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

[Robert0288]

From The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/17/the-air-force-blew-up-this-tiny-pirate-boat-with-a-2000-pound-smart-bomb-because-america/)

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


The Air Force wants to prove that its B-1B "Lancer" supersonic strategic bomber isn't just useful for invading Iraq, it's also good at blowing up tiny pirate boats. And what better way to do that than by taking it out to the Gulf of Mexico and having it drop a high-tech, 2,000-pound GBU-10 smart bomb on an empty motor boat that probably weighs half as much and costs less?

Because this is the U.S. military, they took photos. Here, courtesy of the U.S. Air Force Dyess Air Base media page, is recorded evidence of this very American moment:



The idea of the test bombing run, explains Jacek Siminski of TheAviationist.com, is to demonstrate that the big bomber could be deployed against small sea-borne surface targets. Siminski cites pirates as a likely target, adding that "the term 'using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut' springs to mind." A single GBU-10 bomb costs $23,700. Here's a photo of the bomb impacting the (unoccupied) dummy pirate skiff:


If these photos don't make you jump up at your desk and chant "U-S-A" then, well, you're probably not a defense acquisitions contractor. Fun fact about the B-1B: It was developed in the 1980s for the Cold War, but was never actually used until 1998 against Iraq. Trying to adapt fancy Cold War weapons to a very different world is sort of an ongoing challenge for the military.

To be fair, it seems to me that the planners behind this exercise probably did not have Somali pirate motor-boaters in mind as the most likely target, but perhaps high-speed military boats like those Iran uses in the Persian Gulf. I'm not sure that makes a 2,000-pound laser-guided bomb strictly necessary, but it's at least a potentially more significant military threat.

I'd definitely check out the link, as nothing really says over kill like dropping a bomb that is bigger than the boat it's hitting.

 

[JorgSlice]

2000 LBS and that's the biggest "boom" they could get out of hitting not just a dhingy but also lots of water... ???

I am disappointed. I expected better of the Americans.  ;D

Wicked photos though.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

2000 LBS and that's the biggest "boom" they could get out of hitting not just a dhingy but also lots of water... ???

I am disappointed. I expected better of the Americans.  ;D

Wicked photos though.

Note the bomb is blue, that means it is inert and filled with concrete as opposed to an actual warhead hence the lack of detonation.

 

[Good2Golf]

Excellent! It seems they confirmed what Jimmy Doolittle did more than three quarters of a century ago...

 

[Kirkhill]

Billy Mitchell perhaps, G2G?

And after 75 years these guys got it in "One".

 

[Good2Golf]

Kirkhill, you're right! Early morning hip shoot gone wrong.

 

[Kirkhill]

More caffeine.... :nod:

Doolittle flew Mitchells over Tokyo.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He also put together a demo to bomb an old warship in the 20's as I recall, here is a report

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb1.htm

 

[cupper]

Note the bomb is blue, that means it is inert and filled with concrete as opposed to an actual warhead hence the lack of detonation.

That's what I thought when I saw the second photo, the splash looked a little small for a detonation.

Another example of someone needing to change their pants courtesy of the USAF. (assuming the occupants survived either the impact or the shock of seeing the bomb go through the boat)

 

[jeffb]

If they are trying to destroy pirate boats, inert bombs would work just as well. The kinetic energy or a 2,000 lb bomb coming off an aircraft at 400 kts from 20,000 feet would be tremendous.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If they are trying to destroy pirate boats, inert bombs would work just as well. The kinetic energy or a 2,000 lb bomb coming off an aircraft at 400 kts from 20,000 feet would be tremendous.

No kidding and it is a heck of a lot cheaper then using the ammunition with a warhead, which this article fails to mention.  Rather it gives the cost of a real 2,000lb bomb when this one is clearly not real .... go figure the media would leave a key detail like that out  :

 

[GAP]

from the article I get the impression it was a test/practise on the laser system targeting the boat....seemed to work.

 

[rampage800]

Royal,

SMax would be able to weigh in on this one but I don't think there's a huge difference in price wrt inert or live munitions, the 'big' cost is tied up in the guidance kit for the weapon.

 

[jeffb]

I'm tracking the cost thing. A GBU-10 is just a MK-84 with a Paveway II guidance package. As an LGB, it requires someone to designate the target. This can be done by a ground based laze and if that's an option why not just engage with direct fire, or lazed from an a/c. If the goal is to strike small craft with air delivered munitions, it would seem that going with something smaller would be much more effective. I think the Hellfire (AGM-114 family) or even the Maverick (AGM-65E) would be better pairings. They are much cheaper and are actually designed to hit moving targets rather then just being able to hit targets like the GBU-10. I get that the USAF is trying to show how it's strategic bombers can be purposed but this is ridiculous.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Royal,

SMax would be able to weigh in on this one but I don't think there's a huge difference in price wrt inert or live munitions, the 'big' cost is tied up in the guidance kit for the weapon.

you are most likely correct, I wonder why then do we even bother using training rounds, probably other considerations like the environment, etc...

 

[SupersonicMax]

Royal,

Don't you think safety templates would be much bigger for live warheads?  Would you want to keep your livr weapons for operations?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Royal,

Don't you think safety templates would be much bigger for live warheads?  Would you want to keep your livr weapons for operations?

Good point, my army brain didn't really think about safety templating but I would imagine for a 2,000lb bomb it would be quite a large template  ;D

As for keeping your live weapons for operations if they cost relatively the same then who gives a rats ass but the templating issue is definitely a factor that I can understand. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Believe it or not, there is not an unlimited supply of weapons.  Drop concrete when you can.  Easier to assess your scores and keep the war stocks well...  For war.  Not saying we shouldnt drop live, but minimize it.

Not to mention the need for an initiator and fuze for live warheads, also in limited supplies.

 

[McG]

you are most likely correct, I wonder why then do we even bother using training rounds, probably other considerations like the environment, etc...

There are a number of reasons for training munitions.
Most of the cost of a guided munition is in the electronics and flight/fall control mechanisms, but you still get monetary savings from using the training munition.
Training munitions do not produce high explosive UXOs (though they can still have hazards, so don't touch touch something you don't know just because it is blue).
Training munitions mitigate the consequences if you land one in the wrong place.
(As mentioned) training munitions typically have smaller range templates.

 

[Good2Golf]

There are a number of reasons for training munitions.
Most of the cost of a guided munition is in the electronics and flight/fall control mechanisms, but you still get monetary savings from using the training munition.
Training munitions do not produce high explosive UXOs (though they can still have hazards, so don't touch touch something you don't know just because it is blue).
Training munitions mitigate the consequences if you land one in the wrong place.
(As mentioned) training munitions typically have smaller range templates.

...don't forget, 'training' munitions reduce CDE...

    :nod: