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's Answer to the MOAB

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Quoted from BBC, the article can be found here news.bbc.co.uk...



The Russian air force has tested a giant fuel-air bomb which the military says is the biggest non-nuclear explosive device in the world.
Russian TV showed a Tupolev bomber dropping the bomb over a test range, a powerful explosion and a four-storey building reduced to rubble.

Claims it is bigger than the Moab, a US device of similar destructive power, seem plausible, analysts say.




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
FOAB September 2007


MOAB March 2003


Speak'



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
one thing for sure the americans and the russians are the Largest threat to mankind and its survival,

and now we have China to join the race.
with India a few steps away

wounder how long it will be before a Nut job in one of the countries to makes a weapon or device which they lose control of or lose to rougue group.
which can be used to destroy more then a large city or cause more damage then anticipated in a Test.



coming soon to your neigbourhood.

might be a good thing



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The article states is a Fuel-Air bomb. Already it is outside the classification of MOAB.

As a Fuel-Air bomb this device is considered a Thermobaric bomb.

The US MOAB is simply 30 thousand pounds of explosives. I would not at all doubt the device in question to be larger and more destructive than the MOAB, Thermobaric weapons tend to be among the largest non-nuclear weapons.

But cool for the Russians I guess, what exactly do they expect to do with it? A small diameter bomb that's laser-guided would probably prove to be more effective. I can see this device being applied to a heavily fortified installation such as a bunker or underground facilities, but conventionally? Why not just drop precision-guided munitions instead and limit collateral damage while ensuring target destruction?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Try searching next time, this news is from September of '07, there is another thread here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Search is your FRIEND.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Yeah well, the ATS search isn't too good. To say "Search is your Friend" when it really isn't is a bit of misnomer. I mean hell, I've been here for the better part of 4 years and still have not figured out how to properly use the search function.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The article states is a Fuel-Air bomb. Already it is outside the classification of MOAB.

As a Fuel-Air bomb this device is considered a Thermobaric bomb.

The US MOAB is simply 30 thousand pounds of explosives. I would not at all doubt the device in question to be larger and more destructive than the MOAB, Thermobaric weapons tend to be among the largest non-nuclear weapons.

But cool for the Russians I guess, what exactly do they expect to do with it? A small diameter bomb that's laser-guided would probably prove to be more effective. I can see this device being applied to a heavily fortified installation such as a bunker or underground facilities, but conventionally? Why not just drop precision-guided munitions instead and limit collateral damage while ensuring target destruction?

Shattered OUT...
What are telling me you don't even know Russia has "Persicison Guided" weapons this weapon will be used for the same reasons U.S. will use them.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
No, that's not what I'm telling you.

And I'm well aware that Russia would use their FOAB just as the US would use its MOAB.

Where did you get that I was saying Russia doesn't have precision munitions? I'm well aware that they do.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I had always wondered - Would it be possible to put something like this into a long-range unmanned rocket/missile or is that not feasible with something of this design?

Because the problem with more and more weapon development aside, it doesn't look like dropping bombs from transports in this way will cut it nowdays.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join