Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) … is baack!

massive ordnance penetrator.jpg
US Air Force photo

Today, I learned that the Boeing Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000lb bunker-buster that possibly understates the term “massive”, could be operational on the B-2A fleet in three years.




Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.


9 Responses to Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) … is baack!

  1. Generic Login 9 June, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    Link to story is broken.

  2. RobH 9 June, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    They must’ve figured out some different physics to get the thing to actually penetrate the ground. Or maybe they figured that ‘close enough’ counts for horseshoes, hand grenades and now Big BLUs.

  3. RTLM 10 June, 2009 at 1:20 am #

    3 years? Just my opinion, but we may need stealth delivery of the new moab before then. Short of rigging it on a rocket (risky), divert funding of one C-130 to tool ONE B-2A to drop the “MOP” on enemy installations that may need “MOPPING”.

  4. Cannes 10 June, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    Grab a 747 from the desert fill the interior with oxygen tanks and gas tanks and remove the nose cone and fill it with c-5 plastic explosives because terrorist seem to like using american planes for targets, so why don’t we send them what they want. Tee hee, much cheaper and greener because we could recycle the airplane for something more constructive, and we could fill the gas tanks with renewable fuel that would burn fewer hydrocarbon into the atmosphere.

  5. Dave 10 June, 2009 at 9:38 am #

    Awesome. Too bad they’re only buying 15, with options for 5 more… I want one.

  6. Matt Baker 10 June, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    The USAF could save money on this; go to the RAF Museum in Hendon, London and take the Grand Slam bomb from the WW2 era. All 22000lbs of it was designed to destroy underground bunkers and sub pens. Failing that you can try the 12000lb Tallboy.
    Could save the US government money, all it would need is a JDAM kit to bring it up to date; Oh and an RAF Lancaster to drop it, but there’s one of those at Hendon too.

  7. bobbymike 10 June, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    I don’t get the three year thing. Have we not been dropping bombs from aircraft ofr 70 years or so? Is this a “lack of funding” issue?

  8. Anonymous 10 June, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    In reply to the Grand Slam and Tallboy redux, both weapons were relatively thin skinned compared to todays penetrators. As a result, Tallboy and Grand Slam would low order detonate due to case fracture when driven to sonic velocity.

    That said, I saw an example of these weapons at the USAF Armament Museum at Eglin AFB some years ago. WoW!

  9. Ronald 15 March, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    The real shame is political correctness.

    There’s nothing wrong with the MOP’s design, except that political considerations prevent it from being equipped with a fractional yield nuclear device, in other words, something that would actually get the job done and bring about a safer world.

    Face it — who on earth would go back to work at a site that, even if not completely destroyed, had been subject to a nuclear attack?

    The real R&D money should be spent in learning how to construct a nuclear MOP than minimizes external radiation splume. Delayed detonation might help a little; kinetic “tamping” of the soil above through post-penetration detonation of a small conventional charge might help, too; but you really need to vector the energy release away from the surface. Not easy.

Leave a Reply