Posted on 07/04/2015 2:37:22 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
As diplomats rush to reach an agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, the U.S. military is stockpiling conventional bombs so powerful that strategists say they could cripple Tehran's most heavily fortified nuclear complexes, including one deep underground.
The bunker-busting bombs are America's most destructive munitions short of atomic weapons. At 15 tons, each is 5 tons heavier than any other bomb in the U.S. arsenal.
In development for more than a decade, the latest iteration of the MOP — massive ordnance penetrator — was successfully tested on a deeply buried target this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The test followed upgrades to the bomb's guidance system and electronics to stop jammers from sending it off course.
U.S. officials say the huge bombs, which have never been used in combat, are a crucial element in the White House deterrent strategy and contingency planning should diplomacy go awry and Iran seek to develop a nuclear bomb.
Obama has made it clear that he has no desire to order an attack, warning that U.S. airstrikes on Iran's air defense network and nuclear facilities would spark a destabilizing new war in the Middle East, and would only delay Iran by several years should it choose to build a bomb.
"A military solution will not fix it," Obama told Israeli TV on June 1. An attack "would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it will not eliminate it."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Popman: “Well, Gaddafi didn’t realized he was dealing with people, the WH, State Dept, (Hillary and Obama) who were even more devious and evil then he was...”
Ain’t that the truth!
Obviously a planted story. First off, dear leader will agree to anything the Iranians ask for. This is just propaganda to make it look like they’re playing “tough” when in fact the US negotiators would hand over a signed, blank piece of paper and beg the Iranians to put anything they want on it.
Second, if on the off chance the Iranians don’t agree to a sweetheart deal, dear leader would never use said bombs anyway. Except maybe on Americans.
Baloney! They would go bankrupt rebuilding all the facilities and centrifuges from scratch. Bunker busters will collapse the underground tunnels and chambers. They will turn the underground chambers into rubble. Iran's criminal leaders would have to start over. The Iranian people may have a rope waiting for such leaders as the cheapest "solution".
I would rather see Israel use her Jericho III IRBMs with 30kt precision nukes.
They need to give it a dynamic test in Washington DC.
We know that it has the power to go deep into the ground and then explode but the burning question is: “will it kill vermin?”
The perfect place to find vermin out of control is in Washington DC.
Not really. Sounds good, but unlike Hollywood and their silly movies where you simply strap a weapon on an aircraft and go drop it, that simply can't happen.
The weapon is so huge that no aircraft the IAF flies is able to load it internally, and the weapon is so large if they tried to strap in on externally there is no ground clearance (drag the weapon on the ground), and there is no space on the wing pylons either.
And if an aircraft is to drop this guided free-fall weapon accurately there needs to be extensive integration and software programming and live testing to ensure safe separation and accurate delivery.
The MOP is huge and right now the B-52 is the only platform we have that can carry it, with the B-2 under testing.
The meaning of the statement was that they were to be used ON Israel, not by.
As if King Putt would ever support Israel. He’s already blocked weapons shipments a dozen times.
“With the release of Hillary’s emails it appears that she may have been offered a financial inducement from Libyan businessmen with Sid Blumenthal as bag man. And her zeal to kill Qaddafi may have been based on simple greed.”
Never mind all that. Everyone knows that the real scandal is that a Republican candidate got four speeding tickets in the last 20 years. /sarcasm
Pure smoke screen.. the bunker bombs are needed for the real threat.. TEA folks and their cookies!
So now the WH is saying Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.
Hum......They owe John McCain an apology
If we bomb them back to the Stone Age, THAT’LL stop them.
They want Nukes, let’s give ‘em Nukes, delivered at 2,000 ft.
I read this report as a way for Obama to get support for his agreement to Iran. It will lull people, and Rats/media will use it as evidence that Obama is negotiating from a position of strength.
You cite WWII (70-yrs ago). Things have changed a lot since then.
Back in WWII it took 9,070 bombs dropped from B-17s to achieve a 90% Pk on a 60’ x 100’ target. . .not effective, really.
Korea/Vietnam, 176 bombs for same size target for same Pk.
Gulf War I, same size target for same Pk, one (1) bomb and we now see successful strategic air campaigns.
