Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Lots of answers and some questions
Message-ID: <1991Jan24.035455.22082@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 24 Jan 91 03:54:55 GMT
References: <1991Jan23.040415.5172@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
In article <1991Jan23.040415.5172@cbnews.att.com>, moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) writes:

> Runway Penetration Bombs:
>       Does the American arsenal have any? I think that there was
>       a time when the only NATO anti-runway bomb was the Durandals
>       (I _think_) which the tornadoes could carry. I'm kinda wondering,
>       since the news reports seem to indicate that the tornadoes
>       were operating against runways.

        There is a British developed anti-runway ordinance consisting of
hundreds of bomblets ejected from a carrirer pod attached to the belly
of a Tornado. Once released the bomblets use a parachute to stabilise
their flight and explode when they hit the ground.

        I did see some footage of a test of this system and the area where
the bomblets hit was litterally shredded.

        The advantage of this system is that it tears up a long strip of
the runway, whereas the Durandal makes one localised (albeit large)
crater per missile/bomb.

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  com259h@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                      Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon
          All opinions expressed are the result of paranoid delusions!