Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
18
... LastLast
  1. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    The B-2 cannot drop a MOAB, it will not even fit into the bombays.
    The GBU-43 MOAB was succeeded by the heavier GBU-57 MOP, two of which will fit in the B-2. There's at least one B-52 that's been modified to drop them as well. Only one batch of MOABs was built before development switched over to the MOP.

    Last edited by Z-Man; 2017-04-13 at 07:58 PM.

  2. #142
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
    Several of the MOABs were rebuilt as MOPs specifically to fit in the B-2.
    uh...by rebuilt you mean down-sized? Then what is the purpose of having such a weapon if it shrinks down to the size of other weapons that also are more easily deliverable..

  3. #143
    god it's great to have a president actually go after them for once.

  4. #144
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Gib Lover View Post
    The grenade sized nuke just reminds me of the 100MT Tzar Bomba Russia theorized. They literally couldn't drop it because no plane was fast enough to drop it and escape the blast radius, even if it was a delayed parachute deployment.
    Logistics is an important field. This might now be Exhibit A.

  5. #145
    Some folks keep cheering him on when he drops bombs. I think he's being trained to do tricks for treats at this point with all the "such a good boy" comments being thrown around.

  6. #146
    More 4D chess from Trump. North Korea is watching.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    Some folks keep cheering him on when he drops bombs. I think he's being trained to do tricks for treats at this point with all the "such a good boy" comments being thrown around.
    As anti-war as America appears to be, centrists and even some democrats support for presidents does tend to increase when stuff like this happens.
    MMO-Champ users log on and just say things

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Arthur Dayne View Post
    uh...by rebuilt you mean down-sized? Then what is the purpose of having such a weapon if it shrinks down to the size of other weapons that also are more easily deliverable..
    Upsized, from 22,000 lbs to 30,000 lbs. The big difference is the new one is designed to explode underground, while the original detonates just before it hits the ground, so most of the extra weight is steel and not explosives.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    More 4D chess from Trump. North Korea is watching.
    North Korea has other things to worry about, China is top of their list of worries.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gib Lover View Post
    As anti-war as America appears to be, centrists and even some democrats support for presidents does tend to increase when stuff like this happens.
    America isn't anti or pro war. It's just that it is all we know.

  10. #150
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
    The GBU-43 MOAB was succeeded by the heavier GBU-57 MOP, two of which will fit in the B-2. There's at least one B-52 that's been modified to drop them as well. Only one batch of MOABs was built before development switched over to the MOP.

    The MOAB and the MOP are totally different use type bombs, the MOAB is for area effect against soft targets while the MOP is a penetrating bunker buster. The MOP is much shorter and more robust/dense than the MOAB, which is why it can be dropped from a bomber. Interestingly, the MOP is still smaller than the T-12 developed in the late 40s for the B-36.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
    Upsized, from 22,000 lbs to 30,000 lbs. The big difference is the new one is designed to explode underground, while the original detonates just before it hits the ground, so most of the extra weight is steel and not explosives.
    Again, they are totally different concepts for totally different uses.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Using excessively large blasts just for the hell of it does nothing to win wars, but it does make war more expensive, which makes it easier for the US to "lose" them.
    Tell that to Japan

  12. #152
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Alydael View Post
    About time we stopped fighting these "wars" with both hands tied behind our backs. Maybe we'll actually be able to "win" now (or is that still not allowed?)
    Yeah because what the US needs to do more is cause collateral damage and murder more innocents. But not like you care, you'll never see their faces or hear the cries of their relatives, if those aren't blown up too.

  13. #153
    Pandaren Monk Mhyroth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    You have no idea how rich we are. California alone is richer than France.
    If by rich you mean; bigger national debt as France you're right.
    "If you are what you HAVE and you lose what you have, what then are you? But if you are what you ARE and you lose what you have, no man controls your destiny".

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Interestingly, the MOP is still smaller than the T-12 developed in the late 40s for the B-36..
    That sounds like a challenge. Aberdeen still has a T-12 casing on display...

    List of Surviving B-36 Peacemaker Bombers

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Using excessively large blasts just for the hell of it does nothing to win wars (...).
    IMHO, the point was to show the other guy, the one in North Korea and possibly even to Assad and Putin, just how big U.S.'s dick is... the timing is just too perfect for it to be a coincidence =)

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    I didn't say this was for nothing, but when you're taking this as a sign that the US is now fighting more seriously or effectively, then the implication is that you're using the yield of the explosives used to gauge the seriousness with which the US is operating. The natural result of such reasoning, if it were used by anyone who mattered (and fortunately it isn't, except possibly Trump), would be excessively large blasts regardless of tactical value, which would likely use more expensive varieties of the same sorts of devices as well as result in additional needless collateral damage.
    It's well known that terrorists are hiding in tunnels and underground. Until this point, we weren't dropping bombs that could reach those tunnels.

    So, I was looking at it like this:

    Fighting with troops on the ground and bombs and missles that could not reach the tunnels, caves and bunkers underground= ineffective, waste of time

    Dropping bombs that can actually reach the tunnels and bunkers= more effective and at least a step in the right direction.

    You have to go in to fight the war under the conditions that actually exist. If the terrorists are hiding in bunkers and tunnels underground- you have to drop bombs that have a payload that can actually reach them.

  17. #157
    Kom graun, oso na graun op. Kom folau, oso na gyon op.

    #IStandWithGinaCarano

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    Yeah because what the US needs to do more is cause collateral damage and murder more innocents. But not like you care, you'll never see their faces or hear the cries of their relatives, if those aren't blown up too.
    Was collateral damage reported in this strike (at all)? Just curious

    I don't support these wars at all. I think they are impossible to win, a waste of time and lives and we get absolutely nothing from them.

    But, all the Dems and republicans seem to love these little wars- so until we get rid of the Dems and Pubs, these wars are a fact of life.

    So, if you are fighting a war, you should use a strategy that makes it possible to win.

    However, if the terrorists are hiding in tunnels and bunkers underground- what is the point of using ground troops or bombs that can't reach them? You can't win with that strategy.

  19. #159
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Alydael View Post
    It's well known that terrorists are hiding in tunnels and underground. Until this point, we weren't dropping bombs that could reach those tunnels.

    So, I was looking at it like this:

    Fighting with troops on the ground and bombs and missles that could not reach the tunnels, caves and bunkers underground= ineffective, waste of time

    Dropping bombs that can actually reach the tunnels and bunkers= more effective and at least a step in the right direction.

    You have to go in to fight the war under the conditions that actually exist. If the terrorists are hiding in bunkers and tunnels underground- you have to drop bombs that have a payload that can actually reach them.
    There are ways of developing penetrating explosives that don't require as huge a blast radius as this bomb had - a blast radius that creates the opportunity for monumental levels of collateral damage.

    This wasn't a sophisticated weapon or solution, it was just making as massive a payload as possible, 50% of which didn't explode in the direction needed to damage underground bunkers.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  20. #160
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimusmc View Post
    god it's great to have a president actually go after them for once.
    Because there wasn't a week that went by without the House complaining about Obama's operations?

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •