Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DREDger on November 20, 2008, 08:57:31 PM
-
Reading about the wars of the 21st century, I've noticed that the bomb of choice seems to be the 500lb'er. I wonder how the explosives compare to that of WW2.
For example, would a 500lb'er of today maybe be equal to the 1000lb'er of WW2, due to advancement of technology and such?
-
I would think your right. The chemicle make up of the explosive can be changed to burn more rapidly, the quicker the burn the faster the expansion the bigger the boom.
But thats just figuring that they would have updated the explosive by now.
-
I believe they are fairly comprarable....
AN-M64 (http://harringtonmuseum.org.uk/ANM64.htm)
MK82 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk82.htm)
-
The MSD for them are comparable from what I have been told. MSD= minimum safe distance
-
physics class,....the faster the speed when a bomb is released, 250 mph ww2) (750 or more now thats a guess btw!) I dont remember what the f/a 18 book requires,) the more kinetic energy it has, hence more damage when it hits the ground....thats one reason.
-
I believe with improved precision there is no need to bomb a target with a large bomb in order to ensure it is destroyed, potentially causing a large amount collateral damage, when a direct hit with a 500lb bomb will do the trick.
-
physics class,....the faster the speed when a bomb is released, 250 mph ww2) (750 or more now thats a guess btw!) I dont remember what the f/a 18 book requires,) the more kinetic energy it has, hence more damage when it hits the ground....thats one reason.
Generally, kinetic energy is not what a HE bomb is relying on when doing it's job - unless part of the requirement is penetrating into a structure. But then again, this penetration is not doing the damage itself, it mereley making sure the HE will explode at a place were the damage will be maximised.
Against many (if not most targets), it was often strived at getteing as little penetration as possible before the bombs went off.
-
Yep, I'm pretty sure you have to be going pretty fast and/or have a lot of mass to start getting explosive results from impact speed.
-
Actually kinetic energy bombs are quite common and quite widely used in Iraq - do a search with google for "concrete bomb"
-
But it's not explosive, is it? It reads like an armor piercing effect like Lusche describes, not something that enhances the explosive power. I'd think for extra speed to help explosive power, you'd have to get either air or the target or the bomb's otherwise inert material to combust, somehow. That would be a lot of speed and/or mass.
-
This is only a very recent development. For decades bombing wasn't precise enough for such a thing. And it's more like a crutch - actually the damaging by kinetic energy only is just used because of the negative impact of collateral damage is judged too big to use coventional bombs. And such concrete bombs are still somewhat "esoteric" items for specialised uses.
And like Moot already mentioned - once you put a considerable quantity of high explosives into the bomb, the KE is getting negligible very quickly
-
You have to admit though, there's something really cool about something like a big rod dropped from on high (or orbit).. like an arrow from Cupid :o "Love conquers all"
-
it makes a big differnce on impact. (the speed at which it was released.) seen it on the history ch, so it is so.........besides....my f/a 18......oh geez nm ;) :rock
-
You have to admit though, there's something really cool about something like a big rod dropped from on high (or orbit).. like an arrow from Cupid :o "Love conquers all"
I believe they worked on a space based system once called brilliant pebbles that used this method .
-
You have to admit though, there's something really cool about something like a big rod dropped from on high (or orbit).. like an arrow from Cupid :o "Love conquers all"
To bad it doesn't work that well, unless tipped with plutonium. Fact is enemies can dig much deeper then we can get to them. The latest Yank bunker busters will penetrate maybe 100' of ground, which aint bad, or chop thru maybe 20' of solid concrete, again which isn't bad. If I remember right the explosive is in the 500lb class for it and it uses a high tech explosive, "we also have a 3rd gen 2,000lb class one". So for legacy bunker targets I guess it has some uses but I bet there was a whole lot of digging deeper after we first used the thing. I'd bet the Israelis used some BLU bombs when they blowed up that Syrian reactor. As far as I know all our hard penetration bombs also carry explosive warheads.
I know 500lb general purpose bombs were re-designed after WW-ll but I'm not sure if the chemical mix causes a bigger blast but my guess would be yes. I know the fuzes are much better and the bombs can be set for air burst of ground burst. That and they are more aerodynamic. We had tons of this stuff laying around from 'nam when I was in and Im sure we were thrilled to have somebody to drop them on during Gulf 1. Nothing worse then a wasted bomb.
-
Velocity is the key to adding kinetic energy since it is squared. Ek = .5mv^2. You can increase mass by 10% but, it will only increase energy by 10%. Increase velocity by 10% and you get a 21% increase in energy.
-
I'm was thinking that kinetic energy could make the damage more lateral with some going to ground, rather than a half sphere away from ground. But the referance to MSD would contradict that :confused:
-
My Dad was the RIO in F4s for most of his career in the Navy. He talked about flying supersonic with ord. He explained to me then about how they could not carry ords and fly in excess of a certain speed (what exactly I do not remember, only that it was subsonic). He told me anything over that speed and they would rip the ords right off the wings. From what I have seen here in Iraq, I would say that still holds true with the F15s / F16s. Although they approach at a much higher speed than, say, a P38 or P47, it is still subsonic. Perhaps this is different with the F22 as it carries its ord internal but the same logic applies in my mind, they would have to be subsonic to release.