Accuracy is important in strategic campaigns.
See Gulf War I for an example of how effective strategic bombing can be. Gulf War I data is extensively analyzed in the Gulf War Air Power Study (GWAPS).**
GWAPS is quite interesting and informative and show that if we couple effective intel and targeting (John Warden's Five Rings), and execute the mission with effective and accurate weapons, strategic bombing is highly successful.
The Paths of Heaven (http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0029_meilinger_paths_of_heaven.pdf) is a book that explores air power evolution and demonstrates that strategic campaigns are exceptionally effective today. Chapter 10 (”Chapter 10, John Boyd and John Warden: Airpower’s Quest for Strategic Paralysis) has an excellent discussion on the subject.
In Gulf War I, basing our strategic campaign on John Warden's Five Rings concept, our strategic air campaign was exceptionally effective—like ground combat, air power benefits from attacking Centers of Gravity.
Basically, strategic campaigns work, air power can, under certain conditions, now be “primary” fire - with ground forces supporting (heresy but true). Gulf War I was such a case - Effective and devastating application of strategic air power with ground forces supporting.
Yes, yes, yes, we all know one can't win without the other. However, with improvements in air power this means primary fire can now be situational. In Gulf War I, air power was primary. In Afghanistan, the situation is reversed and ground fire is primary. Situational. . . .
Strategic campaigns work if, like ground campaigns, the planners and warriors are allowed to do their job, and with today's “perfumed princes” in DC, we are leaping backward towards Vietnam where neither air power or ground power were applied correctly.
**Select GWAPS Volumes:
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-061.pdf
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279744.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a279741.pdf
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-067.pdf
Etc. . . .
I think he meant, to be used ON Israel, not by Israel.
I’m pretty sure that the secret message or phone call the other day—that was between 0 and Zarif or the Supreme Towelhead—was 0 graciously reassuring that Iran would get everything they want and more, and of course the ‘negotiations’ (yeah, right) were and are just a front, no worries. ‘They have devoured my deceit like a dog after raw meat’, Obomination jokes with them.
I also have no doubt that the ‘negotiations’ were a code name for ‘party with my muslim brothers’, where food and drink flowed freely and laughter and entertainment ensued.
If we bomb them back to the Stone Age, THAT’LL stop them.
“So when did we begin this stockpiling?”
FY2010: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-083.pdf (Page 179-184)
“In the defense procurement process, when did we order these munitions and on what delivery schedule?”
Started RDT&E in FY2011, with first published schedule R-1, Line Item #49, page 10 of 11 (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100201-049.pdf)
“Have we stockpiled them because Obama refused to send them to Israel, who requested and bought them?”
No. RTD&E program, limited production for testing. Israel has NOT requested them and has NOT bought them. See my previous post describing why.
“What are our normal stock levels of the bombs”
There are no “normal” levels of weapons reserves. All sorts of weapons, all sorts of missions, from your basic MK-92 (gazillions) to nukes (not gazzillions). No “normal levels.
“what is our ramp up time to what levels in manufacturing should larger quantities be needed? “
Ramp up time. . it depends. If current full-rate production on a general purpose weapon, not much. Specialized weapons, however, no matter what you do, unless you build another factory the rate is what it is.
We have not sold, transferred or given the MOP to Israel. Post 27.
With terrain. Iraq is flat. Iran is more like Afghanistan than Iraq. It's much easier to bury and hide things in the side of a mountain than to go down in a plain.
My suspicion is that bunker busters will cause delay in Iran's program, but not shut it down unless we create sufficient chaos within the country to bring down the regime. The problem there is that Europe, Russia, and Asia are just craven enough to keep it afloat. That leaves total war as the only option. Iran it a big place. We've lost our basing in Iraq and would get very little other local support. We're out of money, our equipment is tired, and our credit line is toast.
Bush blew it big time when he stopped in Baghdad to 'fix what we broke.' He should have immediately gone to work destabilizing Tehran. It may still be possible, but it will involve protracted ground work that gives Iran time to go full nuclear with the demonstrable willingness to use it. Can we buy that time with a bunker buster? Don't know.
You?
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.