MOAB story
 

On 4/16/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:18 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

while the MOAP wipes out
everything on the surface within a mile radius

Doesn't seem like a cave buster to me and that is what the CNN
military guy said. As for "sealing the entrance" even a silly rabbit
knows you should have two holes into a burrow.



The other end of those "burrows" are in Pakistan.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:36:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows
that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP,
not the MOAB.


The MOAB did the job according to those inspecting the area.

Hmmm the DoD sources are saying the DoD did a good job, whodathunkit.
I am sure there is a big crater and anyone outside the cave was killed
but we could have done that with a stick of cluster bombs. That just
wouldn't have been news when they needed some news.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 4:45 PM, wrote:

That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit.
If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing
Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs.
That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too.



The vast majority of the NK population wouldn't know what the PC's were,
let alone know how to use them.

I guess you have not seen the stories about the people who are
spreading cheap PCs among 3d world people. The kids pick it up and
start using it right away with minimal training.

http://one.laptop.org/

MOAB story
 

On 4/16/2017 6:46 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:36:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows
that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP,
not the MOAB.


The MOAB did the job according to those inspecting the area.

Hmmm the DoD sources are saying the DoD did a good job, whodathunkit.
I am sure there is a big crater and anyone outside the cave was killed
but we could have done that with a stick of cluster bombs. That just
wouldn't have been news when they needed some news.



We are beating this subject to death, but Mrs.E is visiting my son and
his family in South Carolina and I am somewhat bored, so what the hell:

Firstly, the sources who initially reported the results were Afghan
officials who were on site and inspecting up close and personal. I
suppose you'll just say they are in bed with the DoD, but I thought I'd
point that out.

My understanding of how the MOAB works is that it detonates about 6 feet
above the ground. It's primary effect is to generate a massive shock
wave that travels into the caves and down the tunnels, destroying them
and anything in them. The shock wave is what does all the damage.
Almost all the "experts" interviewed on media seem to be in agreement
with this, as are written sources on how the MOAB works.

A secondary effect, although I am not sure about it, is that the size of
the explosion burns up all the available oxygen, supposedly killing
anything alive. Not sure I totally buy that but I am just a layman with
an opinion.

MOAB story
 

On 4/16/2017 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 4:45 PM, wrote:

That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit.
If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing
Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs.
That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too.



The vast majority of the NK population wouldn't know what the PC's were,
let alone know how to use them.

I guess you have not seen the stories about the people who are
spreading cheap PCs among 3d world people. The kids pick it up and
start using it right away with minimal training.

http://one.laptop.org/


In North Korea? Most places there don't even have electricity to
charge the batteries. Check out the night time satellite images.
South Korea is lit up like a Christmas tree, right up to the border
where it suddenly goes pitch black everywhere.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:45:33 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:06:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:55:45 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.

I'm thinking his 'old stuff' was *accidentally* left to begin 'oozing'. The Army, at least the units
I was in, would use the older ammo for training as opposed to dumping it in the sea. I can't believe
the Coast Guard would purposely let ammo get so old it began 'oozing' unless someone f'ed up big
time.
At least you admit ammo has a shelf life.
I already said the 3 classes are ready service, training and trash.
We had limited ability to actually shoot live ammo and it was seldom
new when we got it anyway so disposal was pretty common.
You also pointed out why it was pretty much free to drop this bomb.
I doubt they "train" with an 18,000 bomb.

What was your typical cycle time on your large caliber rounds (105-155
etc)?
How long was it class 1, 2 and 3?

Looks like 20 years is the magic number. But, the rounds don't get trashed.

http://www.army-technology.com/featu...ition-4583575/

Thanks for finding that and reiterating the 20 year shelf life I
stated but it still said one particular obsolete shell was taken out
of service and rebuilt with a different payload for training.
At a certain point trashed vs taken apart and sold for the scrap price
of the metal is pretty much the same thing. The explosive is still
deactivated and destroyed. In the case of a bomb that is nothing but a
big metal tube stuffed with explosive, there is not a lot of recycling
going on.
There is a ton and a half of steel in that bomb (minus the guidance
pack) at $400 a ton, the scrap value is $600.
OK $16 million (or $171,000) in, $600 out, assuming there is no cost
involved in the recycling process (and we know that is not true).
It would be far cheaper to just throw them over the side in deep
water, hence what we did.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:47:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 5:16 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:15:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?



Ask Truman and LBJ.

Both Bushs learned the lessons of Vietnam. Once a decision was made to
wage a war, it was done so in a manner to win. Harry will yak about
third rate armies, but a Russian tank is a tank regardless and Saddam
had a bunch of them.

Both excursions into Iraq weren't even close in terms of "not winning".

The problem in Iraq is we did not know what a win looked like. We beat
the army and hanged Saddam but nobody asked "what's next"?


Yes, yes, yes Greg. That point has been made a gazillion times.
The issue and point was that when allowed to "win" a battle or war the
US military can do an outstanding job. What came after was not (and is
not) the job of the military.

We did an outstanding job winning battles in Vietnam and how did that
work out? I have no doubt we have the best trained, best equipped and
most motivated military in the world, We will win any extended battle
we get in but without the political will to win the war and a plan for
the peace, we should just stay home.
We have had that problem since we nuked Japan and we should solve that
problem before we fight again. Simply projecting power into a conflict
that we are not prepared to win is simply stupid.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:48:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:


I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong.

This is what I have gotten out of several articles on the bomb
although the numbers wiggle around a few percent but not enough to
matter.

The actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built.
It all depends on if you want the incremental cost of one more bomb at
$170k or if you take the total program cost and divide it by the
number built to date.
I paid for the total program and so did you.
It is like saying it only costs a dime to make a pill and ignoring the
development, testing, regulatory, insurance and distribution cost.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:55:49 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

I would not be at all against taking action in Africa similar to what we are doing in Syria. And, in
some cases I would be agreeable to inserting troops - SEALs or whatever. Leaving the problems to the
UN 'peacekeepers' seems to be causing even more trouble.

You want another Somalia huh?
We got our ass handed to us there and we had no interest in going
back. There is no quick SEAL strike that will do anything. It will
only encourage a larger conflict and pretty soon you will be in
another un winnable quagmire.