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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
hell yea as i sayd before^^ way to go russia^^ father of all bombs sounds just to cool




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unisol
hell yea as i sayd before^^ way to go russia^^ father of all bombs sounds just to cool


i. MOAB has never been used in combat, to my knowledge.

ii. Father Of All Bombs is a direct play of Mother Of All Bombs. Don't be too quick to congratulate them for their naming scheme.

iii. Much like the Tsar Bomba, and MOAB, I expect this weapon more of a show of what can be done than of an actual, conventional piece of military hardware.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
WMDs are not just a Nuclear/Chemical thing, and people forget that. I wouldnt be surprised if we see alot more of this sort of unorthodox technology being developed by other countries ie China.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Fiar does to the russians, theyve made a bigger bomb than americas " mother of all bombs"..

who will feel the brunt of this if unleashed?? The chechnians, thats who, and thats only who..

Sitting in the Uk i couldnt care less about the size of any bomb made..

weve got nukes, star wars defence setups at menwith hill ( not including the new sattellites the us are installing in the uk at the moment ) plus one hell of a rapid response team..

The uk will and always will be safe, so thats all i need to worry about.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
i. MOAB has never been used in combat, to my knowledge.

There is a whole world of knowledge out there, Google “MOAB Tora Bora”.

You’ll find that MOAB was used in combat, just as I stated previously.


ii. Father Of All Bombs is a direct play of Mother Of All Bombs. Don't be too quick to congratulate them for their naming scheme.


That’s exactly the point. Russians are making a statement with such designation for the weapon that does not have an official name yet.

MOAB was used in combat; Russians are following with their own massive blast weapon. Arms race continues.


iii. Much like the Tsar Bomba, and MOAB, I expect this weapon more of a show of what can be done than of an actual, conventional piece of military hardware.


Not exactly. The use of such weapons is legal under international law, and allows one to deploy a conventional weapon with capabilities of a small tactical nuclear warhead.

That in effect allows a massive battlefield advantage to any armed forces, since unlike a nuclear weapon, these massive blast weapons can actually be used in combat with out sparking a full out nuclear combat.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

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.



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.


Hmm from that link you gave, to have a blast radius of 2600m over 1.5 miles you would need a weapon with over 2kt of power. Something smells fishy.



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.


Not really. here would the shrapnel come from, the bomb is thin walled and would have a very small sharapnel footprint. Also I've seen truck bombs in Iraq do simlar damage to buildings and they leave debris which looks the same.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
i. MOAB has never been used in combat, to my knowledge.

There is a whole world of knowledge out there, Google “MOAB Tora Bora”.

You’ll find that MOAB was used in combat, just as I stated previously.

Actually that is incorrect the MOAB has never been used in combat. The BLU daiy Cutter was used in Afghanistan. sory but facts are facts.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

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.



After watching the Russian report it says in B&W that the blast radius is 300m, no idea where you get 2600m from.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
For all the lazy people that choose to simply ignore FACTS, and refuse to use GOOGLE.

Good morning, General.

Thanks for joining us.

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): Good morning.

ZAHN: I know you have witnessed this particular bomb in use. Describe to us the impact of it.

GRANGE: Yes, this, the MOAB is a 21,000 pound bomb improvement of the 15,000 pound Vietnam era daisy cutter. Thirty something plus years later, now used in Afghanistan against hardened targets in the mountains around Tora Bora and elsewhere. And it has a psychological and a killing effect, obviously, and it can be used for other purposes, as well.

ZAHN: How effective is its killing effect?

GRANGE: Well, what it does is it just, you can, it can be used above ground, which this test is an example of, to, it sucks the air out of the area. It'll kill people, but it'll also destroy equipment. It can also be, there's some expectation to use this in a penetrating manner to take out hardened bunkers underground.

But it can also be used as an example to clear minefields, to provide a gap in a strip of mine field so forces can pass through. It can also be used to put out, let's say, a fire. If oil is lit in trench lines by an enemy force, this bomb as it sucks the air out of the area can neutralize a fire.

So it can be used for several different types of targets.

transcripts.cnn.com...
Enjoy the truth.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   
^^^^

LOL, he is talking about the BLU/82 don't you understand English ? You are completely wrong. It's pretty obvious
It's very obvious, you are assuming that he is saying the MOAB is being used in Afghanistan even before they tested it
The CNN interview took place the day after the test.

