Not a good choice. That would make it ugly and ineffective...
Then again, that face could stop a WMD.
Posted on 07/14/2005 1:34:42 PM PDT by LibWhacker
DESPITE the intelligence failure that led the Bush administration to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon is pressing ahead with the development of technologies designed to destroy WMDs. Its latest idea is a bomb that can destroy deeply buried WMD storage bunkers by cutting through earth and concrete inside a bubble of air.
Traditional "bunker busters" are streamlined bombs that rely on sheer weight to force their way through soil, rock or concrete. But the new design has a blunt nose that forces the earth ahead of it out to the sides, creating a cavity the bomb can easily slide through, allowing it to reach much deeper buried structures than conventional bunker busters.
New Scientist has learned that the novel warhead is being developed for the Pentagon's Defence Threat Reduction Agency by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control of Dallas, Texas, in conjunction with the US navy's Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, Maryland. The DTRA wants the warhead to carry an incendiary payload for incinerating chemical or biological agents.
The design builds on the US navy's work on high-speed torpedoes (New Scientist, 22 July 2000, p 26), which reduce friction around themselves by creating a gas bubble called a supercavity. The Russians have had such a torpedo since the 1990s: called Shkval, it can travel at 360 kilometres per hour.
To create a supercavity that surrounds but doesn't touch the body that created it, the object has to be travelling very fast- at least 180 kilometres an hour if it is in water. And the nose has to be flat to force fluid off the edge with such speed and at such an angle that it avoids hitting the surface of the body. But if this is to be achieved, the result is a supercavitating body with extremely low drag. Instead of being encased in water, it is simply surrounded by water vapour, which is less dense and has less resistance.
But supercavitation may not be limited to liquids. At high enough velocity a blunt-nosed body will force apart any medium it travels through, whether it be water, soil or concrete. If the cavity is large enough, the only surface in contact with the medium will be the blunt tip of the nose.
Lockheed Martin hopes the supercavitating missile will reach 10 times the depth of the current air force record holder, the huge BLU-113 bunker buster, which can break through 7 metres of concrete or 30 metres of earth.
The BLU-113 needs a thick casing to withstand the friction, but a supercavitating bomb suffers less resistance and so could have a thin casing, leaving more space for its explosive or incendiary payload. But some experts are sceptical. "I am still not certain that the term 'cavitation' is correct for a solid," says Nathan Okun, a naval historian. And Robert Nelson of the Union of Concerned Scientists says, "I could believe a penetration factor increase of two but I don't believe a factor of ten." Michael Levi of the Brookings Institution, a Washington DC think tank, sees the need, however. "Increased penetration is more important for chemical and biological agent destroying weapons than other bunker busters because it's essential to get detonation inside the storage area."
Lockheed Martin will soon be putting an end to the speculation: four prototype weapons are due to be tested later this year.
(Yes, I despise the media's obsession with taking gratuitous shots at George Bush every time one of the losers writes a story.)
Let's call it the "Helen Thomas."
I still want to know why we havent used any of the MOABs. Why build them if we arent gonna have some fun with them?
Not a good choice. That would make it ugly and ineffective...
Then again, that face could stop a WMD.
And by all accounts, destroys the submarine trying to fire it.
This would seem to be a rather tricky weapon to use, because something traveling that fast can't turn very fast.
Let me get this straight.
We haven't found any WMDs in Iraq, therefore we will never have any need for a way to destroy them, in Iraq or anywhere else.
Does not compute.
We used them in Afganistan. They are unsuitable for use in urban invironments, which is where most of the Iraq battles took/take place.
You may be right, but I've always thought she creates a supercavity!
Oopw, a cut an past error in #9 above, I was refering to Moabs.
It seems that the German Bunker Building Engineers beat our Bunker Buster Development Engineers in the Battle of Saddam's bunkers. I hope we learned the right lessons (whatever they are) and win the next round.
This is called "desperate for a sneering lead line" in J-school.
