Will the B-21 still be able to carry two MOPs?
If the single main bay has the same dimensions as the B-2 then it should be able to carry a single 30klb weapon.Will the B-21 still be able to carry two MOPs?
If the B-21 can only carry one MOP but with reduced fuel, would it be possible to shrink the size of the MOP down to make the bomb fit into the weapons bay but without harming the explosive power of the weapon. I am thinking of what the UK did to the Blue Danube nuclear bomb when they did the much smaller Red Beard.
Why have you decided B-21 should reduce fuel to carry one MOP and why you want shrink it if B-21 weapons bay is sized to B-2?If the B-21 can only carry one MOP but with reduced fuel, would it be possible to shrink the size of the MOP down to make the bomb fit into the weapons bay but without harming the explosive power of the weapon. I am thinking of what the UK did to the Blue Danube nuclear bomb when they did the much smaller Red Beard.
True. But it cannot do the LABS maneuver!Aside from numbers that's basically what it is.
I don't believe so, the B-21 only has one bomb bay that seems to scale out to the size of one of the B-2s bays.Will the B-21 still be able to carry two MOPs?
Remember that the launch racks or rotary launchers don't included in the 45klbs bombload, and likely weigh 7500lbs each.All but certainly not. The be B-2s nominal warload was 45,000 lbs; I suspect it was only able to carry GBU-57s with reduced fuel. B-21 would almost definitely be limited to one. Volume wise I doubt there would even be enough space in the single bomb bay.
Remember that the launch racks or rotary launchers don't included in the 45klbs bombload, and likely weigh 7500lbs each.
Until we somehow become best friends with the Iranians and the North Koreans at the same time, if I were in congress, I would find it irresponsible to lack platforms that can deliver a MOP sized bomb.Perhaps, but I imagine there is a beefy suspension system involved in storing and dropping a 30,000 bomb as well. Anyway, it is just a guess on my part; I have not seen it documented one way or the other. But it seems like 60,000+ lbs of ordnance and 167,000 lbs of fuel would put the B-2 over MTOW.
Until we somehow become best friends with the Iranians and the North Koreans at the same time, if I were in congress, I would find it irresponsible to lack platforms that can deliver a MOP sized bomb.
There's a reason that sentence has a "if I were congress" I don't doubt that the munitions technologies has improved, but congress gonna do congress things, and we all know the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules, and congress loves images of big explosions.MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.
This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.
For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
I think the W76-2s are intended for Natanz. They seem to have little applicability outside of that.MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.
This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.
For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
Probably a few targets & tunnels north of the 38th parallel as well.I think the W76-2s are intended for Natanz. They seem to have little applicability outside of that.
I rather bet on B61-11.Probably a few targets & tunnels north of the 38th parallel as well.
What would be a type of target that a GBU-72 could destroy that a MOP (GBU-57) couldn't? One would think anything a GBU-72 would destroy a MOP would absolutely obliterate.MOP cannot hold those targets at risk, there are not many of them and there are few platforms that can employ them.
This is why there has been a multi year effort across multiple DoD components to develop a family of capabilities to hold that target set at risk from a greater number of platforms.
For example, GBU-72 can destroy targets that MOP cannot. GBU-72 can be employed by the F-15E and other platforms.
What would be a type of target that a GBU-72 could destroy that a MOP (GBU-57) couldn't? One would think anything a GBU-72 would destroy a MOP would absolutely obliterate.
There is a Curious Droid YouTube video about bunker busters that goes into a bit of detail on modern concrete designed to resist penetration. It sounded very similar to some of the descriptions of the "fondag" that the SpaceX Super Heavy cratered on its first launch.A hard and deeply buried target using modern construction techniques (i.e. concrete with high compression strength, etc)
GBU-72 has:
- Better penetration
- Better fusing
- Explosives package tailored for the mission
Much of the energy of the GBU-57 goes into the ground, not the target. The GBU-72 puts most of its energy into the target.
More Bang for the Buck: A New Design and Manufacturing Method for Deep Penetrating Bomb Cases
There is a new way to design penetrators and projectiles: Composites.www.mobilityengineeringtech.com
Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues
Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issuesnsarchive2.gwu.edu
Agreed - back on topic folks!!really odd....
Clicked on this thread and thought it would be about the B-21 bomber, who knew!
Any chance of heading roughly back on topic?
The above link gets me:
This content is only available to subscribers.
Get unlimited digital access.
$1 for the first 6 months.
Subscribe Now
Your subscription supports:
Investigative reporting that makes our community a better place to work, live and play
Expert coverage of high school sports teams
The best tips on places to eat and things to do
Daily newsletter with top news to know
Mobile apps including immersive storytelling
Are you a subscriber with digital access?
Sign in to your account
Are you a subscriber without digital access?
Activate your digital account
Not ready to subscribe? Tell us why.
The above link gets me:
Thanks very much.Northrop Grumman to expand Melbourne campus as B-21 Raider production begins in California
More than 5,000 employees work on an array of high-tech programs, including the B-21 Raider, at Northrop Grumman's campus at the Melbourne airport.web.archive.org
The expansion likely has nothing to do with B-21; the headline is clickbait. There’s no shortage of NG products and projects that might interest Australia, especially with the recent AUKUS arrangement.
No/noThanks very much.
That IS interesting... is NG going to open another production line?
Or maybe this is to be a repair/modification center for the B21 etc?
Hah! My bad. Still probably not B-21 related, however.That's Melbourne, Florida, outside Orlando.
Hah! My bad. Still probably not B-21 related, however.
WORK IS RELATED TO NEXT-GENERATION BOMBERS
The expansion will involve military work for U.S. and allied forces. U.S. Sen Bill Nelson said that will include work aimed at winning a contract to build the Long Range Strike Bomber, or LRS-B, which the Air Force has identified as a top priority. The company, which already builds the B-2 stealth bomber, reportedly is one of two companies competing to build the LRS-B, which could cost as much as $550 million apiece and start rolling off the assembly line within a decade.
What they're doing is moving moving most of their engineering there. If you hire an employee to live in CA, due to the cost of living you have to pay them a lot more. If you hire them to work in FLA, where the cost of living is less, they can pay them less, which means more profits. They'll keep in CA just what they need to operate there.Thanks very much.
That IS interesting... is NG going to open another production line?
Or maybe this is to be a repair/modification center for the B21 etc?
When you say "high" cost of living here in CA, remember, marijuana is legal here, Domino's pizza got a high-rate, USG production contract for supplying pizza, LO pizza's of course.What they're doing is moving moving most of their engineering there. If you hire an employee to live in CA, due to the cost of living you have to pay them a lot more. If you hire them to work in FLA, where the cost of living is less, they can pay them less, which means more profits. They'll keep in CA just what they need to operate there.