How though? The only evidence would be 100+ feet below ground in the most secret facility on earth.
That is a more compelling reason why.
No, it cannot. For an aircraft to produce a sustained simulated freefall condition, it has to be able to climb to altitude at a high angle (~45 degrees), achieve enough momentum to reduce thrust to just what is needed to overcome drag, maintain enough forward speed at the apex to prevent stalling, and then be able to pitch downward at a severe angle at a progressive rate that equals what a body would experience in a freefall condition while also controlling roll and yaw. The C-130 is a ‘slow climber’ and even not accounting for losses due to drag could only maintain a downward acceleration from stall speed to its maximum airspeed for ~7 seconds, and with a service ceiling at ~9300 meters it is going to have enough drag that it will not be able to maintain a constantly increasing downward speed for more than a fraction of that.
Aircraft that do parabolic flights to simulate freefall conditions are purpose modified to actually have three separate pilots controlling the different operations during parabolic maneuvers. And, again, this isn’t necessary or even desirable for extracting a large payload, which is done in level flight and the pilot compensating for the dynamic change in aircraft weight and c.g.
Stranger
Those bombs are really friggin’ big, and make a really big boom. Pretty much any sort of surveillance at all would be able to detect it, even things not designed for military surveillance like seismographs.
I’m not sure what physics you’re using to come to this conclusion.
Yep. They’d have to destroy a target at an unknown depth, with unknown construction, using a weapon the would require a minimum of two hits in precisely the same spot, which would be delivered in the middle of the biggest antiaircraft barrage the opponent can muster. If they’re off by even a little bit, the attack fails. And even if you do it perfectly, we’ll have no idea if two were really enough. How many do you send to get, say, 90% confidence that the facility is destroyed beyond the capacity for repair? The answer better be some number less than 20, because that’s apparently all they have.
The physics of how a ballistic trajectory works. But, hey, you don’t need to take my word for it:
Stranger
You’re right, I don’t need to take your word for it, because I know enough physics to understand it myself. You can start a parabolic arc from any angle. Starting (and finishing) the arc at a steeper angle will let you maintain it for longer. Which is why I asked how long.
I’m not going to engage in this moronic hijack any further. Suffice to say that it is in no way necessary to engage in any kind of “zero-g” maneuver to extract a large payload from a C-130 or other aft ramp cargo aircraft.
Stranger
It’s probably less a matter of the B-2 being the only plane capable of dropping that particular bomb, and more about the only currently active crews trained to drop it fly the B-2.
Trying to put all this speculation about droppipng MOP’s from differnt platforms beyond the B-2. …
To drop a particular bomb from a particular airplane you need A LOT of stuff done first.
- An airplane big enough, and for a penetrator, able to fly high enough that the bomb has a nice long fall building up speed on the way to impact.
- Lots of drop tests to ensure the bomb falls away cleanly and you can reliably predict its state once it clears the airplane’s wake.
- Design, certify, and manufacture appropriate hardware to hang the bomb on the plane. Basic bombs can get away with standard connections and hangers. The farther out into exotic we go the bigger this gets. Just because an airplane has more total load carrying capacity than the weight of the bomb doesn’t mean there’s anyplace on the plane you could bolt the bomb and expect the bolts not to tear out or the wing to rip off.
- Accurate modeling of bomb fall ballistics. Which ought to be available from other airplanes that can drop that bomb, at least if the drop envelope of the new airplane is a subset of the existing certified airplanes. If not, you’ll need a bunch of drop testing to expand the deployment envelope.
- Software mods to the airplane to enable the airplane computers to talk to the bomb computers, and to perform fall predictions so it can guide the pilot/autopilot to the correct release point. Depending on the airplane, this may involve significant computer upgrades, etc. Or may be drop-in.
- Aircraft rework at the logistics depot level to install all this stuff.
- Design and construction of appropriate ground handling equipment to store the bomb, move it to the airplane, and lift it up the airplane.
- Flight crew training to use this new capability.
- Ground crew / load crew training to be able to hang the bomb.
etc.
This is the work of years. It can all be done. If you have the will, the money, and the time.
During a war, the whole R&D process often gets cut considerably shorter. For instance, doing your “drop tests” over the target, so if it works, mission accomplished.
There have been quite rapid development programs for weapons and weapon integration. The GBU-28 Desert Storm bunker buster needing only a 3-week development and integration period is the example.
But that was in the runup to a definite hot war (in which the US was a primary belligerent), not the more relaxed and cost-constrained acquisition cycle of peacetime in anticipation of a shooting war that may not happen.
Someone in the Air Force acquisition agency decided not to fund integration with the B-52. Could have been cheapness, could have been thinking that a B-52’s chances to survive the ingress and release (in a hot battle zone, facing genuine air defenses) were too poor to justify the expenditures, could have been “we need to keep the B-2 busy, focus on that”.
Right, to be clear, I’m thinking in terms of the Israeli military coming up with something, not the US. If they did manage to get a few B52s and MOPs, I’m sure they’d try it.
Well, Israel doesn’t have any heavy bomber aircraft, so something the size of the MOP wouldn’t be deliverable by anything but a cargo plane. And the design would have to have some clever extra features to overcome being dragged out of the aft door of a slow cargo plane rather than dropped vertically from the belly of a faster-moving jet bomber (like perhaps rocket assist to get up to a controllable gliding speed, or different aerodynamic features to make it controllable from a lower airspeed).
Could you bolt one to the bottom of a souped up, specially adapted F-15?
I think it’s just outside the weight range. But even if you did, you’d lose the stealth capabilities, because of the big bomb strapped to the bottom of your plane.
By the way, supposedly that’s why the US never designed F35 drop tanks, but the IDF supposedly modified their F35s with drop tanks. So maybe they’re not that concerned about stealth.
If you launch it in the middle of waves of fighters tasked with suppressing air defenses, it won’t need stealth. After all, it’s not as if the target can run away.
Right, but that’s also a point in favor of just using a cargo plane or something if needed.
True, but people were just saying that you can’t drop a bomb out of a cargo plane.
FYI, the NYT reports that some B2 bombers are currently heading across the Pacific Ocean, just in case the president decides to get involved.
There are a bunch of B2s already at Diego Garcia.