Home
Defense Systems
Compare
GBU-72 vs GBU-28: Comparing America’s Bunker Buster Bombs

GBU-72 vs GBU-28: Comparing America’s Bunker Buster Bombs

The United States has developed some of the world’s most powerful bunker buster bombs to destroy deeply buried military targets, command centers, and hardened underground facilities. Among the most notable are the GBU-28 and the newer GBU-72, both designed for precision strikes against reinforced structures. While the GBU-28 became famous during the Gulf War era for its ability to penetrate underground bunkers, the GBU-72 represents a more advanced next generation solution built for modern combat environments.

The GBU-28 is a laser guided penetrating bomb developed rapidly by the U.S. Air Force in the early 1990s. It was specifically created to target heavily fortified Iraqi bunkers and underground facilities. Its large warhead and hardened steel casing allowed it to penetrate deep into concrete and earth before detonation.

In contrast, the GBU-72 Advanced 5K Penetrator is a modern precision guided bunker buster developed to replace older systems. It features improved penetration capability, advanced guidance technology, and compatibility with newer aircraft platforms. Defense analysts view the GBU-72 as a major upgrade for striking hardened targets in future high intensity conflicts.

This comparison examines the differences between the GBU-72 and GBU-28, including design, penetration performance, guidance systems, operational roles, and battlefield relevance. The article also highlights how evolving military threats continue to shape the development of advanced bunker penetrating weapons for the U.S. military.

- Advertisement -

	GBU-72 Bunker Buster Bomb GBU-28 Bunker Buster Bomb

Price
Our Rating	8.0 7.8
Manufacturer	Northrop Grumman Raytheon Technologies
Category	Bombs & Aerial Munitions Bombs & Aerial Munitions

1. General Information

Name / Designation	GBU-72 Advanced 5K Penetrator GBU-28
Type	Precision Guided Penetrator Bomb Precision-Guided Penetrator Bomb
Manufacturer	Northrop Grumman Raytheon
Country of Origin	United States United States
Year Introduced	Late 2010s 1991
Operational Status	Operational / Limited Deployment Active

2. Physical Characteristics

Weight	Approximately 5,000 lb class Approx. 4,700 lb (2,130 kg)
Length	Estimated over 4 m Approx. 19 ft (5.8 m)
Diameter	Approx. 16 to 18 inches Approx. 14.5 in
Casing Type	Hardened steel penetrator casing Hardened Steel Penetrator

3. Performance

Yield	Conventional high explosive Conventional High Explosive
Guidance	GPS aided INS Laser Guidance
Accuracy (CEP)	High precision, exact figures classified High precision, estimated within a few meters
Delivery Platforms	F-15E, F-35, strategic aircraft F-15E, B-2 Spirit
Penetration Capability	Deep hardened structure penetration Deep reinforced concrete penetration

4. Warhead / Explosive Details

Warhead Type	High Explosive Penetrator High-Explosive Penetrator
Fuzing Options	Delayed impact fuze Delayed impact fuze
Explosive Composition	Classified Tritonal or equivalent explosive fill

5. Operational Use

Primary Mission	Destruction of underground and fortified targets Destroy hardened underground targets
Operators	United States Air Force United States and allied operators
Notable Deployments / History	Developed for modern bunker defeat missions Gulf War, Middle East strike operations

6. Variants

Variants

GBU-72 integrated with BLU-137 warhead GBU-28A/B and upgraded guidance variants

Disclaimer Note

The information provided on TheDefenseWatch.com is for general informational purposes only. While we strive to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of our content regarding defense and aerospace products, technologies, and specifications, we cannot guarantee that all information is 100% accurate or up-to-date due to the evolving nature of military technology and classified data.TheDefenseWatch.com does not warrant the reliability, suitability, or availability of the information for any specific purpose. Users are advised to consult official sources, such as manufacturers, government publications, or defense agencies, for precise and verified data before making decisions based on our content.We are not affiliated with any defense manufacturers, governments, or military organizations mentioned. Opinions, reviews, and ratings reflect expert analysis but are subjective and should not be considered endorsements. TheDefenseWatch.com is not responsible for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from the use of this website’s content.External links are provided for convenience and do not imply endorsement. TheDefenseWatch.com reserves the right to update or modify content without prior notice. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy & Cookies Policy.