Mk 84 iron bomb version with depleted uranium?

[MCN]

Is there a version of the Mk 84 'iron bomb' that contained depleted uranium
(DU) to give the Mk 84 a better performance as bunker buster? I'm asking as
a spokesperson for the State Department said on 8 June 1981 in reaction to
the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak/Tammuz 17 nuclear reactor:
"US-supplied uranium weapons used in the raid..." The only way those dropped
Mk 84 could have been a kind of uranium weapon would be that they contained
DU. Would make sense to me, but I never read that such a version of the Mk
84 existed. Anybody any info about that?



Thanks,



MCN

[Matteo]

I've never heard of such a MK84 version too; furhtermore bukerbusters like
BLU-109 have a "simple" hardened steel alloy case and achieve hard target
penetration without DU.
So I don't see the need for a DU modified MK84 for that strike.

--
Matteo
"Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo and not want to
waste a bullet on you"

[Thomas Schoene]

"MCN" > wrote in message

> Is there a version of the Mk 84 'iron bomb' that contained depleted
> uranium (DU) to give the Mk 84 a better performance as bunker buster?
> I'm asking as a spokesperson for the State Department said on 8 June
> 1981 in reaction to the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak/Tammuz 17
> nuclear reactor: "US-supplied uranium weapons used in the raid..."

What's the source of the quote? It really doesn't ring true.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Carey Sublette]

"MCN" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a version of the Mk 84 'iron bomb' that contained depleted
uranium
> (DU) to give the Mk 84 a better performance as bunker buster? I'm asking
as
> a spokesperson for the State Department said on 8 June 1981 in reaction to
> the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak/Tammuz 17 nuclear reactor:
> "US-supplied uranium weapons used in the raid..." The only way those
dropped
> Mk 84 could have been a kind of uranium weapon would be that they
contained
> DU. Would make sense to me, but I never read that such a version of the Mk
> 84 existed. Anybody any info about that?

Can this reported remark be confirmed? Where are you finding it?

On general ordnance principles I doubt the existence of a Mk 84 with
depleted uranium. A possibility (assuming the quote is correct) is that the
State Department spokesperson was confused (yes, it happens!). I am also
skeptical that details of the raid were available to State so soon.

Carey Sublette

[Kevin Brooks]

"MCN" > wrote in message >...
> Is there a version of the Mk 84 'iron bomb' that contained depleted uranium
> (DU) to give the Mk 84 a better performance as bunker buster? I'm asking as
> a spokesperson for the State Department said on 8 June 1981 in reaction to
> the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak/Tammuz 17 nuclear reactor:
> "US-supplied uranium weapons used in the raid..." The only way those dropped
> Mk 84 could have been a kind of uranium weapon would be that they contained
> DU. Would make sense to me, but I never read that such a version of the Mk
> 84 existed. Anybody any info about that?
>
>
>
> Thanks,

Sounds like that State Department fellow was (as usual for the folks
from Foggy Bottom) not that aware of military capabilities. There is
no indication that such a weapon existed.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk84.htm

Brooks

>
>
>
> MCN

[Ragnar]

"MCN" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a version of the Mk 84 'iron bomb' that contained depleted
uranium
> (DU) to give the Mk 84 a better performance as bunker buster? I'm asking
as
> a spokesperson for the State Department said on 8 June 1981 in reaction to
> the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak/Tammuz 17 nuclear reactor:
> "US-supplied uranium weapons used in the raid..." The only way those
dropped
> Mk 84 could have been a kind of uranium weapon would be that they
contained
> DU. Would make sense to me, but I never read that such a version of the Mk
> 84 existed. Anybody any info about that?


First off, a cite for your quote would be nice.

Secondly, having just finished a 7-week targeting course for USAF, I only
found "regular" Mk 84s in the inventory when I was weaponeering.

It is possible though, that the Israelis could have ginned up something on
their own.

[MCN]

The spokesman of the State Department Dean Fischer made the statement on
behalf of the White House and the State Department on June 8, 1981 in a
public announcement at Washington, D.C. in reaction to the public
announcement made by Israel at 15:30 local time on 8 June 1981. Reagan was
informed three hours after the attack on an informal level. (Source: Jack
Anderson in Washington Post on 23 June 1981) The first link in indirect
speech to this I found on page 154 in the book "Two Minutes Over Baghdad" by
Amos Perlmutter, Michael I Handel and Uri Bar-Joseph, 2nd expanded edition,
London 1982, 2003. Following from that I found a couple of newspaper
articles from June 9, 1981 and later on quoting part of the announcement
directly and other indirectly. Some were referring only to "special weapons"
, or even to "weapon systems". The focus was in all on the US aircraft used
in the raid (F-16, F-15). But that sources are all on paper, no URLs.



The announcement is not in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library at
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ and not on the official websites of the White
House or State Department. Both are - surprisingly - starting with the day
G. W. Bush took office, the time before has been transferred to other
websites that don't offer full search into the archives.



It is good possible that there were errors in the statement as the Pentagon
first thought that the Israelis had used PGMs instead of 'dumb' iron bombs.

[Michael Emrys]

in article , Paul Saccani at
wrote on 9/28/03 7:17 PM:

> But the Israeli's stated that they used F-4's at the time, and for years
> afterwards, to avoid issues relating to using their new aircraft in such a
> politically sensitive fashion.
>
> It might be interesting to look at subsequent statements in that series, to
> see
> if they start referring to F-4 instead of (the correct) F-15 and F-16.

Now this is strange. I clearly recall it being widely reported in the
American press at the time that F-16s did the bombing while F-15s flew
cover. In fact, I've never heard anything else in the intervening years
until I read your post.

Michael

[Dave Holford]

Michael Emrys wrote:
>
> in article , Paul Saccani at
> wrote on 9/28/03 7:17 PM:
>
> > But the Israeli's stated that they used F-4's at the time, and for years
> > afterwards, to avoid issues relating to using their new aircraft in such a
> > politically sensitive fashion.
> >
> > It might be interesting to look at subsequent statements in that series, to
> > see
> > if they start referring to F-4 instead of (the correct) F-15 and F-16.
>
> Now this is strange. I clearly recall it being widely reported in the
> American press at the time that F-16s did the bombing while F-15s flew
> cover. In fact, I've never heard anything else in the intervening years
> until I read your post.
>
> Michael


Agreed, the only reports I recall specified F-16 with F-15 escorts.

Dave