Pentagon building new 15 ton bomb.

[Spetsznaz]

Err...

Yes, a transport plane can carry this bomb (in fact airlifters were the only planes large enough to carry the heavy and bulky MOAD, IIRC). The problem is, this plane is going to be slow-moving and a potentially very vulnerable target to any enterprising person with a SAM. Not exactly an ideal delivery platform if you want to penetrate an IADS.

And as a far as I know, Israel has never had a strategic bomber and they never will. Their foreign policy is focused on their immediate surroundings in the Middle East, rather than on bombing the bejeezus out of some country on the other side of the globe. And there's no way a fighter jets' going to carry that kind of load.

Look I think your wrong, not only is America in love with giving Israel weapons that some many other countries including NATO members will never get, such as the suggestion to give Israel 24 f-22(This was a while ago and never put into action) I think that Israel having bombers is very possible.

If Israel will want bomber they will have them, I dont think the US will hand them a B-2 but who knows perhaps if Israel is in serious war, NOT JUST BORDER FIGHT, It may recieve B-52's perhaps?

[Mod Edit: You seem to need a little bit of help to get back of track. Fyi, you are derailing the thread. Try to stick to the thread topic and please fact check your posts. Learn to conduct a meaningful discussion via the presentation of facts to form an argument before I start to edit out your factual errors and wild speculation for you. I would like to see links in your future posts since your posted opinions are often based on wrong information or from your imagination. Think through the actual strategic options available before engaging in wild speculation that does not add to your discussion with other forum members.

If you are engaging in purely unfounded speculation, kindly have the courtesy to state that what you post is purely speculative. However, please note that this approach is not preferred, as we are a defence forum, not a fantasy story book forum.]

 

[Bonza]

Look I think your wrong, not only is America in love with giving Israel weapons that some many other countries including NATO members will never get, such as the suggestion to give Israel 24 f-22(This was a while ago and never put into action) I think that Israel having bombers is very possible.

If Israel will want bomber they will have them, I dont think the US will hand them a B-2 but who knows perhaps if Israel is in serious war, NOT JUST BORDER FIGHT, It may recieve B-52's perhaps?

Looking past your political commentary, when exactly did the US "suggest" giving the F-22 to Israel? I want credible sources. Because I think you'll find nothing of the sort happened.

And you're missing Kilo 2-3's point. He was saying that the foreign policy of Israel precludes the need for heavy bombers, and I agree. It's not a matter of whether or not they could obtain them, they probably could. The point is they don't have a requirement for one so they wouldn't serve any purpose by obtaining one.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Look I think your wrong, not only is America in love with giving Israel weapons that some many other countries including NATO members will never get, such as the suggestion to give Israel 24 f-22(This was a while ago and never put into action) I think that Israel having bombers is very possible.

If Israel will want bomber they will have them, I dont think the US will hand them a B-2 but who knows perhaps if Israel is in serious war, NOT JUST BORDER FIGHT, It may recieve B-52's perhaps?

Ok, sir. You have every right to disagree with me.

Israel is in some ways something of a US favorite, no doubt about it, and the US has made some very, very generous deals with them regarding military technology. (Look at the US 11th hour airlift/aid package to Israel during 1973). The fact of the matter is, unlike the NATO states, Israel is in something of a perpetual state of low-grade war with Hamas, and at times other Arab states. Israel gets "special treatment" in part because it needs the military equipment, and Israel, unlike NATO countries like the UK and Germany, chooses to buy "large items" like fighter jets from overseas sources rather than scratch-build and develop them at home (the Israeli's do have a roaring trade in after-market upgrades and in smaller items like assault rifles, etc). But I digress.....

Can you think of anybody Israel would want to start a war with? And if they did need strategic reach, why wouldn't they just use guided missiles rather than bombers? The Buffs are aging and I seriously doubt Israel would want them.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Looking past your political commentary, when exactly did the US "suggest" giving the F-22 to Israel? I want credible sources. Because I think you'll find nothing of the sort happened.

And you're missing Kilo 2-3's point. He was saying that the foreign policy of Israel precludes the need for heavy bombers, and I agree. It's not a matter of whether or not they could obtain them, they probably could. The point is they don't have a requirement for one so they wouldn't serve any purpose by obtaining one.

