Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
big_bad_buff
New member
?
Have we used any MOAB bombs yet?
- Thread starter big_bad_buff
- Start date
big_bad_buff
New member
oh ok. i heard a few people on the news comment about maybe one or 2 of the explosions could have been the moab bomb, but i thought it was going to be a pretty decent size explosion.
K
KAYNE
Guest
WE HAVENT USED THE MOAB B/C BUSH IS TRYING TO MITIGATE AGAINST COLLATERAL DAMAGE. HOWEVER, SINCE THEY ARE PARADING POW'S ON TV AND TORTURING THEM AND MOST PROBABLY HAVE EVEN KILLED SOME, WE NEED TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND GET THIS SHIT OVER WITH.
KAYNE
KAYNE
D
DcupSheepNipples
Guest
In a couple of months! They are on the fast track! If things go bad they might push up the time table more!
No, they are uneducated on bomb blasts! The whole U in the river would have been blasted!
mrt
New member
I don't think so. I'm not a weapon's expert but as far as I know that huge MOAB can only launched by some type of a cargo plane where it's dragged out of the plane's back cargo door by its parachute and then it goes to the target. If that's the case it would not be a wise move to use a slow cargo plane when you still have lots of anti-aircraft fire, especially in Baghdad and other major cities. Those big bangs we see on TV are possiby from 2000lbs bombs.
[email protected]
New member
they are only using stealth planes now. The anti aircraft fire is too unsafe for normal planes. The big 21,000 pounder would need a B-52 and would be a small car on a parachute.
It would level about 6 square blocks. They dropped a bunch of 15,000 pounders in Afganastan. They also hit Iraq with a bunch in 91.
It would level about 6 square blocks. They dropped a bunch of 15,000 pounders in Afganastan. They also hit Iraq with a bunch in 91.
jnuts
New member
[email][email protected][/email] said:
Stealth is not the only A/C in use. Conventional A/C are hitting the periphery of Baghdad, along with other areas. AAA is not that bad, its the SAMs that will kill you.
The MOAB is a C-130 or C-17 dropped weapon - not a B-52
[email protected]
New member
I stand corrected! I'll stop reading about Vietnam and the damn Daisy Cutters!!!
jnuts
New member
[email][email protected][/email] said:
No problem. Hopefully I can set some folks straight with all of the misintended misinformation our media releases.
K
KAYNE
Guest
jnuts said:
I'M SURE WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS, THEY CAN FIX THAT.
KAYNE
K
KAYNE
Guest
SO YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT NO ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE TO THAT PLANE TO MAKE IT ABLE TO CARRY/DROP A MOAB??? SOMEHOW, I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.
I REALIZE THE BOMB WAS DESIGNED FOR A C130 BUT WHY WOULD IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MAKE THE PROPER ADJUSTMENTS IF THEY SO DESIRED???
KAYNE
I REALIZE THE BOMB WAS DESIGNED FOR A C130 BUT WHY WOULD IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MAKE THE PROPER ADJUSTMENTS IF THEY SO DESIRED???
KAYNE
jnuts
New member
KAYNE said:
Not without a major rework.
External Carriage of the MOAB on the B-52 ain't gonna happen. Period, dot, end of story.
Internally, we use either Cluster or Clip-In racks to carry conventional weapons. The Cluser is for 500-750lb weapons. N/A for MOAB. Internal carriage is 3 x Cluster rack in the bomb bay.
The Clip-In Racks carry the larger 2000lb+ type weapons. (and gravity nukes...) Internal carriage is 2 x Clip-in in the bomb bay. They are significantly bigger so they can handle the weight.
The MOAB is waaaaaaaaaay to big for one cluster rack. And waaaaaaaaay to fucking heavy.
For the B-52 to drop the weapon, it would have to have a brand new release system created for the bomb bay. Weapon release systems take awhile to build up. Could that be done? Yes. Will it be done? Nope. There is just not enough time to do it. Nor does it make tactical sense.
jnuts said:
COuld make some sense. As I said in my previous post, the British used thr Lancaster to drop the Grand Slam over bunkers and underground facilities. No parachute. It would go 30m deep in the ground and then explode. Creating a huge earthcake effect. No imagine the same done using a B-52 over Baghdad with the MOAB.....
jnuts
New member
The area around the Baghdad is called the "Super MEZ" (Missle Engagement Zone). A whole lot of overlapping threats in there, which is why you are only seeing LO attacks on downtown proper. The F-16s, etc are hitting on the periphery, not in the middle of downtown. It will take time to attrite the defenses.
SA-2 and SA-3 can be very lethal to any airframe, if you are smack in the middle of too many of them.
SA-2 and SA-3 can be very lethal to any airframe, if you are smack in the middle of too many of them.
supersizeme
New member
[email][email protected][/email] said:
i'd say 21,000lbs is a pretty fuckin big car!! sounds more like a semi with a parachute on the back
K
KAYNE
Guest
jnuts said:
OK, SO IT IS POSSIBLE THEN!!! THATS ALL I WAS SAYING. I KNOW IT ISNT DESIGNED FOR THE FORTRESS, I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE ATLEAST POSSIBLE IF THEY FELT THEY HAD TO DO IT.
IMO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE B52 DUE TO ITS ALTITUDE CAPABILITIES. WHY DESIGN ANY BOMB SPECIFICALLY FOR A PLANE THAT IS EASY TO SHOOT DOWN I.E...THE C130???
KAYNE
K
KAYNE
Guest
Golfer18 said:
ITS GUIDED.
KAYNE
