Is this gigantic thing actually a bomb? Pic from cnn.com

[zuma]

This question was raised on f---edcompany.com, not exactly the fount of all knowledge, but I'll pose it here. A few people over there claimed it wasn't a bomb, but an external fuel tank.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/15/gen.attack.on.terror/index.html

[Syzygy]

Well, IANAP (pilot), and the picture is rather small, but I'd say it looks more like a drop tank than "unexploded ordinance". I know it was deformed upon impact, but it has a strange shape for a missile or bomb.

[Syzygy]

Well, IANAP (pilot), and the picture is rather small, but I'd say it looks more like a drop tank than "unexploded ordinance". I know it was deformed upon impact, but it has a strange shape for a missile or bomb.

[Mr. Duality]

in the last few minutes.

External fuel tanks are tapered along their entire length, and are fattest in the middle, becoming narrower toward front and rear. Bombs are cylindrical thru most of their length.

[Sofa King]

I think I saw the same picture last night. Judging by the person standing next to it, the "unexploded ordinance" looked to be about four feet wide and, no kidding, about thirty feet long. I assumed that it was a building column, and that the caption was incorrect, or possibly it could have been an optical illusion. Here's the old photo:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/gen.attack.on.terror/story.koram.village.ap.jpg

That thing is as big as the fuselage of an F-105.


When I go back to what I thought was the article I saw last night, I now see this photo:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg

That, I suppose, could be either a guided bomb that has lost its rear control surfaces or a drop tank. Since it appears to have made a small crater without deforming, I'd say it's a bomb.

[Kilt-wearin' man]

I saw both pics on cnn.com this morning - the freakin' huge thing (dwarfed the guy standing next to it) had to be an unexploded SAM that the Taliban launched - we don't drop stuff as BIG AS AN AIRPLANE from our fighters and bombers...the smaller one looked to be a drop tank - it was still awful big for a bomb. Also, the US military tends to paint bombs dark green for some reason. Both of these objects were light-grey...

[Johnny L.A.]

Re: Sofa King's photo links. Something's funny.

Look at the lugs on top of the thing at http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/gen.attack.on.terror/story.koram.village.ap.jpg Those look like the points at wich the object would attach to a rack. Now look at http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg Notice the shackle points on what seems pretty clearly to be a drop tank. The shackle points on the first photo look as if they're as big as a head! Too big to fit on a bomb rack.

Also notice the colouration of the objects. Very similar.

There is one man in the photo of the smaller object. He doesn't appear to be looking at the thing, but to the left of it.

The object appears to be at the same angle in both of the photos.

The rocks around the crater seem to be a little large -- at least to me. Note also the detail of the ground. Photo #2 (with the seven men around it) seems to be more rocky. Photo # 1 seems to have been taken from a closer spot.

I'm wondering if maybe the photo of the "huge" thing is faked. On the other hand, drop tanks carried by bombers (what kind do we have over there?) are pretty big. The first photo (with the one guy in it) shows something that is larger than drop tanks carried by carrier-based aircraft (if the photo is real).

No photo analyst, I; but it looks "funny" to me.

[Sofa King]

You know, Kilt, the nose of the big one does appear to be ablated, as a spent rocket might look.

You don't think it could be two pictures of the same thing, with some trick of perspective accounting for the difference in apparent size, do you? They're both the same color, both appear to be ablated near the "front", and both appear to be slighly deformed in the same way (I think I was wrong in my earlier post about that second object not being deformed).

[Johnny L.A.]

Or maybe not "faked". Could just be telephoto distortion.

[Phlosphr]

Well I recently heard that 'some' of the bombs that were dropped on taliban and al quaeda had NYPD and NYFD painted on them some even had pictures of the WTC attack painted on them. Possibly what we are seeing is munitions from them that has not blown up.

This just in on CNN. I am actually watching it right now and they are saying it is unexploded munitions, from the taliban. not ours.

