RAF to start using radical new weapon... concrete


PDA






Drizzt
April 4, 2003, 07:28 PM
Tornadoes to drop 'concrete bombs'

By Mark Nicholls
With the RAF at the Ali Al Salem airbase in northern Kuwait


Tornado jets are poised to use yet another different weapon in the war against Iraq ... concrete bombs.

The jets have already used high-tech weaponry such as the "bunker busting" cruise missile Storm Shadow, which cost £750,000 apiece and can pierce several feet of concrete.

But now the crews operating over Iraq from the Ali Al Salem airbase in northern Kuwait are about to go to the opposite extreme and use "inert bombs".

These are basically blocks of concrete shaped as bombs and painted blue to identify them as non-explosive if they are discovered still intact after the war.

Great accuracy

But they will be laser-guided 1,000lb blocks of concrete, capable of destroying a tank or artillery piece, but without causing a devastating explosion that would put civilians at risk and shatter surrounding buildings.

Tornado Detachment commander, Group Captain Simon Dobb, said: "We have the option of using these inert bombs.

"They still have the guidance and steering methods of other high explosive weapons but the risk of causing civilian casualties is greatly reduced."

The weapons, dropped from height and with great accuracy, can destroy a tank without affecting surrounding buildings.

The weapon is on standby if Saddam Hussein moves his tanks and artillery pieces further into Baghdad, hiding them in areas of dense population.

It means the Tornados can still destroy them but leave civilian buildings intact and the population unscathed.

He said: "There is the impact, without a massive explosive effect.

"It's all about proportionality."

Coloured blue

The Tornado already has a wide arsenal: from air-to-air Sidewinder missiles; laser- and GPS-guided Paveway bombs; dumb bombs; Storm Shadow and ALARM anti-radiation missiles.

It has dropped controversial cluster bombs during this war, though only on specific targets of troops concentrations and military vehicles.

The Tornados have continued to fly missions offering close air support to ground forces as they advance on Baghdad and are now ready to play a role if the war moves into the streets of the Iraqi capital.

Plans are already in hand for post-war Iraq, though the role of the Tornados in that is still undecided.

They may have a presence during the reconstruction of Iraq, maintaining security in Iraqi air space, particularly as humanitarian aid is flown in.

They may maintain a presence in Iraq until the country achieves a stability and has a stable government, and is able to defend its territorial boundaries by itself.

There has been speculation the Tornados, normally based at RAF Marham in Norfolk, may move to bases within Iraq, though that is unlikely at this stage.

But that may change in coming weeks or months.


This is pooled copy from Mark Nicholls, of the Eastern Daily Press, with the RAF at the Ali Al Salem airbase in northern Kuwait.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2919249.stm

If you enjoyed reading about "RAF to start using radical new weapon... concrete" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackhawk
April 4, 2003, 07:41 PM
I can't stop laughing! :D

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

All that technology and training to ... drop rocks! :neener:

I love this:These are basically blocks of concrete shaped as bombs and painted blue to identify them as non-explosive if they are discovered still intact after the war.In Vietnam, F4 drivers were fond of saying they were out blowing up trees.

In the days to come, these Tornado drivers will be saying they were out dropping rocks. :neener:

Precision guided, very fast rocks, and it sounds like a great idea to me.

Seems that seagulls are good at dropping clams on rocks, so it's about time that we learned something like that! :neener:

:D :D

UnknownSailor
April 4, 2003, 07:48 PM
The US Navy has been doing this for years, to hit targets close to civilians, while flying Operation Southern Watch missions.

I was slightly miffed, at first, but it makes sense, when you think about it. Our ordnance is accurate enough, so why not?

Malone LaVeigh
April 4, 2003, 07:52 PM
This is good.

MeekandMild
April 4, 2003, 07:55 PM
Shades of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". :D

DJJ
April 4, 2003, 08:37 PM
I guess the old joke:


Q: What's the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?

A: Mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets.


Will no longer apply.

Mike Irwin
April 4, 2003, 08:39 PM
Hamid! Look! The Blue Bird of happiness is visiting our tank!

SPLAT!