I do not believe the yield from a 500 lber has changed much, only the accuracy. It is the accuracy of them which makes them so devastating. In the first Gulf War, the amount of ord dropped to kill one target was tons less then the same amount required to kill a same type target in WWII. I do not pretend to know the particulars of bomb making (way outside my lane) but I do know this. The military is using stuff from the Vietnam era in Iraq (I have had 7.62 linked with 1967 production dates). As the Military does not like to waste its ord, I would guess the same is true for the bombs. Just attach a "smart" guidance system on one and *poof* no more dumb bomb.
my 2cents
Tom
-
The reasons for staying subsonic with external stores could be a few things. First you would have to take into account the shock waves that build up on the ords and their affects on the airflow over the AC's control surfaces and wings. Second, most ord isn't designed for supersonic flight and the force generated on them and thus the mounting surfaces would increase by a square of the velocity. I can't imagine that they would take the stresses produced.
-
this is more question than statement, aren't we still using bomb casings that were made in during WWII?
i cant remember where i read or watched that, but i believe that it said that the military removed the out dated explosives and replaced it with new. that this was done for the purposes of reliability not for lack of power. (i think this became a major issue after the gun turret on that Battle Ship exploded) but that the shell of the bomb was reused as is.
unless that is they want a smart bomb then they put on the correct nose cone and guidance fins and dumb is magically turned to smart. (not one comment about me getting out fitted with this equipment! it wont help my grammar at all!!)
like i said this information could be mistaken, i don't remember how or where i heard/read this. but i would apreciate it if anyone who knows the facts or has a reference site to post that info so i could get updated.
FLOTSOM
-
Waaay back in 91 on gold route during Granby, We were told to stay down as the RAF were coming in to do their thing further up the road. We were about 2.5k d to 3.5k d from the point of contact, I don't think they were Tornados as they have the big Tail and the swept wings, but it was another twin engine plane and they came in low and then suddenly go up at an angle. all from different directions, all you would see was a plane coming from the SE then a huge roar followed by another plane from the W and the huge roar again and so on. No idea what they dropped on the point of contact but I'll tell you this much, The noise even from that distance was incredible, Through some Grenades over the brick wall at the range up in Catterick and fired some 66's and 72's on the big range in Salsbury, but that was zip compared to the noise back then.
-
I posted 2 links. One for the specs of a WWII 500 lb general purpose bomb. One for the specs of a modern era 500 lb general purpose bomb. Instead of debating guesses and speculation, why don't you look at the damn info. The explosive compounds and quantities are all listed there.
-
Yeah I was just wondering if pound for pound, the explosive from modern bombs were comparable to WW2 bombs. The thinking being that modern explosive would be more refined, perhaps release more explosive energy.
Not so much the use of the bomb itself, guided or bunker busting.
Seems that they are about the same. The posts from Murdr show about the same amount of wieght for the bomb. It doesn't say about the actual explosive energy.
I wonder how do they measure explosive energy? Say, a pound of black powder, vs a pound of TNT, vs a pound of C-4 or something.
-
I posted 2 links. One for the specs of a WWII 500 lb general purpose bomb. One for the specs of a modern era 500 lb general purpose bomb. Instead of debating guesses and speculation, why don't you look at the damn info. The explosive compounds and quantities are all listed there.
Just did. And all my guesses of damn info was right. Which doesn't make them a guess of damn info anymore right?
Which military service did you serve in Murdr?
-
Seems that they are about the same. The posts from Murdr show about the same amount of wieght for the bomb. It doesn't say about the actual explosive energy.
I wonder how do they measure explosive energy? Say, a pound of black powder, vs a pound of TNT, vs a pound of C-4 or something.
The MK82 warhead - 192 lbs Tritonal (TNT with aluminum powder)<--18% more powerful than TNT alone, Minol II (TNT with ANFO and aluminum powder), or H-6 (TNT with RDX and aluminum powder)
The ANM64 warhead - 262 lbs Amatol (TNT with amonium nitrate), or 267 lbs of TNT, or 274 lbs of Composition B (RDX with TNT).
So anyways, the "old" 500lb'er had about 40% more explosives by weight. So it would seem that as the power of the explosvie compound improved, less was designed into the bomb.
Energy is in Joules...or more likely Mega Joules with a bomb. You could also look at expansion rate/velocity of an explosive.
-
I was an 11C if you must know.
-
Murdr isn't the "second" value of "J" kJ rather than MJ? Or maybe that's only in biology, and civil engineering uses millions instead..
-
Murdr isn't the "second" value of "J" kJ rather than MJ? Or maybe that's only in biology, and civil engineering uses millions instead..
Could be. I've seen joules to the exponent of 10 (scientific notation?), and kilo, and mega used for bombs and explosives.
-
I was an 11C if you must know.