As for the painted things on the munitions, I doubt it. But hey you never know.h

[Duck Duck Goose]

FWIW, today's Chicago Tribune has the second picture, http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg ,on the front page, much larger and not cropped--there's a ninth guy standing over on the right, and from the perpective it looks like it's at least 6 feet long, and as big around as a man. The flat circular end that's sticking up is not solid--it's got indentations in it, like punch-outs. It's got two clip thingies on top, like D-rings, and there's nothing at all painted on it. I even took it over by the dining room window and looked at it in bright natural light. It's just light gray all over. It sure looks like an unexploded missile to me. Dunno what a "drop tank" is.

It's credited to "Enric Marti", and the caption says, "Afghans examine unexploded ordnance Sunday in Karam, west of Islamabad. Taliban agents escorted foreign journalists to the area."

[casdave]

Is it possible that it could be a fuel/air bomb, never seen one but they would have to be like a large fuel tank ?

[Johnny L.A.]

Dunno what a "drop tank" is.
A drop tank is an external fuel tank that can be jettisoned when empty or when more maneuverability is needed.

[Kilt-wearin' man]

From what I understand, fuel/air explosives tend to be more spherical, and you have to drop them out the back of a cargo plane because they're too freaking huge for any bomber or fighter in the inventory...

I'm thinking that it's gotta be a Taliban SAM that missed its target and obeyed the law of gravity afterward.

[45ACP]

Following is a link to a clip of an Fuel Air Explosive bomb test at China Lake from back in 1976. I'm sure the configuration of such things has changed by now, but at least back then, they looked more or less like a regular bomb.
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/clmf/faeseq.html

45ACP

[Tranquilis]

Whatever it is, it has shackle-points, so it's not a SAM (the shape is generally wrong for a SAM, too). My current best guess is "drop-tank", based upon the observation that it's:
- Aerodynamicly shaped (which means Drop Tank or low-drag bomb),
- Appears to have bent along its length (HE bombs have surprisingly strong cases),
- Has two obvious shackle points (for connecting to an aircraft),
- Apparently has no fuse (no way to tell it when to go "boom").

It might be an FAE, but I doubt it, as the explosive in FAEs is in itself very dangerous, even if it doesn't detonate, and it's unlikely that people would be casually standing around in an enviroment soaked in propylene oxide. Choking and running away, maybe, but not just standing about.

FAEs come in a variety (http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-b.html#_BLU) of sizes, including the humongous BLU-82, which is a big, clumsy thing. From this (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/chech0215b.htm) page, discussing Russian use of FAEs:How FAEs Work

A typical fuel air explosive device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud, creating a massive blast wave. (For a demonstration of a FAE explosion, see the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California, page at "http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/clmf/faeseq.html".) The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment and kills and injures personnel. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.

[45ACP]

And, in case you want to know, the following is a link to a military contractor, Sargent Fletcher, who manufacturer all sorts of underwing and fuselage mounted fuel tanks--the linked table lists gallon capacity and major diameter. Note the biggest one, for the KC-130, which holds 1300 or so gallons and is 45 inches in diameter. (They don't list a length.)

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/eft_index.htm

45ACP

[Duck Duck Goose]

The Better Half, who although not a Military Guy, still is a Guy, and thus feels qualified to pontificate, read this thread at lunchtime and wishes to point out:
It's gotta be a piece of the Taliban's junk collection, set up for a "bash Bush" photo op, "Oooh, see the evil unexploded American bomb". It's significant that according to the Tribune's caption, they specifically invited foreign journalists to come look at it.

Do they really think they're gonna beat the U.S. at PR?

Uncle Sam doesn't spend $100,000 on missiles that don't explode when they hit.
And since he's a Guy, and was going back to work to earn money to put bread on my children's table, I tactfully didn't remind him of the Morton Thiokol O-rings and the Challenger, that presumably cost a lot more than $100,000 and that didn't work right, either.

