Explosives

[clerick]

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.

[RSLQK186]

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  

[Tom5572]

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

[clerick]

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.

[FLOTSOM]

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

[iTunes]

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.

[Murdr]

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.

[DREDger]

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.

[Rich46yo]

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?

[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.

[Murdr]

I was an 11C if you must know.

[moot]

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]

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. 

[Rich46yo]

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.

[Bronk]

*