The Air Force blew up this tiny ‘pirate boat’ with a 2,000-pound smart bomb

[Kirkhill]

Tornados to drop 'concrete bombs'

  RAF Iraq 2003 (to reduce CDE)  - can't find the reports saying that they did drop the bombs

France Dropping Concrete Bombs In Libya

French Air Force Libya 2011

Apparently, now that Air Forces can actually hit what they are aiming at, they no longer need lots of big planes carrying lots of bombs with massive blast zones (not to mention fallout).  They are back to "roundshot".

 

[Old Sweat]

How inappropriate on International Talk Like a Pirate Day! 

 

[jeffb]

There are other technologies for reducing CDE then dropping a concrete slug. The GBU-39B and the BLU126/B are two examples of low-collateral damage bombs that use a reduced amount of explosive filling and, in the case of the GBU-39B at least, uses a casing that is designed to fragment into almost non-lethal components.

My main critique of this goes back to the threat. Beyond killing small pirate type boats, dropping a "smart bomb" on any sort of target that has an active AD capability is going to be sub-optimal. Standoff is the way to go with this sort of stuff and if USAF really wants to creep into the USN realm of destroying ships, they should put some energy into developing systems that will enable their aircraft to carry the anti-ship designed missiles such as the AGM-84 Harpoon. If they are really only concerned about pirate ships with no AD capability then why not just use 20mm or have those beautiful A-10's that they want to get rid of flying around shooting boats with the 30mm? (not a serious suggestion) Even better, just let the USN handle anti-ship strike. I'm unconvinced that this is a skill set that is in short supply and that USAF needs to be demonstrating a capability to deliver.

The argument may make more sense in Canada for sovereignty issues seeing as our Navy does not possess an organic "air arm" beyond rotary wing but I don't think there's much of a pirate threat in Canada unless I've missed some news stories about some Great Lakes Pirates where, incidentally, thanks to the Rush - Bagot Agreement of 1818 limiting our Navy to only two ships with one gun on the lakes.  (tongue in cheek)

 

[daftandbarmy]

"if you have a steam hammer handy and you don't mind if there's nothing left of the walnut, it's not a bad way to crack it".

Bill Slim

 

[AirDet]

Impressive but I like the USN's approach. They skip a Mk82 (500 lb) dumb bomb with the fuse set to detonate after the first skip. What you have is a really low altitude air-burst that literal tears flesh from go-fast. I'm trying to find the video taken in the Gulf in 2002 by HMCS Ottawa. It's pretty cool. I'll post it once I find it.

 

[Furniture]

There are other technologies for reducing CDE then dropping a concrete slug. The GBU-39B and the BLU126/B are two examples of low-collateral damage bombs that use a reduced amount of explosive filling and, in the case of the GBU-39B at least, uses a casing that is designed to fragment into almost non-lethal components.

My main critique of this goes back to the threat. Beyond killing small pirate type boats, dropping a "smart bomb" on any sort of target that has an active AD capability is going to be sub-optimal. Standoff is the way to go with this sort of stuff and if USAF really wants to creep into the USN realm of destroying ships, they should put some energy into developing systems that will enable their aircraft to carry the anti-ship designed missiles such as the AGM-84 Harpoon. If they are really only concerned about pirate ships with no AD capability then why not just use 20mm or have those beautiful A-10's that they want to get rid of flying around shooting boats with the 30mm? (not a serious suggestion) Even better, just let the USN handle anti-ship strike. I'm unconvinced that this is a skill set that is in short supply and that USAF needs to be demonstrating a capability to deliver.

The argument may make more sense in Canada for sovereignty issues seeing as our Navy does not possess an organic "air arm" beyond rotary wing but I don't think there's much of a pirate threat in Canada unless I've missed some news stories about some Great Lakes Pirates where, incidentally, thanks to the Rush - Bagot Agreement of 1818 limiting our Navy to only two ships with one gun on the lakes.  (tongue in cheek)

The point it seems to my mind is to prove that small fast boats no longer are a major threat to multimillion dollar major war ships. One bomb worth a few hundred thousand dollars is still cheap compared to a $250million dollar warship. We can afford the bomb, can they afford the number of boats required to get to out ships?

 

[GnyHwy]

Impressive but I like the USN's approach. They skip a Mk82 (500 lb) dumb bomb with the fuse set to detonate after the first skip. What you have is a really low altitude air-burst that literal tears flesh from go-fast. I'm trying to find the video taken in the Gulf in 2002 by HMCS Ottawa. It's pretty cool. I'll post it once I find it.

Seriously?  You want them doing low level, high speed bank shots with high explosives, at a target the size of your tool shed?  If they are coming that low, they might as well use guns.

I do know the video you are talking about.  It is a pretty cool. 

 

[Good2Golf]

For those of us who remember the news at the time, the performance (lack thereof) of our CF-188s against even larger naval targets during Gulf War I would indicate that a guns engagement would likely have very low success rate.

Regards
G2G

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

But could they bullseye a womp rat?

 

[Kirkhill]

The point it seems to my mind is to prove that small fast boats no longer are a major threat to multimillion dollar major war ships. One bomb worth a few hundred thousand dollars is still cheap compared to a $250million dollar warship. We can afford the bomb, can they afford the number of boats required to get to out ships?

And in a world where the US is trying to figure out if they can keep all their Carriers in the water at the same time as they are being pulled closer in to shore handing some of the Littoral duties off to the Air Force might make sense.

Rather than tying up a Carrier in the confined waters of the Med, Red Sea and/or Gulf, or building 500 MUSD Littoral Combat Ships, why not just put a permanent CAP of B1Bs (already bought and paid for and under-utilized) over those bodies of water and return the remaining Carriers back to the blue waters of the high seas?

The old argument was that they couldn't see targets and they couldn't hit them.  Now with Sniper pods and 96 to 144 GBU-39s or -53s carried internally with 100 km stand-off range, or even some 2000 lb JDAMS for larger targets, they would seem to make a useful system on which to resurrect "Coastal Command".    And with 12000 km range and in-flight refuelling it doesn't have to be a friendly coast.

Perhaps this allows the USN to manage with one or two fewer carriers and with fewer, or no LCS.  It may even reduce the need for including shore bombardment amongst the capabilities of the DDG 1000 and reduce the risk to which they are exposed.

 

[Anakha]

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Seemed an appropriate quote here...  ;D