Is there a tally somewhere of bombs that we're dropping on Afghanistan that aren't exploding? Does someone keep track of the duds, if any? Does a single missile cost $100,000?

And as long as I've got you here: I was actually wondering, when I first saw the picture in the paper, whether you can clean up and reuse a dud like that (if it were in fact a dud missile). Does it explode if you go too close to it? Is it ticking? Can you re-use it?

Is the Taliban scurrying around Afghanistan picking up dud American missiles like kids at a parade picking up the candy the clowns are throwing?

[Encinitas]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the size of the ordinance in the first photo might be "normal" and that there are actually some very small Afghans?:)

[Tranquilis]

Well, DDG, from here (http://www.dote.osd.mil/reports/FY00/navy/00tomahawk.html), a TLAM may cost as much as US$1.4 Million, while a Mk-84 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk84.htm) low-drag "iron" or "dumb" bomb may cost as little as US$3,100.

In cluster-bomb bomblets, dud rates have been observed from as low as 2%, to as high as 30%. Human Rights Watch and the US DoD use the rate of 5% when predicting "duds" for CBUs. The dud rate for more espensive ordnance will be significantly lower, but is non-zero. One doesn't go about "picking up" dud ordnance, unless one has a death wish. What is normally done is to use a controlled detonation to destroy the device. For really big bombs, or bombs you don't want to detonate (too close to something you want to keep), you can burn a hole in the side and either melt or burn the bomb filling out of the case. Most explosives will burn quite nicely as long as they're not subjected to a shock-wave. Last resort it to try and de-fuse the device, but that's a good way of getting dead, and is only for the bravest or most desperate.

So: It's unlikely that the Taliban & Co are arming themselves at our expense.

[Johnny L.A.]

Notice the shackle points on what seems pretty clearly to be a drop tank.
I still think it's a drop tank. And I think the "jumbo-sized" one is an illusion.

[Whack-a-Mole]

These things in the photos are almost certainly drop tanks. Go to this site (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html) and pick your bomb. They all have fins of one sort or another (at least every one I looked at). The big thing in the pictures here clearly doesn't or didn't have fins attached to it.

I was going to say the big thing could be a drop tank from a B-52. This picture (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52h-fairford.jpg) (and this (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52h-990512-F-1312M-010-1.jpg) ) show that the tanks are certainly big enough but they do taper at both ends (as opposed to the blunt end in the CNN picture). Still, maybe a piece broke off upon imapct and we are only seeing 2/3 of the whole thing.

[Tranquilis]

Please note that modern aerial bombs come in three parts: Fuse, fin assembly, and body. Go here (http://www.ordnance.org/gpb.htm) and observe "shipping configuration" and "tail assembly" to get an idea of the range of possibilities.

I'm still of the opinion that the object in the picture is a drop tank, but I'm less sure than before. It [/i]could[/i] be the body of a large General Purpose, Low-Drag bomb.

B-52 drop tanks are quite robust. Here (http://www.travelasiaandbeyond.com/lost_valley.htm), you can plan a trip up the Mekong in a boat made from B-52 drop tanks dropped during VietNam. Go here (http://wsphotofews.excite.com/011/gr/Cp/yT/0k69167.jpg) (Warning: Big!) for a better look. Note that tail-end is truncated, and appears to be part of the original design (although I would not rule out clever & skilled re-work).

[Omniscient]

Guys, back the train up a few miles here.

I don't know for sure if its a bomb or a drop tank, but I will say that it looks nothing like the 500, 1000 and 2000 lb. GBU's that I've seen, or studied (AAE major here) nor the JDAM. AFAIK we haven't begun using "dumb" bombs yet and the lack of guidance package hints it is probably just a drop tank.