If youv'e seen the bunkers that I've seen, we won that battle. Maybe the bunkers you are talking about are the 'undisclosed locations' that they are keeping Sadaam in.
I'm sure you're right. I just fail to see how the failure to find WMDs in Iraq has any connection to the story.
MOAB is a massive fuel air bomb...devastating to surface targets or large formation of troops but not so affective against hardened underground targets.
10 times the depth? I don't buy it. Maybe if they dropped a regular bunker buster just ahead of this new one to create less "hardpack" maybe. Or just drop one regular one after another one. Just guessing.
I'm skeptical, too, that's for sure. :-)
But the principle makes intuitive sense and sounds like it might actually work. The future's gonna be an amazing place!
I think this puppy has Little Kim's name on it.
"The Russians have had such a torpedo since the 1990s: called Shkval"
this is very bad news....I hope we have developed them too.
China is known to be buying these.
"because something traveling that fast can't turn very fast."
With all the friction? I think it could turn on a quarter. But torpedoes are designed to hit ships or subs which can't turn that fast either.
The downside of this torpedo is that it would one noisy SOB with all the cavitation and could be tracked down by another torpedo using sound to locate and destroy it before it hits a ship.
The downside of the torp is that it can't use any homing gear while supercavitating. It would have to slow to down to look for the target, or else be fired like an unguided bullet.
Hit a 200 mph torpedo? Good luck. This torpedo wasn't designed to home on anything. It was/is a last ditch self-defense weapon for SSBNs. You do the math on what they are going to put inside for a warhead. I'm betting on a really big boom just outside of the lethal range of the shooter.
Me, too, thanks! Going in my quote file.
Then the supercavity torps don't work on land! ;-)
SENATOR Kennedy?
Yes, but a rather distant second...which is OK, as long as we only have to mix it up with those further down the list than we.
H-m-m-m.
I'm no expert but perhaps they are borrowing from shaped charge technology. It might be a two-phase device with the first "charge" (could even be non-explosive compressed gas) creating the "bubble" for the warhead that carries the second-phase explosive.
The "bubble" wouldn't have to last long - at over 180 kph it's going to dig a hole pretty quickly.
A 180 knot torpedo? Remind me to stay out/off of the water.
Good morning Iran and North Korea!
Because we only built a very few prototypes, and didn't even test drop all of those. Not really a real useful weapon anyway, except for the intimidation factor. (Shock and Awe squared).
It doesn't need to turn very fast. By the time you know it's coming, you don't have time to move out of the way enough to matter.
I don't think supercavitation would stop radar.
What makes you think that? It was Saddam's movement scheme that defeated our intelligence collection. He moved faster than we could find out where he was. The bunkers that were targeted were busted, AFAIK.
"And by all accounts, destroys the submarine trying to fire it."
Is it made by the Acme Torpedo company, by chance?
That would be city buster, not a bunker buster. A small compact city or town at least. Sort of like one of the boroughs of New York, area wise.
I hope you are right. I do not have any first hand information. I remember standing on Hitler's bunker in Berlin and the Flak Towers. They were very impressive ... 90 degree turns various layers of steel, dirt and concrete.The 'History Channel' stories haven't disclosed the actual results. Those stories were very interesting to me. They would have made great follow up stories. The public statements since the war say the results are classified. That leads me to think we failed. If we had succeeded, I should would have expected it to be shown.
I remember General Downing publicly saying that during Desert Storm he had something like 180+ reports on Saddam's location. He thought most of the reports were false or outdated. You definitely are correct about Saddam's movement scheme. I would sure like to see if his bunkers were busted.
ping
A better device is called your infantry on the ground.
Water will stop radar - subs don't user radar except for airborne warning and torpedoes are sonar homing. Maybe a blue-green lidar?
Thanks, I didn't know that.
"Maybe a blue-green lidar?"
What's that?
Laser based radar. The blue green frequency goes through the water a little better. Mostly an Science Fiction concept right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.