MOAB story
 

On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.

MOAB story
 

On 4/15/17 11:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 9:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 8:21 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 7:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has
it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the
intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to
clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.




I read where the bomb killed a couple of dozen people. Big ****ing
Deal.
At some point, we'll just pull out of Afghanistan and stop wasting
American lives and American money. Your not-so-almighty military isn't
going to solve it.


The primary objective wasn't to kill anyone although ridding the planet
of 36 more terrorists was an added benefit. It's primary purpose was to
destroy the caves and tunnels being used as a "safe zone" for ISIS
terrorists who were avoiding our forces by temporarily fleeing to
Pakastan.





There are hundreds of caves and tunnels, as the Russkies learned. It was
a wasted effort, except, of course, for the PR Trump thought would help
him.


Well, if that's the case, we have 14 more of those MOAB's in inventory.



And after we use them up, we'll still be leaving Afghanistan without a
resolution.

MOAB story
 

On 4/15/17 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.


Perhaps I get my cynicism about the military from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

MOAB story
 

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:27:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:

You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

I do have an idea about the expiration date. I was in ordinance for 6
years. They had it set at 20 years on WWII surplus and that is why we
were shooting 12,000 rounds of 50 cal along with thousands of rounds
of 30-06 and .45. (1965)
We either shot it or threw it overboard. They also said all of our 5"
ammo was going to be scrapped the next time we were in the yards but
we still threw anything showing signs of "exudate" overboard.
I assume storage has been more of an issue in ammo made that was not
planned to be shot right away like these MOABs but the guy at Eglin
said he expected these to be demilled so I am guessing they were fixin
to expire.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

It was not tested on a real target. I don't think we have any caves we
will let the pentagon destroy. Going bang in the Nevada desert is not
a test of anything but the trigger device and perhaps the guidance
system although a BLP round would do that

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options.

I just have a cynical opinion whenever we are killing people and
blowing stuff up "for peace". We have had 3 major wars in my 70 years,
including the current one that has lasted 25 years and none of them
made anything better.

MOAB story
 

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:31:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


They are not 20 years old. Designed in 2003, produced sometime after.
So, maybe 12-13 years at most. But, that's beside the point.

So 20 may still be the number.

Some of your computers are much older than that and you still use them. :-)

My computers do not exude an explosive goo.

MOAB story
 

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:27:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/15/17 11:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Well, if that's the case, we have 14 more of those MOAB's in inventory.



And after we use them up, we'll still be leaving Afghanistan without a
resolution.

Don't worry, I imagine the appropriation to build more is already
bouncing around DC. I think they should ditch the guidance package,
ditch the high tech bomb case and just fill old gas station fuel tanks
with ammonium nitrate. They could make those for less than the price
of a new F150 and get a bigger bang.
Precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius is like
putting a 20 power scope on a blunderbus

MOAB story
 

On 4/15/2017 12:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.


Perhaps I get my cynicism about the military from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

The only way to make your dreams come true is to forever ban conflicts
and wars and expect everyone on the planet to honor it. How realistic
is that? I think Eisenhower had that in mind when he generated your
quote. It sure would be nice ... but....

MOAB story
 

On 4/15/2017 12:48 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:27:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:

You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

I do have an idea about the expiration date. I was in ordinance for 6
years. They had it set at 20 years on WWII surplus and that is why we
were shooting 12,000 rounds of 50 cal along with thousands of rounds
of 30-06 and .45. (1965)
We either shot it or threw it overboard. They also said all of our 5"
ammo was going to be scrapped the next time we were in the yards but
we still threw anything showing signs of "exudate" overboard.
I assume storage has been more of an issue in ammo made that was not
planned to be shot right away like these MOABs but the guy at Eglin
said he expected these to be demilled so I am guessing they were fixin
to expire.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

It was not tested on a real target. I don't think we have any caves we
will let the pentagon destroy. Going bang in the Nevada desert is not
a test of anything but the trigger device and perhaps the guidance
system although a BLP round would do that

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options.

I just have a cynical opinion whenever we are killing people and
blowing stuff up "for peace". We have had 3 major wars in my 70 years,
including the current one that has lasted 25 years and none of them
made anything better.



Come on Greg. A WWII vintage 5-inch shell or ammo for a .45 isn't the
same as a $15M bomb (not counting development costs) that undergoes
regular updating for improvements. We only built 15 of them. They
aren't "throwaways". Geeze.

As for wars and killing of people, it's been going on since we emerged
from caves. What makes you think it's going to stop in your lifetime?
It sure would be nice but it just isn't realistic.

MOAB story
 

On 4/15/17 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 12:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has
it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the
intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to
clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.


Perhaps I get my cynicism about the military from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

The only way to make your dreams come true is to forever ban conflicts
and wars and expect everyone on the planet to honor it. How realistic
is that? I think Eisenhower had that in mind when he generated your
quote. It sure would be nice ... but....




Despite the trillions we have spent and the thousands of American
soldier lives we have sacrificed, we seem incapable of winning
"unconventional" wars against determined ideological enemies. We have to
find other, better ways of dealing with extremists. I don't think we
expend enough effort in that direction. Yet another aircraft carrier or
another supersonic fighter jet isn't going to make a difference.

MOAB story
 

On 4/15/2017 12:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:31:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


They are not 20 years old. Designed in 2003, produced sometime after.
So, maybe 12-13 years at most. But, that's beside the point.

So 20 may still be the number.

Some of your computers are much older than that and you still use them. :-)

My computers do not exude an explosive goo.



Depends on who made them and who's lithium ion battery it has. :-)
On second thought, you probably don't need to be concerned.
Your computers were made before lithium ion became the standard.