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.
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.
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]
B52’s were staged at Utapoa Airbase in Thailand.
OK, that 'splains it.
Thanks!
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.
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.
Cruise Missile component?
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.
If it was UXO would those guys be standing beside it?
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.
So would it be the ‘cruise’ or the ‘missile’?
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.
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.
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.
Well, It’s possible, but the AGM-86 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.
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 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.
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]
Ask, and thou shalt receive.
USAF Fact Sheet: AGM-86B/C Missiles (This is a “.mil” site.)