To the real point of my post. This is not huge, nor does the picture indicate that it is, nor is the photo doctored. Look closely at this photo (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg). The top-most man, in white, facing the camera for the most part. He is holding a camera, and is photographing the object. He is taking this photo (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg). Look closely at the slope of the hill and what would be the horizon in the photograph with respect to the angle of the photographer. The crater protrudes slightly at the lower half of the crater (as viewed in photo 1). The lip of that crater obscures the face of the hill in photo 2. The "small" man in photo 2 is actually a long distance away from the object. You can't see his feet due to the lip of the crater, and the perspective of the photographer shown creates a optical illusion that the man in photo 2 is standing right next to it.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Originally posted by Tranquilis
One doesn't go about "picking up" dud ordnance, unless one has a death wish.
Okay, but what if you're an Islamic fundamentalist who thinks you'll just go to Paradise if you fail in your holy mission to salvage unexploded American ordnance?
What is normally done is to use a controlled detonation to destroy the device.
Okay, but again, this is presupposing that the Taliban is gonna do what's "normally" done, and so far I haven't noticed them doing much of anything that I'd consider "normal". What if they don't care how many volunteers get blown up? If they can find enough people willing to chance it, is the stuff salvageable, or does it always automatically detonate as soon as you wiggle it?

In other words, if you're crazy enough to try it, is it "do-able"?

I'm not really worried about the Taliban arming themselves at our expense, just curious.

[SmackFu]

For the photo analysts, bigger versions from Yahoo:

Big Thing (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20011014/wl/1003080553afghanistan_attacks_village_xem107.html)
Small Thing (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20011014/wl/1003081932afghanistan_attacks_village_xem110.html)

So you don't have to use those wee versions from CNN.

[Darwin's Finch]

Originally posted by Omniscient
To the real point of my post. This is not huge, nor does the picture indicate that it is, nor is the photo doctored. Look closely at this photo (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg). The top-most man, in white, facing the camera for the most part. He is holding a camera, and is photographing the object. He is taking this photo (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.koram.village/story.01.koram.ap.jpg). Look closely at the slope of the hill and what would be the horizon in the photograph with respect to the angle of the photographer. The crater protrudes slightly at the lower half of the crater (as viewed in photo 1). The lip of that crater obscures the face of the hill in photo 2. The "small" man in photo 2 is actually a long distance away from the object. You can't see his feet due to the lip of the crater, and the perspective of the photographer shown creates a optical illusion that the man in photo 2 is standing right next to it.

Upon looking at the larger photo, I can see what Omniscient is talking about. Further, take a look at the shadow at the back of the object, and compare it to the man's shadow. If the object were as huge as it appears to be, its shadow should be at least as long as the man's in the background. But it isn't.

After looking around, it looks rather like a center-line drop tank used on F-15Es (see here (http://www2.acc.af.mil/gallery/images/aircraft/f15-2/fi/00000006.htm) for an example). However, it also looks like it was broken in half (or something) -- look at the lip around the back (dull) end in SmackFu's "Big Thing" picture.

On the other hand, after looking through the site provided by Tranquilis, the object does appear to sport the two suspension lugs as well as the handling lug and electrical fuzing wells shown on the outline drawings for the various MK-8x bombs. We don't see the tip of it, so I can't really tell if it tapers to a point or has a fuze at the front. If it used a retarded fin configuration (again, per Tranquilis' site), it looks like the fins could have broken off and what we see is, in fact, the front end of a MK-8x bomb (from the size, probably a MK-82 or -83).

[glowbug]

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
Notice the shackle points on what seems pretty clearly to be a drop tank.
I still think it's a drop tank. And I think the "jumbo-sized" one is an illusion. ]

I agree. The two photos seem to be of the same object taken from opposite sides.

[Mickazee]

Apparently a good way of telling if a picture has been 'photoshopped' is to invert the colours... I havn't actually tried this before (but saw an example of it on the WTC 'incoming plane' photo)...

[Milton De La Warre]

Johnny LA has it right. The suspension lugs are the giveaway.

