It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Tests "Dad of All Bombs"

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   


This is my first post...not sure if the video is going to work. Pretty intense though...

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 12/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Whelp...just google video "Father of All Bombs"



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
What’s 4 times more powerful then MOAB (H-6 explosive), 20 times the kill blast radius, twice the temperature in the epicenter of the blast, while using less explosives and weighing less?

That’ll be the new Russian thermobaric bomb.

Revolutionary nanotechnology based explosive is roughly two and a half times more powerful then TNT, thus officially making this new weapon the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in existence.

Another benefit from use of nanotechnology makes this new weapon a lot cheaper to manufacture then previous methods.

MOAB blast radius – 130 meters.

FOAB blast radius - 2600 meters.

MOAB explosive load - 8.4 metric tons

FOAB explosive load – less then 7 tons.

MOAB delivery – C130 cargo plane.

FOAB delivery – Tu-95 Bear long range bomber.

Here’s the video –

www.1tv.ru...

This new bomb is slated to replace a family of small yield nuclear weapons inn Russian arsenal.

On a personal note, I seem to remember a lot of discussions on how ineffective Belotserkovskiy grid fins were supposed to be, and that Russians used them on R-77 because they could not make actuators small enough to fit in the body of the missile.

It sure seems like after all these years US military is actively adopting lattice control surfaces.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander


FOAB delivery – Tu-95 Bear long range bomber.




Actually a Tu-22M 'Backfire' is featured in the vid.

Some bang eh?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
20 times the kill blast radius,

MOAB blast radius – 130 meters.

FOAB blast radius - 2600 meters.




The news report gives the blast radius as 300m not 2600m

A blast radius of 2600m would be 3 1/4 miles across and no way was the explosion in the video 3 1/4 miles across.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde

Actually a Tu-22M 'Backfire' is featured in the vid.


Its a Tu-160 Blackjack



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   


On the History Channel's show about the MOAB it said the balst radius was 10 mile, if FOAB is 4x that, thats 4 miles
, why does the blast on FOAB seem smaller than MOAB's blast


[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
man, the bomb has the power of nuke sorta whoa , cool,


does russia plan to put it on cruise missiles???



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
On the History Channel's show about the MOAB it said the balst radius was 10 mile, if FOAB is 4x that, thats 4 miles
, why does the blast on FOAB seem smaller than MOAB's blast


[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]


Actually, if the blast was four times as powerful, the blast radius would be roughly 1.51 times as large (or 15.1 m). Blast radius goes up (roughly) as the cube of the increase in yield. Doubling the blast radius requires an eightfold increase in warhead strength, which is why smaller nuclear warheads became all the rage once delivery systems were accurate enough to allow their use.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Given that (from the look of things in that video) it pretty well fills one of the ordnance bays on a Blackjack, it's 'way too large to fit on a cruise missile. If I'm reading the graphical comparison to MOAB right, it's also way too heavy.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
man, the bomb has the power of nuke sorta whoa , cool,


does russia plan to put it on cruise missiles???


No way would the one in the vid fit on any cruse missile I've seen to date - it was massive, looks like it took the full width of the bay. Suppose the tech could be scaled down though.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
There's an article about it here sky




Its explosion is equivalent to 44 tonnes of regular explosives, and the blast area covers an area of 300m, the report said.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
interesting, nice explosion in the vid. However what's to say the Russian claims aren't exaggerated ? From the video of the dmage a MOAb is perfectly capable of reating the same damage.
I'm just curious if this is a bigger dick than yours type of thing with the Russians inflating the properties of the bomb. Obiously it is being used as propoganda.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Hmm so its just a fuel air bomb. I would have thought tnt would be more deadly. Still, it does not look as deadly as our MOAB.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Great. More ways for us to kill ourselves. This is certainly the right way to use advancing technology.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I hope none of those come to the US in the near future,would certainly destroy ones day,hope we stay out of Iran or it may become reality



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The question is, is the FOAB actually practical? The MOAB has shown itself to be very impractical, so is the FOAB any better in the all-important field of practicality?

On a lighter note, you just have to love U.S.-Russian relations. "You have the mother of all bombs? Guess what? We've got the 'Dad of All Bombs!' Who's your daddy now, Comrade???"



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Here's another article on the daddy of all bombs. With all the Russian bomber flights what do you think they are up to?