Hey dude, sorry I haven't got back to you, I was so sick this week

I read in a Issue of "Tactical Weapons" Magazine that some high ranking military officials said, it would not be a bad idea to give Israel some F-22 (for a price of course) I am sorry but I searched my whole house and I cant find the magazine, where I read that. You are just going to have to trust me or not trust me on that on.

Another issue is that with Iran having the S-300 US could give Israel a F-22 which the S-300 system wont reach.

"Thomas D. Crimmins of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has written about the possible Israeli strike on Iran says that the F-22 may be the only current aircraft that can evade the Russian S-300 air defense system which the Russians may transfer to Iran. Given the export limitations on the F-22, Israel's lack of any F-22s may force it to preemptively strike the Nuclear program of Iran before the delivery of the S-300 to Iran." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Ban_on_exports)

 

[Bonza]

Hey dude, sorry I haven't got back to you, I was so sick this week

I read in a Issue of "Tactical Weapons" Magazine that some high ranking military officials said, it would not be a bad idea to give Israel some F-22 (for a price of course) I am sorry but I searched my whole house and I cant find the magazine, where I read that. You are just going to have to trust me or not trust me on that on.

Another issue is that with Iran having the S-300 US could give Israel a F-22 which the S-300 system wont reach.

"Thomas D. Crimmins of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has written about the possible Israeli strike on Iran says that the F-22 may be the only current aircraft that can evade the Russian S-300 air defense system which the Russians may transfer to Iran. Given the export limitations on the F-22, Israel's lack of any F-22s may force it to preemptively strike the Nuclear program of Iran before the delivery of the S-300 to Iran." (F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Hey dude, no worries.

It's not a matter of trusting you about the article or not, it's a matter of taking it for what it's worth and placing it in the context of the discussion. By this I mean that while some military officers might have said it would be a good idea to give Israel access to the F-22, that is very very different from what you initially said, which was that the US suggested they would give the F-22 to Israel.

The difference is that, when you say "the US said this", it reads like you are commenting on the nation as a whole and so it looks as though you're commenting on policy, and currently policy dictates that the F-22 is not for export.

I'm sure you have read an article where an officer said such an arms deal would be a possibility, but it's important when you're discussing these things to draw distinction between what an officer has said and what state policy dictates. The personal thoughts of a military officer and the policy of the US government are very different things - I know you know this, but it's important to remember the distinctions when forming a point of view.

 

[Awang se]

This is a free fall bomb. No way a B-52 will carry this things. And the intended target is a deep underground command bunker which'll be heavily protected. Unless they can make the MOB with engine, it's strictly for B-2 or B-3.

 

[Spetsznaz]

This is a free fall bomb. No way a B-52 will carry this things. And the intended target is a deep underground command bunker which'll be heavily protected. Unless they can make the MOB with engine, it's strictly for B-2 or B-3.

What the hell is a B-3? There Is a B-3 bomber?

Why was I not informed?

And if there is I want a good look at that thing:sniper

 

[Bonza]

What the hell is a B-3? There Is a B-3 bomber?

Why was I not informed?

And if there is I want a good look at that thing:sniper

I think he was just using the term to indicate the US future bomber, whatever shape it may take.

 

[haveblue128]

New Defense Hardware and WMD -- (Foreign Policy)

[FONT=&quot]US-Israeli foreign policy is always a hot topic, but below is an antidote. Please look at the following: JPost and Haaratz…AM Israeli News Headlines.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Haaratz Headline-- [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Israel envoy: U.S. ties at their worst in 35 years.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Lead editorial: Netanyahu's rhetoric over policy is jeopardizing Israel