If you look at the shadows, rocks, etc, you'll see the pictures of the object weretaken at about the same time of dat of the same object in the same place. The "smaller" picture is the "real" pitcure. I don't know how the "big" picture could have been done to make the bomb appear larger.

This is most assuredly not an FAE. The shape is all wrong, and if we accept the "small" picture/object as being the real deal, it's also to small to be an FAE.

We can't see the tip og the thing to be 10,000% sure it is a bomb --the nose fuze would tell us for sure--- so there is a tiny possibility that it is an Aero 1 300 gallon drop tank. For that to be the case, we'd have to show the "small" object/picture is also not accurately depicting the true scale of the object. A 300 galon tank is pretty big ---about 20 feet long.

[zuma]

Well, I agree that the original picture is an optical illusion now. and thanks to the pictures provided, it does seem like 2/3 of a drop-tank (which before I posed this question, I didn't even know existed). On an added note, i saw video of what I believe was this scene on cnn a couple hours ago. It was taken from the perspective of a good distance behind the "lone guy", and showed the crowd gathered around the object in the distance.

If these were indeed the same characters in the still pictures, the lone guy who appeared to be standing right next to the object was in fact quite far away.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch
If it used a retarded fin configuration (again, per Tranquilis' site), it looks like the fins could have broken off and what we see is, in fact, the front end of a MK-8x bomb (from the size, probably a MK-82 or -83).

I think DF might have it. This page (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk83.htm) (nearly that same as Tranquilis' site but with a few more pictures) has some excellent photos of MK-8x bombs that give you a good idea of what they look like. The early pictures seem wrong but the later pictures seem to nail it...especially with the back end knocked off. In addition, if we assume the 'small' picture gives the right scale then you can see pictures of men handling these bombs that indicate we are close in scale. The mount lugs are about right too.

If this is so then those guys standing around the thing aren't the brightest in the world. I certainly wouldn't get within 200 yards of the thing!

[Turbo Dog]

To me it appears to be a bomb. The dimensions are about right and so is the shape, especially at the back end. If you look close, you can see a slight bevel and some small "holes". That is where the fin assembly fits onto bombs, the small holes being for the screws on the fin assembly. Looking at the markings on the front of it and the bent suspension lug, it hit the ground with quite a bit of force. If it were a drop tank, it would be in pretty poor shape. Drop tanks are not designed to take much in the way of external loads and I've seen noses of them get crushed by not much more than a tow tractor. As far as the color, I recovered a lot of bombs, live and practice, when I was at China Lake. That's about what they look like and ground conditions are a lot alike between the two places. Between the general abrasion of the ground and the heat that is generated, there is rarely any paint left on them. Conclusion for me: Bomb.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Ackk...I'm brain dead. That's what I get for talking on the phone and writing this at the same time. Tranquilis' link and the link I provided just above are the same link.

Sorry if there was any confusion...

[Johnny L.A.]

Drop tanks are not designed to take much in the way of external loads and I've seen noses of them get crushed by not much more than a tow tractor.
OTOH, I remember reading about one case in Vietnam in which an A-4 Skyhawk with landing gear trouble landed on its two drop tanks, resulting in no damage to the aircraft.

[Turbo Dog]

I watched an F/A-18 do the same thing once. The aircraft had very little damage. The tanks however, were a different story. I just don't believe that a drop tank of fairly thin construction could be in that good a condition after hitting with the force that the bent suspension lug and nose markings would suggest. I've seen a lot of bombs and a lot of fuel tanks and I've never seen a drop tank with that shape. Not to say that it could be, but I have to go with bomb. Maybe not ours, but probably a bomb.

[The Great Gazoo]

Originally posted by janeth
Has anyone considered the possibility that the size of the ordinance in the first photo might be "normal" and that there are actually some very small Afghans?:)

I don't know why, but this has me LOL. The picture of teeny-tiny Afghans dancing around on a "whatever-it-is" is hilarious. :)

It reminds me of the little people with the glowing eyes who saved R2D2 and C3PO when they landed on Tatooine in Star Wars I.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by Tranquilis
while a Mk-84 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk84.htm) low-drag "iron" or "dumb" bomb may cost as little as US$3,100.