From Thisislondon.co.uk
Look for the story titled:
"Russia tests the world's largest ever non-nuclear bomb"

Putin's plans for Russia?


From news.myway.com/index/id/home



mod edit: sorted bb code

[edit on 12-9-2007 by UK Wizard]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Sanity Lost]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Sanity Lost]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Well its extremely bulky so I wonder what 'small yield' nukes it can replace.
Doesn't have a stand off capability as well.
So from my perspective its just a response to the MOAB.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

The news report gives the blast radius as 300m not 2600m


The report stated that the blast radius is 20 times larger then MOAB. MOABS blast radious is 130 meters.


A blast radius of 2600m would be 3 1/4 miles across and no way was the explosion in the video 3 1/4 miles across.


Nope. 2600 meters is 2.6 kilometers, which is in no way 3 and ¼ of a mile.

3.25 miles would be around 5.23 kilometers.



Its a Tu-160 Blackjack


It is indeed a Blackjack. I was thinking Blackjack but got caught up on the recent Bear flights, and got sidetracked.


On the History Channel's show about the MOAB it said the balst radius was 10 mile, if FOAB is 4x that, thats 4 miles ,


10 mile radius blast? Don’t think so.

Go here - meyerweb.com... and look for your self what kind of a yield a bomb will need to create a blast that will cover 10 miles.


why does the blast on FOAB seem smaller than MOAB's blast


How do you figure proportions from that video? Which video did you compare it to?

What I’ve seen shows blast overpressure which collapsed a brick/concrete building and popped a BTR like a soda can, while leaving no burn/scorch marks, nor shrap damage, thus showing that such overpressure was created well outside of the blast epicenter.


Actually, if the blast was four times as powerful, the blast radius would be roughly 1.51 times as large (or 15.1 m). Blast radius goes up (roughly) as the cube of the increase in yield.


In conventional warheads yes, in fuel-air, no.

FOAB is stated to be 4 times as powerful then MOAB in power of nanotechnology based explosive.

The explosive it self creates burn temperature twice that of H6. In fuel air bombs the blast radius is measured by the effect of the blast wave overpressure.

As stated, the destructive overpressure radius is 20 times larger then that of MOAB.


Given that (from the look of things in that video) it pretty well fills one of the ordnance bays on a Blackjack, it's 'way too large to fit on a cruise missile. If I'm reading the graphical comparison to MOAB right, it's also way too heavy.


I did not see how big the bomb is on the video. All I saw was the bomb day doors open, and then a shot of the FOAB roll out with a drag chute. Nothing on how much space it takes in the bomb bay.


Actually FOAB is stated to be lighter then MOAB, and uses less explosive.


Hmm so its just a fuel air bomb. I would have thought tnt would be more deadly. Still, it does not look as deadly as our MOAB.


It’s good to have an opinion, even if it’s based on nothing.


The question is, is the FOAB actually practical? The MOAB has shown itself to be very impractical, so is the FOAB any better in the all-important field of practicality?


MOAB was used on tora-bora with little effect.

FOABs higher burn temp creates higher overpressure, so It might be more usable to blow out tunnels.


On a lighter note, you just have to love U.S.-Russian relations. "You have the mother of all bombs? Guess what? We've got the 'Dad of All Bombs!' Who's your daddy now, Comrade???"


Well that’s just it. US first used large fuel air bombs as engineering tools to clear jungles (daisy cutter), but then militarized then into GPS guided munitions.

Russians are just following the arms race US has been pushing for over a decade now.

Before FOAB US forces possessed the biggest non-nuclear weapon in history, and actually used it in combat. As long as it was the case, most considered MOAB a useful and powerful weapon, and as it always is, when Russians create a more powerful weapon, some immediately go out of their way to discredit their efforts, and then blame them for war mongering.

Exactly the same pattern happened with nuclear arms race during the cold war.

We make the first bomb, Russians make their own and we immediately accuse them of aggression.

We make a bigger bomb and say it’s for peaceful purposes, while Russians make their own big bomb and we call them crazy aggressors.

We literally surround USSR with nuclear missiles, they try to put some in Cuba and we push the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust.

Remember, WE were the ones that created and used MOAB in combat first, Russians are just following our lead in huge non-nuclear bombs, and at the moment they are the ones who have the biggest one.

Simple as that.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join