Fire moabs from himars?!

[Newbie101]

Would it be possible to give a moab stages of solid rockets and other propulsion to fire it 40 miles from a himars?

If the Moabs really cost only 170k and are so cheap, outside of the cost of mods, wouldn't it be ideal to fire this way if it's possible. If they are 170k each then 300,000 moabs only cost around 53 billion dollars. That is very affordable relatively.

OK, it's about twice the diameter of an atacm and about 2.5 times as long. But wouldn't it be ideal for wiping out trenches and large amounts of units in trenches or vehicle formations etc. Would a more generic firing vehicle or launch pad be usable at closer ranges? maybe a driving mortar or a bigger specialized rocket launcher if one doesn't already exist.

I assume we're talking small ICBM launchers(maybe medium to large) or some funky ww2 era sized weapons. But wouldn't they be more doable in modern times. I'm assume from a standpoint of the Moab hitting a target it's very ideal. Particularly as a ground to ground weapon. So, wouldn't turning one into a short range missile be worth the effort. They might fit on some larger missile launchers.

Could you fit a solid rocket rear and a scram/ramjet on the front nose like those smaller modifiable bombs? Mark 82 bomb - Wikipedia
It is heavier than scud and other missiles with full fuel... But is there a way?! 8)

I think some hypersonic vehicles designs got away with around half the fuel weight. So, you could need to launch around 20kg or higher. Plus maybe fuel to get up to speed. Maybe near 30kg of missile? 20kg plus 10kg of solid rocket for first stage. Assuming that is enough for a relatively short range 40mi/64km rocket. The topol M is larger. So, maybe it is a good model for a modified moab launcher.

That or simply encase them in a giant sphere and roll them down hills... That would be cost effective potentially.

RT-2PM2 Topol-M - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

MGM-140 ATACMS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ok... This cost about the same. So, maybe it's more ideal.

AGM-114 Hellfire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ngatimozart]

Short answer, no. MOAB has a weight of about 10 tonnes (22,000lb for Americans) and no way would it fit on a HIMARS. Using a rocket / missile to move a 10 tonne warhead requires a lot of power and fuel. The next question is why would you? A bomb the size of MOAB works best in a confined space, such as an underground bunker or cave. There are excellent WW2 examples of the RAF Grand Slam (10 tonne) bombe being used. One was used against the Bielefeld Viaduct by 617 Sqn RAF and that removed a couple of spans. The bomb didn't hit the viaduct, but it was near miss however that was all that was needed. The bomb made a crater before it exploded and that explosion was the cause of the viaduct destruction. Before it exploded the bomb penetrated the ground to a depth of approximately 35 metres (115 ft) with the subsequent explosion blowing the supporting ground for the bridge supports out. It was nicknamed the Earthquake Bomb and 10 Ton Tessie. IIRC it was also used against the U Boat pens at either Hamburg or Kiel.

 

[StobieWan]

Also, your danger close radius gets pushed out to a couple of miles, meaning you can't use it to support troops in contact, or where any collateral damage has to be catered for.

The trend has been towards smaller, precision munitions, and MOAB is a special case for hardened bunkers. You'd bring them along if you were trying to put a dent in hardened facilities, but using them en masse, not so much.

 

[ngatimozart]

Also, your danger close radius gets pushed out to a couple of miles, meaning you can't use it to support troops in contact, or where any collateral damage has to be catered for.

The trend has been towards smaller, precision munitions, and MOAB is a special case for hardened bunkers. You'd bring them along if you were trying to put a dent in hardened facilities, but using them en masse, not so much.

And to add, the Americans don't have a bomber capable of lifting a MOAB. When they used their one in Afghanistan a few years ago they had to haul it of the back of a Hercules.

 

[StobieWan]

And to add, the Americans don't have a bomber capable of lifting a MOAB. When they used their one in Afghanistan a few years ago they had to haul it of the back of a Hercules.

That's a good point, totally slipped my mind. So, basically a one trick pony which only really gets used if the opposition are toting AKs and wearing flip flops.

 

[John Fedup]

And to add, the Americans don't have a bomber capable of lifting a MOAB. When they used their one in Afghanistan a few years ago they had to haul it of the back of a Hercules.

I assume a C-17 might be an alternative to a Hercules albeit only offering a minor advantage.

 

[ngatimozart]

That's a good point, totally slipped my mind. So, basically a one trick pony which only really gets used if the opposition are toting AKs and wearing flip flops.

The Canadians do have an airworthy Avro Lancaster