JPost Headline-Worst crisis with US since 1975

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Lots of "speculative" facts in this thread: Hopefully I won't add to them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will add my voice to the choir: The US is not considering foreign military sales of F-22 Raptors in the near-term-period. [/FONT]F-35 is another issue.
[FONT=&quot]
Based on "Spetsznaz" comments regarding the “love” America shares with Israel, see the above and others, globally. That love is cooling down fast. It is no longer a strategic necessity for the US to support Israel-period. Why? The Cold War is history. Although the Bush admin broke a 30 year lockout on US intelligence “carte blanche” for Israel, that wall has likely been raised again.(Reagan’s Intell Chief in 1981)[/FONT] The Israel Lobby in the Congress is powerful, but it is long past time for ME peace
[FONT=&quot]
MOB and Iran's Nuke program:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is a far more complex problem to solve-not like Operation Opera. Apparently, it is well dispersed and in underground tunnels/bunkers-all wrapped inside a steel reinforced concrete encasement. Enter MOP-a bomb that drills down into this type of facility and destroys it. While this may create a deterrent, the largest mission problem is intelligence. A Pentagon spokesperson said recently "that “we would need to divine targets" to succeed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Does the MOP have uses? Yes. Tunnels/Bunkers are tough to literally crack. Iran (N. Korea too) is using this approach to protect their Nuke program.[/FONT] Internal problems-tech and political-may overtake events but it is not bad news. A long shot however towards resolution..
[FONT=&quot]It was recently reported that one of Iran's biggest enrichment cascades is in disrepair. They do not have a robust industrial base, thus no surprise. The civil unrest in Iran has kept the Council of Clerics up at night. If a rift forms within the cadre of JO's in the Republican Guard, this discussion may become moot, or dangerous, fast. All of these factors are part of a tricky equation.

B-3 bomber? A new UCAV-Bomber is in the pipeline....
[/FONT]

 

[Spetsznaz]

[FONT=&quot]US-Israeli foreign policy is always a hot topic, but below is an antidote. Please look at the following: JPost and Haaratz…AM Israeli News Headlines.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Lots of "speculative" facts in this thread: Hopefully I won't add to them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will add my voice to the choir: The US is not considering foreign military sales of F-22 Raptors in the near-term-period. [/FONT]F-35 is another issue.
[FONT=&quot]
Based on "Spetsznaz" comments regarding the “love” America shares with Israel, see the above and others, globally. That love is cooling down fast. It is no longer a strategic necessity for the US to support Israel-period. Why? The Cold War is history. Although the Bush admin broke a 30 year lockout on US intelligence “carte blanche” for Israel, that wall has likely been raised again.(Reagan’s Intell Chief in 1981)[/FONT] The Israel Lobby in the Congress is powerful, but it is long past time for ME peace
[FONT=&quot]
MOB and Iran's Nuke program:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is a far more complex problem to solve-not like Operation Opera. Apparently, it is well dispersed and in underground tunnels/bunkers-all wrapped inside a steel reinforced concrete encasement. Enter MOP-a bomb that drills down into this type of facility and destroys it. While this may create a deterrent, the largest mission problem is intelligence. A Pentagon spokesperson said recently "that “we would need to divine targets" to succeed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Does the MOP have uses? Yes. Tunnels/Bunkers are tough to literally crack. Iran (N. Korea too) is using this approach to protect their Nuke program.[/FONT] Internal problems-tech and political-may overtake events but it is not bad news. A long shot however towards resolution..
[FONT=&quot]It was recently reported that one of Iran's biggest enrichment cascades is in disrepair. They do not have a robust industrial base, thus no surprise. The civil unrest in Iran has kept the Council of Clerics up at night. If a rift forms within the cadre of JO's in the Republican Guard, this discussion may become moot, or dangerous, fast. All of these factors are part of a tricky equation.

B-3 bomber? A new UCAV-Bomber is in the pipeline....
[/FONT]

The strong ties with Israel were not just for the cold war as you seem to put it bluntly:rwb

Its in the US best interest to maintain good ties with Israel for future purposes obviously

Perhaps the US will not supply and or fund Israel as well as they did in the past, but the minute bad things start to happen ESPECIALLY in the middle east, you are looking at US taking Israel out for expensive diners

Also Titles of newspapers articles don't say to much, and there is currently no Strong evidence that the ties between the US and Israel are in jeopardy

PS: I love your username! Haveblue GO SKUNKWORKS BABY!

