Building a Better Bomb

dr who and the darlix writes "There is a nice article here about carbon composite warheads being tested. They destroy their targets while minimizing collateral damage."

Comments

Another "thing" they are working on

[CharlieG]

A few months back, I saw a tech article about another type of bomb they are working on, that is very related - Small bombs!

Right now, the "standard" US bombs are 500 lbs, 1000lbs or 2000lbs. Bombs this big were needed so that the blast/schrapnel would take out the target even if you hit 10-20 yards from the intended target. (talking blast effect here)

As the latest generation of bombs got more accurate, they started to realize that this was SERIOUS overkill. If you can hit the exact building you want, there is NO need for a bomb that big. So, for the first time since Pre WWII, the USAF is working on designs for bombs in the 50-100 lb class.

It gives them a BUNCH of advantages

1)Less colateral damage - yep, I'll be blunt - we kill less of the people we don't want to kill
2)Less danger to our own troops working close
3)The odd one - if we develop new load racks, you should be able to carry approximately 10 times more 50 lb bombs than you could 500 lb bombs

You see, even back during "Gulf I", we had to send multiple aircraft against one target to destroy it - it didn't make sense to worry about it. Now, we actually task one aircraft to destroy multiple targets. If you can carry 10x more bombs, you could (in theory) attack 10x more targets per mission. In reality, the fact is that the bombs have NOT become so accuate that each 50 lb bomb will hit exactly on target, and the kill radius is small enough, that even a small miss wont work. So they will probably task 2 or 3 bombs to each target, so figure each aircraft can attack 2-3 times more targets per sorte

Like it or not, it's interesting technology. You may not like what it's used for, but it is "cutting edge"

Re:well...

[Migrant Programmer]

I am simply stunned at the quality of your education. Do you even know who Eisenhower was? Here's a hint: before he was a President, he was a General.

Before you try to play the history card, make sure it's in your hand.

Re:well...

[noewun]

And Eisenhower's final speech as President warned about the creation of a military-industrial complex and the ways this could damage our democracy.

As an ex-general, Ike knew the dangers of limitations of military power.

Re:I hate it..

[no-body]

"Bombs are rarely used for the purpose of killing people these days. They're used to destroy facilities, bridges, buildings. That kind of things."

Very good, who told you that? Look there. Amazing technology. This shows what a bomb really does and the effects are very well known and intended. The damage to humans is so immense, would the real effects shown on TV, people in US would not support this.

Why do you think that napalm-like fire bombs are developed and used? Probably to surgically melt down bridges and buildings at night;)

I find it interesting that in almost all press reports in USA only US losses are counted and never the total count of injured and killed humans is mentioned. Could it be that the numbers would not look very good?

It is talked about 60-something billion $'s of cost for this war - the total material cost of destroyed infrastructure, building, bridges, equipment is completely unknown.

Human losses are not publicized either the www.iraqbodycount.net tries to get number but those are only civilian deaths. How many are injured and to which degree is unknown.

The total count of humans killed in this escapade is intentionally kept quiet, or maybe the corpses of "other" soldiers dug under somewhere are not even counted.

I guess, it would be simpler, to lock the "leaders" causing wars into a room and only let them out again, once they get along. This would save all this stupid and destructive war making and weapons developing.

...and just for those wondering

[aerojad]

...we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Taken from here.

The neutron bomb existed - good link.

[caveat]

The High Energy Weapons Archive has a good rundown of neutron bombs. They're a bit more complicated than just taking the jacket off a hydrogen bomb (still needs the jacket to get the fusion going) - see the FAQ for a rundown. The Mk 70-0 nuclear artillery shell was apparently a tactical neutron device (~1kT yield); I dont know if it was ever tested. I wouldn't really call a staged implosion H-bomb a Rube Goldberg device, though..its a bit more complicated than you paint it to be; the tolerances are on the order of a few microns and nanoseconds. See the rest of the FAQ for a hugely in-depth discussion of the physical principles and engineering that goes into one of these things (you need a grasp of thermodynamics and physics, though).