I think that the preferred term is "guidance challenged bomb", in our overly PC world.

The complete lack of any fins makes me agree with the supporters of the drop tank theory.

[Tranquilis]

OK, I'm convinced. It's UXO (Unexploded Ordnance). A dud bomb.

DDG, yes, if you're sufficently nuts, you certainly could go about picking-up UXO (duds). There's one story circulating about an EOD type finding a house (in Bosnia?) with fourteen dud cluster bomblets lined up in a window sill. Someone in the house had been collecting them. ::shuddder::


Now, a silly question: Seeing as a number of you have first-hand experience with droptanks, and find them to be flimsy, how the heck did the guys on the river (links posted above) get B-52 droptanks in such good shape?

[Omniscient]

Those of you convinced that its a UXO, care to hypothesize on where the guidance package and the fuse mechanism are? There's no trace of them, nor is there any trace of paint or inventory markings. I'm willing to accept that there would be signifigant loss of pain in the impact and drop, as well as damaged nose and fin assemblies, but there isn't a single scrap of metal visible in the crater.

I'm not sold.

[Tranquilis]

Bombs bounce and tumble when they don't bury themselves. The fins or guidance package (and I'm pretty sure we're using plain-old iron bombs over there in addidition to the "sexy" guided stuff: Even in Kuwait, less than 8% of all ordnance dropped was "smart"), being lighter and more flimsy than the rest of the weapon (bomb cases can be over a half-inch thick), would shear off immediately and be left behind, if the weapon didn't detonate.

[Turbo Dog]

Tranquilis, perhaps they were left behind after the war, like much equipment? I don't know.

Omniscient, my hypothesis is that there was no guidance package to begin with because it is not a guided bomb but a standard free fall. Assuming that it is ours, and that we haven't used dumb bombs so far, it would be expected to possibly see something else. Assuming it is not ours (remember, the bad guys were dropping bombs outside their own cities before the attacks as a "show of force" or that we have used dumb bombs, there would not be a guidance package, and with exception of proximity fuses and long-rod daisy cutter fuses, bomb fuses only extend a couple inches, and follow the lines of the bomb. The major workings are all internal.

[Tranquilis]

...perhaps they were left behind after the war, like much equipment? I don't know.Hmmm... The photos I linked to were taken in Cambodia. The Travel site was from Thailand. Did we stage any B-52 aircraft through Thailand?

[George Carlin voice]
It's a mystery...
[/George Carlin voice]

[Turbo Dog]

B52's were staged at Utapoa Airbase in Thailand.

[Tranquilis]

OK, that 'splains it.

Thanks!

[red_dragon60]

This is the same tank from two different angles. The one that looks large is taken not three feet away from it, and has a man downrange, giving the appearance of it being huge. The second shows the actual perspective.

In summary, it's probably a drop tank. This is a small thing, about six feet across.


My diagram:

[0] camera


<===> drop tank





8 turban dude




Since the tank is closer, it looks bigger. You can do the same by covering up the sun or moon with a quarter.

[Cervaise]

(Mickazee) Apparently a good way of telling if a picture has been 'photoshopped' is to invert the colours... I havn't actually tried this before (but saw an example of it on the WTC 'incoming plane' photo)...This got me thinking, so I used some Photoshop techniques I learned on these very message boards to examine the two pictures in question. I rotated, flipped, and inverted the images, and when I zoomed in tight I discovered that on each and every rock was carved a tiny image of Beauregard the Janitor, from "The Muppet Show," wearing a saddle and being ridden savagely by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. It's kind of hard to see at first, but if you stare at the pictures long enough, it becomes clear, and then you can't miss it no matter where you look.