 

[Kilo 2-3]

MOB and Iran's Nuke program

This is a far more complex problem to solve-not like Operation Opera. Apparently, it is well dispersed and in underground tunnels/bunkers-all wrapped inside a steel reinforced concrete encasement. Enter MOP-a bomb that drills down into this type of facility and destroys it. While this may create a deterrent, the largest mission problem is intelligence. A Pentagon spokesperson said recently "that “we would need to divine targets" to succeed.

Does the MOP have uses? Yes. Tunnels/Bunkers are tough to literally crack. Iran (N. Korea too) is using this approach to protect their Nuke program.Internal problems-tech and political-may overtake events but it is not bad news. A long shot however towards resolution..

It was recently reported that one of Iran's biggest enrichment cascades is in disrepair. They do not have a robust industrial base, thus no surprise. The civil unrest in Iran has kept the Council of Clerics up at night. If a rift forms within the cadre of JO's in the Republican Guard, this discussion may become moot, or dangerous, fast. All of these factors are part of a tricky equation.

B-3 bomber? A new UCAV-Bomber is in the pipeline....

The idea of the USAF's replacement bomber has been kicked around for a long time, nothing really productive has come out besides some very rough concepts. I do have to imagine though this new 15-tonner is going to dictate some aspects of its design, that is, if heavy.bulky bombloads weren't already part of the requirements for the B-3.

As for Iran, it's nice little despotic self ain't going anywhere. Yes it has civil unrest, but its ability to brainwash, brutalize, and overcome obstacles should not be underestimated. If they want nukes, they will get them. How powerful they'll be and how they'll deliver them is a whole 'nother story.

So, the question is, will Israel develop a bunker-buster nuke (if they don't already have one) and pull an Osirak on Iran?

 

[Marc 1]

The strong ties with Israel were not just for the cold war as you seem to put it bluntly:rwb

Its in the US best interest to maintain good ties with Israel for future purposes obviously

What future purposes? The US can strike anywhere on the globe by air or amphibious means - why does it 'need' Israel?

Perhaps the US will not supply and or fund Israel as well as they did in the past, but the minute bad things start to happen ESPECIALLY in the middle east, you are looking at US taking Israel out for expensive diners

Dunno about that. Every time the US tries to create peace in the middle East it collapses and leaves a lot of US politicians looking stupid. And you cannot pin all the blame on the Arab side of the equasion either - the Israelis have just announced another 1800 (?) homes built on disputed territory - in that regard they are thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.

Also Titles of newspapers articles don't say to much, and there is currently no Strong evidence that the ties between the US and Israel are in jeopardy

The Israelis will push their friendship with the septics too far one day - the WWII/holocaust "guilt trip" is fading rapidly, and Israel is no longer needed to provide a pro democratic presence alongside their communist supported Siria and Egypt (60's and 70's). Life would be a hell of a lot easier for the US without the continual thorn in the side that is the Palestinian/Israeli issue.

Give me the reason you think that the US needs Israel...

 

[stoker]

What future purposes? The US can strike anywhere on the globe by air or amphibious means - why does it 'need' Israel?



Dunno about that. Every time the US tries to create peace in the middle East it collapses and leaves a lot of US politicians looking stupid. And you cannot pin all the blame on the Arab side of the equasion either - the Israelis have just announced another 1800 (?) homes built on disputed territory - in that regard they are thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.



The Israelis will push their friendship with the septics too far one day - the WWII/holocaust "guilt trip" is fading rapidly, and Israel is no longer needed to provide a pro democratic presence alongside their communist supported Siria and Egypt (60's and 70's). Life would be a hell of a lot easier for the US without the continual thorn in the side that is the Palestinian/Israeli issue.

Give me the reason you think that the US needs Israel...

Land for 'Peace' is an oxymoron, it has never worked between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The 'wars' that the USA has gotten involved in ( Irak / Afghanistan) have NOT been the result of anything the Israe has done / or hasn't done.

Palestine ( West Bank & Gaza Strip) came in to existance because of the 1967 War, when 5 odd Arab countries attack Israel with the sole intent to wipe Israel off the map.

They did not suceed, but Jordan 'captured' the area now called the West Bank ( and promptly expel any Jews living in the East Jerusalem area and destroyed their synagoges) Israel regained the East Jerusalem area in a later 'war', and under U.N. legislation are perfectly entitled to keep the area gained back, the same as the Golan Heights captured from Syria .
If you think Israel is being unreasonable to the Palestinians just check out the King of Jordan's little dust up with is belligerent 'Palestinian' refugees called 'the Bl;ack September', check out how many 'Palestinians' died?

The Gaza Strip was an area captured by the Egyptians in the '67' war, when Israel controled the Gaza Strip major infrasructure improvements were instigated, check out now what has happened since they left, I think it was over 8000 rockets have been launched against innocent Israeli civilians, check out how many Fatah 'offficers' have been dispatched by Hamas 'officers' since Hamas won the last lot of local elections.

Please explain to me how the "Palestinians' have got any claim on East Jerusalem, they have only been recognized as 'Palestinians' ( Arafat's era ), they have never ever in the history of the M.E. had East Jerusalem as their capital city.

Israel has had ALL of Jerusalem as the capital city since the days of King David, yes they have lost control of Jerusalem at various times over the millenium, but they have all had a presence and always regarded Jerusalem as their Holy City.

Its marvelous the First Nation tribes in the USA, and our own Australian aboriginies, and the Moari's in New Zealand have won land rights to THEIR original home countries areas, I think it would be fare to say the Jews of Israel have the same rights.

The 'Arabs' regard all the areas over the millenium they have occupied as ( dar al Islam ) yes they even claim Andalusia ( Spain), but they have lost all these areas due to losing the Wars, they have a massive loss of face, this is the main factor in their aggressive demands ( along with their Islamic religous beliefs ) that they should be given all this ancient Arab empire back.

Palestine will never work as an single enity, the PLO Fatah are regarded as totally corrupt, the Hamas are recognized as a Terrorist organisation, backed by Iran. Both Fatah and Hamas hate each other worse than they hate Israel.

The local Arab countries could have absorbed all the 'Palestinian' refugees in their countries, they are 'fellow Arabs' and all this bullshit would have been over 40 years ago, but no all the Arab countries want to destroy Israel and claim back the ALL the land for 'Dar al Islam', that is the only rerason that 'Palestine' and the 'Palestinian's' exist, as an excuse to keep the war against Israel going, and at this moment they are trying to use Obama/Clinton to do their dirty work for them.

Obama promised to maintain all of Jerusalem's integrity during his election promises?

But, at the end oif the day Jerusalem is not Obama's, or Clinton, or anyone else to give away, it belongs to Israel and as long as Bidi is there it will never be divided.:smilie

 

[Awang se]

folks. It's 15 tons of explosive, not 60 years of dispute.

 

[Marc 1]

Land for 'Peace' ...

Snip...

divided.:smilie

Thanks for the history lesson (which I didn't need), I'll restate my question that wasn't answered:

Why does the US 'need' Israel?

 

[Kilo 2-3]

folks. It's 15 tons of explosive, not 60 years of dispute.

I would agree.

The 15 tonner isn't even directly applicable to Israel since it has no way to deliver it over a defended target.

 

[Chopperjohn]

Lol

yeah Israeli army needs these babies.

 

[YorgosChrys]

Why would they do that? Thats exactly what the MOAB is intended for, which in itself is a very recent weapons system.

The MOP does not directly replace anything, its an entirely new system, as far as scale is concerned. Of course operationally it would "replace" any penetrator in the current inventory deemed insufficient for a specific mission (which in most cases would be the GBU-28).

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the MOAB and any other kind of fuel air explosive would be better suited for use against lightly armored adversaries or ones with no armor at all and especially in confined spaces...like in a cave for instance or in some sort of above ground command center maybe?
Not that it wouldn't work above ground as you suggest but it would see its effect greatly reduced due to the overpressure of the fuel air explosion dissipating all over the place. Which of course is the case for all bombs.