Don't you feel stupid being so condescending to people when you are so obviously wrong and it's not just about the MOAb being used in Afghanistan, you make other very obvious mistakes which members have pointed out. For example the blast radius of the Russian bomb IS NOT 2600m, it quite clearly shows on the youtube video 300m. I think it is you who should actually start reading, because your credibility is down the toilet. Sorry to the other posters about the flame, but he doesn't know what he's talking about.



[edit on 13-9-2007 by mad scientist]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

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




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.










The U.S. has not/ does NOT posses a 15K lb Bomb (daisy cutter), with GPS. The MOAB is the first with GPS and it's not 21,000 lb, it's 18,700 lb of explosives and a 2300lb shell, and yes the FOAB is more powerful.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-9-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Also another difference between MOAB and FOAB is that the MOAB is not an FAE. This means you get the same bang for the buck everytime, the explosive power of the bomb is not depndent on atmospheric conditions.

The FOAB on the other hand only reaches it's maximum potential of 44 tons when atmospheric conditions are ideal. For example if there was high wind then a significant portion of the vapour cloud could be dispersed before detonation, the same if there was a storm. Heavy rain would also disrupt the vapour cloud.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Did the bomb actually dropped from the Blackjack? Because the way it dropped is similar to the way the Daisycutter was dropping with its parachute coming out on the C-130.

You look at the video the parachute would have been caught into the rear of the plane of its bomb bays. I mean look at how bombs are dropped from that kind of design, its free fall, not going to the rear and drop. The camera doesn't show the inside of the plane as the bomb is dropped. And after the bomb is dropped you don't see the Blackjack immediately. The camera is not showing it at least when the bomb is coming out of the plane.

Just thinking out loud.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist


The FOAB on the other hand only reaches it's maximum potential of 44 tons when atmospheric conditions are ideal. For example if there was high wind then a significant portion of the vapour cloud could be dispersed before detonation, the same if there was a storm. Heavy rain would also disrupt the vapour cloud.
The Russian Military knows more about the FOAB than you, so untill you provide the proof that FOAB is not more powerful than MOAB your statement is null.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The Russian Military knows more about the FOAB than you, so untill you provide the proof that FOAB is not more powerful than MOAB your statement is null.

Simple physics my friend, did you read what I said. Obviously you don't understand. Keeping the integrity of the vapour cloud at the optimal concentration has long been a problem of FAE's. If it is not at the optimal concentration it loses alot of power. Judging from the video of the test, there was no wind at all. Simple fact.

Do you know anything about explosives BTW ?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
LOL, I see Iskander has run off with his tail between his legs after being shown to be completley ignorant about what he was talking about,



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
MOAB stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast, NOT mother of all bombs. I do not understand why the Russians called it the FOAB? Publicity stunt? Bad media?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Russian Military knows more about the FOAB than you, so untill you provide the proof that FOAB is not more powerful than MOAB your statement is null.

Simple physics my friend, did you read what I said. Obviously you don't understand. Keeping the integrity of the vapour cloud at the optimal concentration has long been a problem of FAE's. If it is not at the optimal concentration it loses alot of power. Judging from the video of the test, there was no wind at all. Simple fact.

Do you know anything about explosives BTW ? Yes I did read what you wrote and thats WHY I wrote what I said, I took a look at the whole thing and asked my self questions that many people ask, "Why is it that U.S. civillians are always trying to make people believe they know more than Russian military designers?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Did the bomb actually dropped from the Blackjack? Because the way it dropped is similar to the way the Daisycutter was dropping with its parachute coming out on the C-130.

You look at the video the parachute would have been caught into the rear of the plane of its bomb bays. I mean look at how bombs are dropped from that kind of design, its free fall, not going to the rear and drop. The camera doesn't show the inside of the plane as the bomb is dropped. And after the bomb is dropped you don't see the Blackjack immediately. The camera is not showing it at least when the bomb is coming out of the plane.

Just thinking out loud.


Exactly what I was going to say, the footage will just be some stock footage of a blackjack and then the footage of the bomb test stitched together. In the test footage the bomb is pretty clearly dumped out the back. Besides, the blackjack carries missiles, not bombs ( i think
)



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Yes I did read what you wrote and thats WHY I wrote what I said, I took a look at the whole thing and asked my self questions that many people ask, "Why is it that U.S. civillians are always trying to make people believe they know more than Russian military designers?


You still didnt answer my queston. BTW I am not American and I am also critical of some of their military hardware as well. I think by your comments you are being very subjective and bias. As I said if you knew how a FAE worked, you would be asking the same questions.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join