The reason for this hidden imagery is totally obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than five seconds, so I won't patronize my readers by explaining it. I'll post more comprehensive evidence in a day or two.

The truth will come out, no matter how hard you fight to remain blind.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Cruise Missile component?

['Uigi]

If ya'll want a BIG bomb, the BLU-82 Commando Vault http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm just might be THE ticket.

Wonder what this would do during the winter once there's been a bit of snow built up on the peaks around OBL turf? Bury the buggers 'til spring? Should be no problem for C-130s or C-17s to mix in their mission load; food drop first, then "da big one" off the tailgate.

[Poloin99]

If it was UXO would those guys be standing beside it?

[super_head]

Originally posted by red_dragon60
This is the same tank from two different angles. The one that looks large is taken not three feet away from it, and has a man downrange, giving the appearance of it being huge. The second shows the actual perspective.

Looking more closely, I agree - in the "big object" picture there appears to be a ridge, starting from the right and moving to the left, which would divide the object from the man. I'm assuming this is the lip of the impact crater.

[Derleth]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Cruise Missile component?

So would it be the 'cruise' or the 'missile'?

:D

[Tranquilis]

Definitely not a cruise missle, not even a component. The warhead section of a cruise missile is cylindrical, not ovoid, and the rest of the missile is no more strongly built than any aircraft. Excepting the ogive and tail, cruise missiles tend to be purely cylindrical through their length. The tail tapers a bit, and the nose tends to be hemispherical.

It most closely resembles a BLU-109 body or (more likely) a MK-80(series) body, or perhaps an F-15 centerline droptank. See a side-by-side diagram of the BLU-109 and MK-84 bodies here (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-109.htm).

And, yes, people, especially those who don't understand, can and do cluster around dud bombs (UXO). Curiosity is a powerful motive, and people do thoughtless things to satisfy it daily.

[Johnny L.A.]

The warhead section of a cruise missile is cylindrical, not ovoid,
The fuselage of the Tomahawk cruise missle is circular in cross section, but aren't we also using some version of the AGM-86 ALCM? Not that I'm suggesting that the thing in the photo is an ALCM; the AGM-86 had/has more of a trapezoidal cross section.

I still say it's a drop tank. I don't know what the inside of a drop tank looks like, but I'm guessing that the tail end came off and the holes in the truncated aft end may be baffles.

[Tranquilis]

Well, It's possible, but the AGM-86 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/alcm.htm) is, IIRC, primarily a nuclear job. I heard that the services were changing out the warheads on some of those for conventional munitions, but nothing definitive. The AGM-86 airframe is roughly triangular in cross-section, and is straight along it's length, not ovoid. Each side of the body is distinctively flat, except for the ogive and tail.

[Johnny L.A.]

Trapezoidal, triangular. Close enough.

I used to work on the ALCM project in another life. After I got out of it I noticed that the AGM-109 Tomahawk being launched on Naval vessels (making it SLCM?) and AGM-86 occasionally showing up from air launches.

This site (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/alcm.htm) says the AGM-86 (which I stress is not what is seen in the photos this thread is about) is "nuclear capable". So is the AGM-109. I'll bet the AGM-86 normally has a conventional warhead on it.

[Tranquilis]

Hmm...

Back in the day, an SLCM was a "Submarine Launched Cruise Missile". I never knew what to call those launched from surface combatants.

I'd heard about plans to put a conventional warhead on the AGM-86, but have heard nothing since, so I've no idea whether or not we're using them right now.

[ben stein]
Anyone have info on this..? Anyone..? Anyone..?
[/ben stein]

[Johnny L.A.]

Ask, and thou shalt receive.
USAF Fact Sheet: AGM-86B/C Missiles (http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/AGM_86B_C_Missiles.html) (This is a ".mil" site.)
The AGM-86C CALCM differs from the AGM-86B air launched cruise missile in that it carries a conventional blast/fragmentation payload rather than a nuclear payload and employs a GPS aided INS.