Plus I don't think it would have such a devastating effect if you dropped it on a hard target like an armored brigade....I think that both the tanks and AFVs or APCs are adequately armored to take the overpressure and heat. That would probably leave only the lighter recon vehicles of such a formation being totally destroyed. Now the heavier vehicles would also sustain some damage especially on all the external equipment they carry(aerials, cameras, sensors etc) and the ones closer to the blast will probably see the soft parts of their tracks melt away. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that such a formation would still be operational even at a lower level than before being hit. And I guess that spending such expensive ordnance on tasks they can only half-achieve is not financially savvy for any army...
Oh, and by the way all the above would apply if you dropped it on a disciplined formation where everyone was inside their vehicles with all the hatches closed down. Otherwise I'm sure it would be much more effective...

So the bottom line would be that yes the MOAB is big and bad but still is far from being the ultimate non-nuclear weapon for all uses.

And finally ask yourselves this....Why couldn't they just take the body they're already designing for it which I'm sure will have excellent penetrator capability and mate it with a "modest"(sort of speak) fuel air warhead instead of the 15 tonnes of ordinary explosive since we've already assumed that such a weapon is practically made for confined spaces such as bunkers??? Well most probably because as stated above they'd want to take out the equipment as well as all enemy personnel and the fuel air ordnance would not be the right tool for the job

 

[EXSSBN2005]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the MOAB and any other kind of fuel air explosive would be better suited for use against lightly armored adversaries or ones with no armor at all and especially in confined spaces...like in a cave for instance or in some sort of above ground command center maybe?
Not that it wouldn't work above ground as you suggest but it would see its effect greatly reduced due to the overpressure of the fuel air explosion dissipating all over the place. Which of course is the case for all bombs.

And finally ask yourselves this....Why couldn't they just take the body they're already designing for it which I'm sure will have excellent penetrator capability and mate it with a "modest"(sort of speak) fuel air warhead instead of the 15 tonnes of ordinary explosive since we've already assumed that such a weapon is practically made for confined spaces such as bunkers??? Well most probably because as stated above they'd want to take out the equipment as well as all enemy personnel and the fuel air ordnance would not be the right tool for the job

Fuel AIR bombs require alot of air for the proper dispersal paterns, a penetrator is only going to have the air it sucked into the hole that it has made behind it so your probably not going to have a sufficient volume of air with which to disperse the fuel into so maybe convientional explosives which will cause more ground impact due to being contained will be more effective. This is just supposition on my part as most of my time in service was on subs with nuclear armament but I'm willing to be corrected by anyone with more first hand knowledge. Thermobaric weapons for use in caves to clear them relies on heat and pressure to be able to be used in complex environments [ Thermobaric Explosive ]

 

[My2Cents]

Why couldn't they just take the body they're already designing for it which I'm sure will have excellent penetrator capability and mate it with a "modest"(sort of speak) fuel air warhead instead of the 15 tonnes of ordinary explosive since we've already assumed that such a weapon is practically made for confined spaces such as bunkers??? Well most probably because as stated above they'd want to take out the equipment as well as all enemy personnel and the fuel air ordnance would not be the right tool for the job

The problem with a FAE warhead is that you would have to actually hit and penetrate the bunker. In most cases we will not know where the target bunker is with enough precision ensure a direct hit, and at some point the combination bunker depth and armor can stop any practical weapon from penetrating into the interior.

The MOP is an ‘earthquake bomb’. The fuse is designed so that on a direct hit it will detonate when it enters an open cavity (or the 2nd or 3rd to avoid design features for causing premature detonation), but it can also be effective if it fails to penetrate completely, and even more so on a near miss.

The insides of these bunkers are shock mounted to minimize damage to equipment and have multiple roof levels to keep materials from spalling into the interior, but a direct hit that penetrates to the top of the bunker with 2.4 tons of HE is still going to feel like a 10 point earthquake. If that bunker is full of centrifuges that are operating at the time of the hit every one is going to have to be rebuilt.

But it is even nastier if it is a near miss. The protection on the sides of the bunker is much less than the roof and if it fails the weight of the roof helps to increases the damage, possible to the point that the armored roof actually collapses into the bunker. If the bunker is anywhere near the water table there is a distinct chance of flooding. And if a bomb that size detonates far enough below the level of the bunker floor most of the defenses are moot, because the ‘shove’ will be coming UP through the floor.