomb that used ground penetration and the power of shock waves in 1941 but it wasn’t until mid 1944 that the weapon was first deployed against a French rail tunnel.
The Tallboy bomb weighed in at around 5.4 tonnes, Wikipedia has a very good piece on Tallboy that is well worth a read and especially interesting is the precision manufacturing and ingenious multiple delayed fusing mechanisms. Tallboy enjoyed a great deal of operational success including sinking the Tirpitz
Tallboy was just the warm act though, the main event was the aptly named Grand Slam.
Grand Slam was nearly twice as heavy as Tallboy, 10 tonnes, Grand Slam also enjoyed success but arguably less than Tallboy depending how you view these things. Bridges and submarine pens were particular specialities and the first use of Grand Slam was by 617 Squadron against the Schildesche viaduct in suburbs of Bielefeld in Germany.
The web site Bomber History has an excellent account of the attack and its aftermath, click here to view
The Tallboy also spawned the USAF TARZON bomb
Comparing Tallboy and Grandslam with MOP is interesting but the WWII bombs were never intended to have the same concrete penetration capability as MOP but after 60 years, it seems what goes around seems very much to come around.
I also thought it was an interesting bridge building themed story, just working on the next bridging post.
Just…. wow.
That’s a serious amount of explosive. *Now goes off to look up Tarzon bomb.
Strange robot voice on the first video! She seemed to struggle with ‘penetrator’ for some reason…
Interesting that they’ve gone with lattice fins – is this for bomb bay stowage like with the MOAB?
According to an ancient Guinness book of records, the US dropped a 42,000lb (19050kg) bomb at Muroc Dry Lake on 14 Mar 1945. Think it was for the B36?
some more images here;
http://www.gizmag.com/massive-ordnance-penetrator-mop-gbu-57ab/20538/
by the way ever noticed that some of the roads on the training area at BATUS are called 5 mile circle, 10 mile circle and in the centre of these is a chuffing great crater? They did explosive trials there with some big beasties many years ago.
robotic voice is text to speech software
knew i wasn’t mad!! this short clip shows them exploding a 1,000,000 lbs of TNT in a oner!!
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675035418_TNT-explosion_Suffield-Experimental-Station_sees-through-binoculars_smoke-rising
also where they tested chemical weapons during WWII, if my memory is right i’m sure there were OOB and no dig areas still present in the 90′s
Not sure if we’re just dealing with conventional weapons here, but the American Mk17 and Mk24 H-bombs both turned the scales at 21 tons and were carried by the B36. 200 Mk17′s and 105 Mk24′s were in service from 1954 to August 1957.
Daily Telegraph 12 Sept 2007, Russia exploded “the father of all bombs”, a vacuum device capable of emitting shockwaves as powerful as a nuclear weapon. Dropped from a TU160. Does anyone know any more?
Just reminds me of this word combination (which in itself does not sound right): jet fuel air (bomb)
- big device, not though the explosive effect, but by sucking up air and burning it overground deals with even the biggest bunkers?
Fuel Air Bombs – they can be potent, but unpredictable and unreliable.
This ” as powerful as a nuclear weapon. Dropped from a TU160″ smacks of desperation (if not a test) as TU160 is a strategic bomber
- could be that it was the only one with enough of lift
@ ACC – I believe it may be strategic in concept; apparently it will replace a number of nuclear weapon types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
For all those who thought DE&S had issues with procurement costs, $340m for 20 weapons??
@ Hannay,
I’d have thought that one of those big bombs *was* the answer to issues with DE&S.
As my CEO (in the past, and nothing to do with defence) said:
You put a neutron bomb in the HQ… the people gone, fixed assets untouched and shareholder value up
@ ACC – “As my CEO (in the past, and nothing to do with defence) said:
You put a neutron bomb in the HQ… the people gone, fixed assets untouched and shareholder value up”.
Well, thats the banking crisis solved…
Good thing these penetrators (lol) are going away from nuclear warheads, interesting… could we see this new weapon being exported to certain countries?
Anyone else think that this bomb is for dropping on a certain mountain in Iran?
