|
After nuclear bombs were developed, improvements to the explosive power of conventional bombs ended. Billons of dollars were spent to make nuclear weapons smaller, safer, and more powerful. Although nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945, research into more powerful conventional bombs is rare. During World War II, the Barnes Wallis “Tallboy” (12,000 lb) and “Grand Slam” (22,000 lb) bombs were used by the British. Although the RAF could never lift them to the design release height of 40,000 feet, and so had to release at approximately 25,000 feet, the “Tallboy” could still go through 16 feet of concrete, or if dropped into earth create an 80 ft. deep crater some 100 ft. across. Additionally, one of the prime objectives of the bomb was to produce a localized earthquake effect, thus creating damage far in excess of that obvious from the size of the crater.
The primary reason that larger bombs have not been developed is because of the dangers of transport and storage. The accidental explosion of a huge bomb can destroy an entire friendly airbase. This danger can be overcome with the binary weapon concept used for chemical munitions. Leaks or accidents with chemical weapons had worried everyone for years. The solution was develop a binary warhead consisting of two chemicals that are harmless themselves, yet very toxic when mixed. These "half-warheads" are stored and transported separately, and only joined on the battlefield just prior to use or during flight downrange.
Binary weapons provide another advantage. Military forces use stable explosives that are much less powerful than those used by commercial firms. Military explosives require a large shock to detonate for safety reasons, even fire and regular bullets do not cause them to explode. However, the binary concept allows more powerful explosives that are less stable. Therefore, a binary 100,000 lb sub-atomic bomb may explode with three times the force of standard military explosives. An Air Force would no longer "attack" enemy airbases or staging areas, it could destroy them completely with the equivalent of one 300,000 lb bomb. This is also much less costly and less manpower intensive to deliver than using six or more bombers to drop the same explosive power. An Air Force can send a squadron of transports with sub-atomic bombs to devastate an entire army division with explosions equal to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. A similar idea is to drop massive fuel bombs. Use cylindrical fuel bladders (like the BLU-82 pictured at top) that can hold thousands of gallons of fuel. C-130s can drop these at troops dug into bunkers; no guidance or fuze is required. The fuel bladder bursts upon impact and fuel spatters over a huge area causing a fuel-air explosive mist, while most of the fuel flows downward into trenches and bunkers. It eventually catches fire, probably from a cigarette, generator, or cooking fire, resulting in a massive inferno. The inferno is sure to set off stocks of enemy ammunition too. Huge fuel bombs are very effective at stopping advancing enemy forces. High explosive bombs do their thing and all is clear one minute later. A fuel bomb burns for hours, making it difficult to advance through an area. If dropped on a bridge, it can deny its use for over an hour without destroying the bridge itself, which may be desirable for political or military reasons. This is a very simple and inexpensive bomb that doesn't degrade over time, doesn't need to be stored in massive bunkers, or even guarded. It is just an empty fuel bladder rolled up in a box for easy to air transport overseas. ©2015 www.G2mil.com |