It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Father of all bombs(Rus) vs MOAB (US)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:39 PM
The Americans tested MOAB(Nick named: mother of all bombs ) in 2002/2003 and called it the most destructive non nuclear bomb 2007 Russians responded to a bomb of 4 times more caliber FOAB(nick named Father of all bombs)
...................... MОАВ...............vs FОАВ
Mass...............: 8,200 kg ///// 7,100 kg
TNT equivalent: 11 tons ///// ~44 tons
Blast radius.....: 150 m ///// 300 m
Guidance.........: INS/GPS ///// Unknown

According to most independent analysts and experts the Russian Bomb has a clear superiority over its American counterpart , even Pro American analysts agree that FOAB is superior to MOAB but according to them the FOAB is only 50 % more destructive than the MOAB(and not four times more destructive).

Russians have already started replacing their smaller nuclear bombs with FOABs needs to be seen how long the Americans take to catchup with this Russian advance in Nanotechnology.

This thread is for comparison between NON nuclear bombs

link : WESTERN Propaganda media
Russian media

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:04 PM
maybe if those two get together there will be a baby bomb.

i have heard of the moab but not the foab. all i know is the tsar bomba was the biggest bomb the world has ever seen, but that was nuclear.
the russians certainly know how to make things go "BOOM"

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:05 PM
Although these types of weapons do have a very large explosion they are still only a tactical and not strategic device, so at some point making them bigger and more destructive is pointless.

For example, if you want to destroy an enemy bunker then there is a limit to the size of explosion you need if your going to destroy it using overpressure (blast) externally. Bury the bunker deep enough, and the size of blast one of these things would have to produce would be completely impractical and give you more collateral damage than anything else.

Better then to use something that penetrates into the target and then explodes. can be much smaller, with lower yield and greater accuracy. plus you can carry more of them.

Good as a propaganda tool mind you....let the enemy see you blow one of these up somewhere and see how brave he feels when you tell him he's next....

[edit on 24-4-2010 by uptheirons!]

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:38 PM
You're comparing two different kinds of bombs. what do you expect us to say?

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Iblis
You're comparing two different kinds of bombs. what do you expect us to say?

as far as i know they are similar kind of bombs using similar technology ...plz correct me if i m wrong

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:23 AM
The MOAB has a guidance system. It has a smaller blast, but it will land on its target. The FOAB is a "dumb bomb," meaning you drop it and you hope it lands where you want it to. Now, these bombs are very, very powerful so missing isn't a huge deal, but there is something to be said for precision.

There is also the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which is another U.S. bomb. It's not as explosively powerful as either the MOAB or the FOAB, but it's still incredibly huge and it is the only one out of the three that is designed to penetrate into bunkers and underground structures.

Some U.S. weapons are actually shifting towards making explosions that are smaller in size, but more powerful within the blast zone. They achieve this by mixing heavy metal nanoparticles in with the explosives. This is a much more useful advancement, because it gives you the same "kick the target's butt" ability as a larger explosion, with much less of the "blow up everything near the target" drawbacks.

When it comes to sheer power and intimidation factor, the FOAB wins hands down. If you don't like a city block somewhere, a FOAB will get rid of it for you. Russia is not actively fighting any major wars right now, so it can be expected to build show-off weapons such as the FOAB. The role they needed to fill with the FOAB was "Make it go boom louder than the MOAB," which it does quite well.

The U.S. is actively waging two wars right now, so it can be expected to design weapons based on what roles need to be filled within those wars. Another way you could look at it is this: The MOAB was built to intimidate "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Iraq, the FOAB was built to intimidate Americans.

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:49 PM
To my knowledge, the MOAB is a very large amount of conventional explosives, like how you would normally imagine a bomb. At a pre-determined altitude, the fuse goes off and the bomb goes bang.

A FOAB, from what I recall, is a FAE - Fuel Air Explosive. As in, it releases a very fine powder/mixture, allows it time to disperse, then detonates the cloud. This has, historically, been used to create a very large blast wave and to remove oxygen from the surrounding area (assuming there is not an oxidizer in the mix.)

Please correct me if I am wrong.

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:32 PM
I'm looking at this from a little different angle. Maybe someone has some knowledge to answer this question.

The US bomb weighs 11 tons, Russian 44 tons. Can you put the Russian bomb on a conventional Russian rocket used in their mobile, submarine, or silo based missiles. Isn't it "heavy" as opposed to a nuclear weapon.

What about airplanes, specifically bombers. I know their heavy lift transports can haul this, but that's not really a bomber. I do know the US throws things out the back of some of our transports, but this is 44 tons were talking about.

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by hinky

It does not weigh 44 tons, it has the equivalent explosive power of 44 tons of TNT. Its actual weight comes in at just under 8 tons. The Russians claim that their FOAB can be delivered by their bombers. The American MOAB can only be delivered by being dropped from a cargo plane.

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:12 PM
Don't I feel silly. Now it makes much more sense. I thought 44 tons, you got to build a railroad to ship it in to explode the damn thing.


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:45 PM
Neither the MOAB nor the FOAB have ever been used in combat.

They aren't particularly useful weapons for anything but showing off. Multiple smaller bombs can destroy just as large an area for the same weight, and smaller bombs optimized for penetration can destroy hardened structures and underground bunkers better.

the Russian FOAB gets a much better explosive yield to weight ratio because it's a fuel-air explosive. The MOAB relies on conventional explosives.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by mdiinican
Neither the MOAB nor the FOAB have ever been used in combat.

They aren't particularly useful weapons for anything but showing off.

Try dropping one in a garrisoned city block. The vacuum effect alone will suck enemy soldiers out of buildings from a diameter twice the size of the explosion. Anything else within radius will probably be turned to rubble (MOAB) or caught on fire (FOAB).


log in