The Russian bomb was not dropped by a Tu-160, it was pushed out of the back of a transport aircraft as the video released at the time demonstrated if you looked closely enough.
Hafnium 178 nuclear isomer bomb. New Scientist 16 Aug 2003. Would muddy the water between conventional & nuclear weapons. One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilos of TNT. The effect of a nuclear isomer explosion would be to release high energy gamma rays capable of killing anything living in the immediate area. It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion. A nuclear isomer explosion does not involve fission or fusion, so slots in the same category as depleted uranium projectiles.
In 2003, they said the production technology would be ready in 5-10 years. Does anyone know its current status?
JOhn -I will go look this up on Google, however I can for the life of me see how it could create Gamma rays without fission or fussion ?
OK according to wikipedia the ability of Hafnium to be forced to give up its energy in a gamma ray burst is still under dispute. So no Hafnium “neutron bombs” anytime soon
Jed
Google has loads from 2007/8. Seems half the articles think its possible, while the other half have serious doubts. Slightly worrying, is the article saying Russia & China are collaborating on this. We have got so used to fighting enemies armed only with AKs & IEDs, we have taken our eye off the future tech ball.
Nothing new seems to have come out in regards to a Hf bomb for a few years. Either this was an idea based on dodgy science which no one can duplicate and which no self-respecting boffin will now touch, or research went black three or four years ago – take your pick of the rumours.
There seems to be more credible research into using isomer decay for ‘atomic batteries’, providing a small but fantastically expensive power source for limited military and space applications.
John H suggests that a hafnium isomer bomb would muddy the waters between conventional and nuclear weapons. However, such a radiological weapon would be viewed by most people as being in the same WMD nasty category as regular run-of-the-mill nukes. You’d certainly see similar casualties to those you’d get from fission weapons.
One problem with deploying an isomer bomb is escalation – as a targeted country without similar technology might turn to other more accessable, but perhaps deadlier and dirtier, CBRN weapons for its defence.
Brian B.
If, its a big if, an enemy developed hafnium weapons & proceeded to wipe out our conventional forces, how would we respond? With 100kt Trident warheads? With all the escalation risks.
Escalation can occur well before all out conflict, John.
If Country-A were to develop some kind of ‘super weapon’ -isomer bomb, or a non-nuclear bomb but with the yield of a small nuke, or whatever- then pretty soon Country-B wants its own super weapon.
And if Country-B doesn’t have the same knowledge as A, then it may fall back on the old favourites. Nukes are old-hat nowadays, any country that wants to spend the money and p-off the yanks can develop a nuke; bio and chemical weapons are easier and cheaper.
Fielding weapons, such as a hafnium bomb, could easily lead to more nuclear or WMD proliferation. Even if a country which already has nukes -like the US- fields such bombs, it could increase WMD proliferation as potential combatants might believe that the US would be quicker to use one than a regular nuke.
We can already see something similar with Iran and N.Korea. Countries that weren’t likely to be nuked by anyone developing nuclear weapons programmes. In their case though, the perceived threat is not from a single type of super weapon, but the scale and scope of their ideological opponents’ conventional forces.
In answer to your question, as I mentioned earlier, hafnium isomer bombs are radiological weapons. If an enemy were wiping out our forces with such weapons, then I think the UK would definately consider a nuclear response.
Another question though; would a B2 squadron -armed with conventional precision weapons, nuke cruise, and the f’king big penetrator- be more practical use to the UK and more of a detterent to attack than Trident?
BB
We have got used to fighting enemies only armed with AKs & IEDs. God help us, if we meet an enemy with weapons ahead of ours (nuclear isomer warheads, supersonic cruise missiles, electro thermal guns).
I have long wanted the UK to take an F-35 10% stake on the 2018 US regional bomber(now 2024). UK aerospace industry needs a follow on to Typhoon & F-35. The yanks are talking of $550 m a bomber, which seems a bit steep. If their budget worries mean a slightly less capable, but much cheaper version, then it would also be ideal for the RAF. The Tornado never had the long range needed. USAF wants a long range supersonic cruise missile for the regional bomber. If this was merged with Perseus, on a 50/50 split, there would be savings for them & us.