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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:58 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.


Well its definitely a FOAB dropping out of a Plane. The Tu-160 is most likely the only plane that could carry such a bulky item and is normally used for these trials




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   
[qoute] The U.S. has not/ does NOT posses a 15K lb Bomb (daisy cutter), with GPS.

MOAB is the GPS enabled evolution of the daisy cutter. At least that’s what the guys that made it said, on TV, on the Military Channel, a week ago.

In any case, this is what globasec states about it;


The 21,600-pound MOAB is an improved replacement for the unguided 15,000-pound BLU-82 Daisy Cutter.


www.globalsecurity.org...

Here’s more on the blast radius;


While the Russian bomb was reported to contain 7.8 tons of "thermobaric" explosive, compared to the more than 8 tons of explosives in the American bomb, the Russian bomb was said to use more highly efficient explosive, with a yield equivalent to 44 tons of TNT. The bomb was reported to have a blast radius of 300 meters, double that of the American bomb, while the temperature at the epicenter was also reported to be twice as high.


MOABs blast radius is calculated much as was the BLU-82’s when it was clearing the jungles in Vietnam.

150 meter blast radius means that NOTHING with in the radius remains, it gets vaporized.

FOABs vaporization blast radius is twice as large as MOABs, with the shock wave “kill area” 20 times larger then MOABs.

Hell, the shock wave of this thing squashed an APC like a soda can, and knocked down a building, nine of which were in the frame when the bomb exploded.

Unlike MOAB, FOAB uses liquid explosive.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
^^^ Once again you cannot show that anything I said is wrong. Your credibility is shot my friend. Your figure of 2600m is complete BS. You obviously fon't know what you're talking about. You post a little fact then BS for for everything else, your opinion and extremely limited understanding of explosives is not fact.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
With the dispersion style of an FAE, I would be HIGHLY suprised if the ratio of blast radius
verpressure pwnage radius was that big.

I've never seen 2600 anywhere, and I've searched a lot.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Using the extremely scientific method of guessing, I imagine the Russians simply manufactured nanoparticle aluminum for the improved blast effects.

The United States, as well as other countries have the same ability, and to do so for cheap. I'd call this more of impressing the masses, than the nations.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Using the extremely scientific method of guessing, I imagine the Russians simply manufactured nanoparticle aluminum for the improved blast effects.


FOAB explosive is a liquid. “Nanoparticle aluminum”?


The United States, as well as other countries have the same ability, and to do so for cheap. I'd call this more of impressing the masses, than the nations.


How do you know that? I never heard of nanoparticle aluminum. Where did you hear about it from?

Articles clearly state that FOAB is cheaper to manufacture then MOAB, and as far s I know, only Us and Russia have such massive air blast weapons, you said other nations have them? Which ones?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Eh, aluminum nanoparticles CAN explode, but using them for a super-FAE seems quite farfetched.

As far as I know, nanoaluminum explodes directly upon air contact.


Also, from what i've read, while nanoaluminum is more powerful than current munitions, it's only about half the strength that this stuff is.

As far as I know, the US has been successfully testing nanoaluminum but for totally different uses. Also, the fact that the US hasn't been able to apply nanoaluminum to thermobarics indicates Russia is ahead of them.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by uberfoop]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

How do you know that? I never heard of nanoparticle aluminum. Where did you hear about it from?


You're joking right, try Scientific American, New Scientist, Popular Mechanics to name but a few. You don't seem to know to much especially for someone who seems to make bold claims all the time. Do some reaing you ignorant turkey, seems everyone ere knows more than you.



Articles clearly state that FOAB is cheaper to manufacture then MOAB, and as far s I know, only Us and Russia have such massive air blast weapons, you said other nations have them? Which ones?


Well where are these rticles ? so far everything you've said in this thread has been proven to be complete BS.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Another hoax from Russia? I bet they are lying
www.wired.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Another Potempkin weapon? Say it ain't so! Not that John Pike is always right.
I doubt it will matter much to the hapless Chechens what airplane this drops from, or that the Russians would fly it to any other target that has a western air defence.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Another hoax from Russia? I bet they are lying
www.wired.com...

1-Wired is pretending like FAE's != thermobarics in the most insanely retartedly absurd attempt ever to discredit someone. That's like saying that the Tsar Bomba was a hydrogen bomb, not a thermonuclear weapon.
Seriously, just look up fuel-air explosive on wikipedia; it reroutes to thermobaric weapon. Wired probably thinks that flamethrowers aren't thermobaric weapons either.
2-As for renaming old weapons, what? If Russians have had such a powerful explosive for so long, we would know about it and, due to proxy wars, most likely be quite familiar with it's insane power.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by uberfoop
 


Actually Thermobaric weapons and FAE's are 2 different weapons using 2 differrent priniciples. They aren't the same. The wired article actually explains how an FAE works quite well and brings up several points as to it reliability which I have aso brought up in previous posts here.

Also it seems quite obvious that the weapon was deliverd by crago plane and not teh TU-160. The Russians have used FAE's before in Chechnya, alhtough smaller ones. As the aticle says, the weapon would have very limited use and under less than ideal atmospheric confitions wouldn't hvae nearly the same destructive power.


[edit on 5-10-2007 by mad scientist]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by uberfoop
 


I was just focusing on the not dropped from a TU-160 part. If they want to play that way lets just load a C-5 Galaxy with high explosive and call it the worlds biggest cruise missile lol.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join