• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

The CBU-97

Botch

MetaBotch Doggy Dogg Mellencamp
Superstar
I wanted to look up some info on this tank-busting bomb, and noticed the great video on how it works:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow[/youtube]

Here's wiki's description of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97

Your United States Air Force: developing new and better ways to kill people! :banana-rock: :angelic-green:
 
Though I have reservations about mass killings, let me say that is NEAT.

Lost audio at 53 sec.
 
I think the audio was only on the animation portion, not the live footage.

With regard to mass killings, the "skeets" fire at vehicles, and dud themselves once they drop below a set altitude.
 
Thing I noticed was it was delivered by the venerable old B-52. High tech bombs cold war delivery vehicle:D

As for reservations of mass killing well better them than us when it comes down to hostilities.
 
Quite a number of years ago I was involved with putting a contract in place with the US Army to have them come up and test a full-size model of what was then going to be their latest and greatest version of this same sort of weapon. It was simply called BAT (for Brilliant Anti-Tank) - I believe. It became known as the BAT Test.

Anyhow we had (and still do have) the only commercially-available vertical wind tunnel (in the "friendly" world) capable of doing the work - and some would say crazy enough.

The test involved suspending the test article in the centre of the airflow initially in its pre-deployed configuration. We time synched 8 high speed (film) cameras (and two first generation high speed video cameras) to spin up a fraction of a second before the BAT then deployed (via small explosive charges).

The data collected was the video footage - to see where the dunage flew (ie. whether it would get tangled with the deployed struts and fins that were to start the BAT rotating / slowing down and going into "seeker" mode.) (In real life there was a sensor in its head and it would guide the BAT to a position right over a target, fire a high explosive charge and drive a DU "bullet" into the target.)

A bunch of people (me included, once) stood around the airstream with big fishing nets and when the airflow was shut off seconds after the deployment we would "fish" as much falling dunage out of the air before it fell to the settling chamber below (which is a pain to get into to clean out.)

Most of the dunage was pinned to a capture net above the test section (and just in front of the fan blades) when the wind was on, and dropped as the flow slowed down. But smaller articles (like nuts and bolts) could pass through and hit the fans blades.

And that folks is why those wind tunnel blades (and those in many tunnels) are made from laminated wood. Easy to remove any impaled stuff and make repairs - unlike metal blades.

I can tell you this only because way back when we had the Army's permission to say what I said above. Otherwise Mum's the word - especially about all that other neat stuff that we do for a ton of clients! :)
 
JeffMackwood said:
I can tell you this only because way back when we had the Army's permission to say what I said above. Otherwise Mum's the word - especially about all that other neat stuff that we do for a ton of clients! :)
The fact that what Botch posted is available to public means it's outdated. There are probably many more advanced stuff classified.
 
Thanks Jeff, that's interesting! :handgestures-thumbup:
 
DIYer said:
JeffMackwood said:
I can tell you this only because way back when we had the Army's permission to say what I said above. Otherwise Mum's the word - especially about all that other neat stuff that we do for a ton of clients! :)
The fact that what Botch posted is available to public means it's outdated. There are probably many more advanced stuff classified.
Note the present tense.

Regardless, essentially everything that we have ever done for any client is protected by obligations of confidentiality - which I would never violate. Those obligation are all subject to industry-standard practices (and legal precedents) which list exceptions. Where info becomes part of the public domain (for a variety of reasons) those obligations, with respect to that info, typicallly disappear. However my mantra is to never place myself in a possible position of violaing someone's confidence, and as such I restrict myself to disclosing only what I have been authorized to disclose. Much safer - and timeline-free!
 
Back
Top