08-09-2006, 04:41 AM
I just came across this story in CSM while researching early references to depleted uranium. It looks like nuclear bunker busters are not so new at all. I hadn't even heard of bunker busters back in 1997, had I? When did that term come into popular usage?
http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/0724/072497.us.us.3.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/0724/072497.us.us.3.html
Quote:
July 24, 1997 edition
Why US Lab Is Designing A Bomb No One Asked For
Jonathan Landay, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON—
No one in the government asked for it and the Air Force says it does not need it.
Yet the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, one of America's nuclear-weapons research facilities, is working on an atomic bomb that would have capabilities beyond those in the current United States arsenal.
The bomb, carrying an "old" nuclear explosive device and a new guidance system, would soar on wings like a glider after its release from a radar-dodging B-2 bomber. It would drill deep into earth or concrete, its explosion crushing "hardened" bunkers hundreds of feet below ground while causing little surface damage.
The project symbolizes US determination to maintain the most- advanced arsenal possible absent global disarmament and amid rising concerns over a growth of deeply buried command-and-control and armsmaking complexes in Russia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. But it also comes as President Clinton is using American power and prestige to support global efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and reduce the number of nuclear warheads.
Caught between these contradictory goals, the project, known as the Bomb Impact Optimization System (BIOS), embodies a fierce debate over the direction of post-cold-war US nuclear-arms policy.
...
While Sandia has spent $16 million since October 1995 on BIOS, the project has no separate listing in the budget of the Department of Energy (DOE), which runs the nuclear laboratories. Instead, the name of the account from which the funds have been drawn has been different for each of the past three fiscal years. The DOE is unable to say how much money it expects to spend on BIOS in the coming fiscal year.
...
BIOS would be a follow-up to the B61-11, a conventionally dropped bunker-buster that replaced the B53 in February. The B53 is a 9,000-pound behemoth that produces a blast equivalent to 9 million tons of TNT, according to Pentagon sources. The government decided the stockpile of these bombs had become unsafe after some 30 years in the armory.
By contrast, the B61-11 weighs 750 pounds. It is the atomic payload of an existing bomb "repackaged" inside a needle-nosed body made from depleted uranium, which is extremely hard and more dense than lead. Unlike the B53, the B61-11 is small enough to be carried by a B-2 stealth bomber.
The idea behind a gliding version of the B61-11 is to better protect the $2.2 billion B-2 and its crew by allowing them to release the weapon a safe distance from antiaircraft defenses around their target. The bomb would glide on its wings the rest of the way, guided by an on-board radar that would also activate the fuse of the nuclear payload.
Why US Lab Is Designing A Bomb No One Asked For
Jonathan Landay, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON—
No one in the government asked for it and the Air Force says it does not need it.
Yet the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, one of America's nuclear-weapons research facilities, is working on an atomic bomb that would have capabilities beyond those in the current United States arsenal.
The bomb, carrying an "old" nuclear explosive device and a new guidance system, would soar on wings like a glider after its release from a radar-dodging B-2 bomber. It would drill deep into earth or concrete, its explosion crushing "hardened" bunkers hundreds of feet below ground while causing little surface damage.
The project symbolizes US determination to maintain the most- advanced arsenal possible absent global disarmament and amid rising concerns over a growth of deeply buried command-and-control and armsmaking complexes in Russia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. But it also comes as President Clinton is using American power and prestige to support global efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and reduce the number of nuclear warheads.
Caught between these contradictory goals, the project, known as the Bomb Impact Optimization System (BIOS), embodies a fierce debate over the direction of post-cold-war US nuclear-arms policy.
...
While Sandia has spent $16 million since October 1995 on BIOS, the project has no separate listing in the budget of the Department of Energy (DOE), which runs the nuclear laboratories. Instead, the name of the account from which the funds have been drawn has been different for each of the past three fiscal years. The DOE is unable to say how much money it expects to spend on BIOS in the coming fiscal year.
...
BIOS would be a follow-up to the B61-11, a conventionally dropped bunker-buster that replaced the B53 in February. The B53 is a 9,000-pound behemoth that produces a blast equivalent to 9 million tons of TNT, according to Pentagon sources. The government decided the stockpile of these bombs had become unsafe after some 30 years in the armory.
By contrast, the B61-11 weighs 750 pounds. It is the atomic payload of an existing bomb "repackaged" inside a needle-nosed body made from depleted uranium, which is extremely hard and more dense than lead. Unlike the B53, the B61-11 is small enough to be carried by a B-2 stealth bomber.
The idea behind a gliding version of the B61-11 is to better protect the $2.2 billion B-2 and its crew by allowing them to release the weapon a safe distance from antiaircraft defenses around their target. The bomb would glide on its wings the rest of the way, guided by an on-board radar that would also activate the fuse of the nuclear payload.
(There's quite a bit more. Follow the link.)
Oooh. Doesn't that sound exciting? Wouldn't it be cool to see that in action? Maybe I can just imagine it. Ohhh, oooh. It's so beautiful. Oooh, oooh.