:)

DJJ
April 4, 2003, 09:08 PM
Some simple physics shows that, not counting air resistance, a 1000 lb weight dropped from 10,000' above the ground will have 10,000,000 ft-lb of kinetic energy and an impact velocity of 800 fps, or about 545 mph.

hops
April 4, 2003, 09:11 PM
And after these inert bombs are dropped, we can recover them, or their pieces and recycle them. Ecological sound warefare.

SkunkApe
April 4, 2003, 09:16 PM
Too bad we can't attach them with a long elastic band, so they could be re-used. Like a yo-yo.

TheLastBoyScout
April 4, 2003, 09:18 PM
Hmmm... This brings back memories of those old WB cartoons. Can we get them in anvil shapes???:evil:

hops
April 4, 2003, 09:25 PM
Bungy-Bombing? naw, it couldn't work.

Azrael256
April 4, 2003, 10:07 PM
Took me a minute to stop laughing, but if it's a stupid idea and it works... it's not a stupid idea. Not that I really think it's stupid, but the mental picture... whooooooo...

Coronach
April 4, 2003, 10:29 PM
Azrael, exactly. If it looks stupid but it works, its not stupid.

Mike

rick_reno
April 4, 2003, 10:30 PM
Concrete bombs - good idea. But why stop there? This got me thinking. Could we put a laser guidance system on a frozen hog carcass? Imagine a B-52 load - 70,000 lbs - of frozen hogs being dropped on them.

TallPine
April 4, 2003, 10:37 PM
Imagine a B-52 load - 70,000 lbs - of frozen hogs being dropped on them.

:D :D :D :D

Make it one better - from a B-52 with an all female aircrew!

Billll
April 4, 2003, 10:57 PM
10^6 ft-lbs is a lot of energy. If you hit a tank with a concrete bomb, there's going to be fragments of tank and bomb flying all over the place. Less dangerous to people standing around, yes, but I believe I'd want to watch from some distance.
I remember from Heinlein that 88 tons at 17,500 mph releases the same amount of energy on impact as a small nuke (about 14 KT I think) from this, you can work up a conversion factor for ft-lbs to KT. I have a chart somewhere that goes well into the mult-megaton range.

Double Naught Spy
April 4, 2003, 11:35 PM
If I understand this right, in order to keep from bombing Iraq back to the stone age, then use stone age rock-like projectiles guided with modern technology. Amazing.

ahadams
April 5, 2003, 12:01 AM
Wiley E. Coyote was RIGHT all along!:eek:

:D

coonan357
April 5, 2003, 12:50 AM
when my brother was in the USAF he told me about those practice bombs bouncing and doing damage to thing they weren't supposed to like hitting the plane that dropped it and causing it to crash . (low level runs ) weather its true or hes full of it I don't know but still the kinetic energy one of those things carry .. Hmmm wonder if you pushed a cement truck out of the back of a c-130 (45k of wet cement ) ???

Jim March
April 5, 2003, 02:17 AM
You just KNOW we'll end up hearing about a broadcast like this one from a forward air controller:

"Ahh, attack flight leader A19, why did you just scream out "ME OGG, ME THROW ROCK" over an open combat air channel, over?!"

CZ-75
April 5, 2003, 02:21 AM
weather its true or hes full of it I don't know but still the kinetic energy one of those things carry

Nazis had problems with the dolly wheels hitting the plane when dropped from the Me163 Komet at the wrong altitude.

Why wouldn't it be true?

Mike Irwin
April 5, 2003, 02:27 AM
Yep, and with the Komet that ususally resulted in a VERY large flash and bang as the T-stoff and C-stoff mixed in an uncontrolled fashion...

T.Stahl
April 5, 2003, 02:33 AM
Q: What's the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?

A: Mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets.

And aeronautical engineers build the means to deliver them. :D

jmbg29
April 5, 2003, 04:42 AM
[MAD SCIENTIST]Muuuuwaaaahhhahahahahahahahahaaaaa[/MAD SCIENTIST]

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :cool: :D

StuporDave
April 5, 2003, 08:07 AM
Some ordinance guy somewhere has GOT to paint "ACME" on the side of these things. Wiley Coyote, you have been vindicated!:D


DAve

If you enjoyed reading about "RAF to start using radical new weapon... concrete" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!