No idea what that is, been out since '81. Is that an army or marine thing?
No disrespect. Just a little playful sparring.
-
*
-
No idea what that is, been out since '81. Is that an army or marine thing?
If only there was a world wide information network where one could type something like "11C" into a search engine and find an instant answer ;)
-
ok, ya have 2 bombs of equal size, and both filled with the equal amout of sheep pellets,...... One is dropped from a p-47 d40, doin say 288 mph, (for you math geeks)....the other is dropped by a f/a 18, doing 702.5 mph ( yeah we all know) which one will scatter pellets with more force over a larger distance? :huh
-
If only there was a world wide information network where one could type something like "11C" into a search engine and find an instant answer ;)
Murdr my generation looks peole in the eye and asks them a direct question. :salute
-
To put this in perspective...
500lb object impacting at 288mph=1,387,320 joules
500lb object impacting at 702.5mph=8,254,378 joules
200lbs of TNT detonating = 418,400,000 joules
That's over 50 times the energy from a 500lb 702mph impact!
ok, ya have 2 bombs of equal size, and both filled with the equal amout of sheep pellets,...... One is dropped from a p-47 d40, doin say 288 mph, (for you math geeks)....the other is dropped by a f/a 18, doing 702.5 mph ( yeah we all know) which one will scatter pellets with more force over a larger distance? :huh
What is the altitude it is being dropped from? What is the terminal velocity of the bomb? Dropped from high enough, each could impact at a similar speed and trajectory (eg. the results would be a draw).
-
Murdr my generation looks peole in the eye and asks them a direct question. :salute
In the eye? I don't even own a webcam :uhoh
-
In the eye? I don't even own a webcam :uhoh
I guess I aint going to find out then. Which means you weren't in USAF. Which means you are unable to make educated damn guesses, "which turned out to be right", about 500lb air dropped bombs cause you were never around them, or, the aircraft that dropped them.
Are we in concurrence?
-
I see a trend here...Too lazy to click links to information that someone else looked up on the topic and bothered to post. You would rather type 100 words in protest, than type 3 characters into google and get the info yourself.
Your guess was rather vauge
but I'm not sure if the chemical mix causes a bigger blast but my guess would be yes.
As it's been shown, the quantity of explosive content has reduced as the explosive power has increased. How that qualifies as "right", I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is the reason AKAK has taken to calling you Dick.
-
whatsa "joules? heheh I might as well lern something too :) :rock
-
What I am sure of is the reason AKAK has taken to calling you Dick.
:rofl :aok
-
whatsa "joules? heheh I might as well lern something too :) :rock
joule - unit of work or energy in the International System of Units (SI); it is equal to the work done by a force of one newton acting through one metre. Named in honour of the English physicist James Prescott Joule, it equals 107 ergs, or approximately 0.7377 foot-pounds. In electrical terms, the joule equals one watt-second—i.e., the energy released in one second by a current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm.
-
Ok, thanks, but that might be a tad deep for ol klink,.....But I got the idea <S> :O
-
Which means you weren't in USAF. Which means you are unable to make educated damn guesses
As indicated by my MOS (that's Military Occupation Specialty code for those unable to use a search engine) I have worked with HE (:rolleyes High Exposive) weapons, and as also indicated previously, I can read and look stuff up too :uhoh
I will be sure to pass along to my Naval aviation friends, and IAF friend that they are also unable to make educated guesses about such things since they were not in the USAF :huh
-
What were you thinking murdr? Don't you know the flyboys have all the right answers?
What I find funny around here is the Navy guys having trouble landing at Peterson AFB. The runway doesn't move so they have trouble hitting it. :D
-
As indicated by my MOS (that's Military Occupation Specialty code for those unable to use a search engine) I have worked with HE (:rolleyes High Exposive) weapons, and as also indicated previously, I can read and look stuff up too :uhoh
I will be sure to pass along to my Naval aviation friends, and IAF friend that they are also unable to make educated guesses about such things since they were not in the USAF :huh
M,
Your preaching to the choir,they cant hear they're too busy singing! :o
-
3 m.o.s.'s -in 4 yrs of active service in the united states marine corps. (1833/1316/2142)we didnt think alot of navy or airforce pileits, until there isn't any Marine air around. :lol :uhoh uncle was f-4 phantom pilot(usaf), 2 other brothers (blood) served in the crotch" (thats marine corps) for those that served in the sissy services.Apache helo's justcame out back then for the army., they were laughable, compared to our cobras. ect ect ect. Marine pilots "hang it out there". for their ground marines. :rock
-
it makes a big differnce on impact. (the speed at which it was released.) seen it on the history ch, so it is so.........besides....my f/a 18......oh geez nm ;) :rock
OK, nobody else said it so I'll have to...
Very nice work, ColKlink!
If there weren't so many....kinetic projectile candidates?...in our community, it would be grade A sig material for the BBS. Wonderfully subltle, a stiletto among cudgels!
-
*Blank stare** yeah!!!! heheh.......*looks to a sgt,....wtf did he just say?* hehe <S>