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.


Anyone familiar with munitions?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:01 PM
In this thread:

This came up:

Thermobaric bombs contain polymer-bonded explosives or solid fuel-air explosives in their payloads. Thermobarics use a fuse munition unit (FMU) such as that seen on the nose of the Israeli artillery shell. [...]The artillery shell below, with its FMU penetrator, can also be used to deliver chemical weapons,[...]In addition, it can deliver white phosphorous,

Is the text accurate?

I am not wanting to start a conversation about the webpage's sentiments, merely its accuracey in terms of the munition. Is it a real munition? THe photo itself has been claimed to be a photoshop. Does that munition exist? Is it being used by the IDF right now? Is it dual use?

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:14 PM
Thermobaric devices are ways to get more powerful explosives into the same sized weapons.

The thermobaric bomb's magic ingredient is aluminum dust, also the secret component of another legendary weapon in the arsenal, the behemoth Daisy Cutter. Aluminum, handy foil in your kitchen drawer, is a highly dangerous explosive hazard when powdered. Duong's design duplicates conditions in a mine saturated with the flammable dust—and then strikes a match, unleashing a twisting inferno and metal-shredding concussion.

The thermobaric bomb -- 'thermo' refers to heat and 'baric' to barometric pressure -- features a two-stage explosion. The first blast occurs upon the bomb's penetration of a cave or tunnel and scatters explosive dust throughout the area where the bomb has landed. This is followed a fraction of a second later by a second, larger explosion that literally sucks oxygen out of a cave or tunnel.

'Instead of boom, this bomb goes BOOOOOOOM,' Della Vedova said.

Its powder-based explosive gives the thermobaric bomb a longer burn in confined spaces than the liquid explosive in the 5,000-pound bunker-buster bombs used during the Persian Gulf War, Della Vedova said.

If a thermobaric bomb was used in conjunction with a chemical/biological agent, it would incinerate it. It was developed as a way to keep troops from having to go into caves and tunnels in Afghanistan, and as far as *I* know it was only used once, and missed. And there were a very limited number ever produced.

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:49 PM
I believe the photo. I saw some random news footage of the Israeli onslaught of South Lebanon which CLEARLY showed a bomb almost identicle to that one falling - it had a very long impact detonation rod sticking out of the nose suggesting that it was designed to explode above the ground (a form of air burst detonator) much the same as the infamous US "daisy cutter" FAE only a lot smaller. The news reporters wouldn't know one bomb from another of course and no mention was made.

What I'm more skeptical about is it being an artillery shell - it's surely air launched. And that isn't an artillery gun in the photo - it's the back of an Israeli MBT.

and chemical weapons... well, could in the same way as any other bomb.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by planeman]

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:52 PM
That's almost definately a real bomb, but a thermobaric bomb CAN NOT be used with a chemical, biological, or willie pete round. All of those rounds are designed to have SMALLER explosions so that it doesn't destroy the payload, where a thermobaric is designed to have a BIGGER explosion that is much hotter than a "normal" bomb.

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:01 PM
Zaphod is spot on. Putting chemicals in a thermobaric bomb would be useless. You're trying to achieve totally different effects.

I'm far from an expert on artillery systems (thought I'd make that clear before I start getting accused of being a self-appointed expert), but if it is an aerially delivered weapon, why is some ground dude near a tank handling it? He doesn't seem to be adhering to a raft of OH&S principles either

Edit: Spelling.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Willard856]

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:10 PM
Upon REALLY close inspection of that photo in P/shop, it looks like a genuine unaltered photo to me from the consistent way the shadows fall, unfortunately there is no EXIF data attatched to the image on download, but it would seem with the ease that the soldier is carrying the shell, that it is prior to filling-with god knows what-before being fired. Also it looks to large to be an artillery others have suggested on other posts, that this may be a large chemical mortar round?

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:12 AM

New Mine Breaching System
Based on Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE)

Israel's weapon development company Rafael is producing a minefield breaching system called “Carpet”. The system is currently in use by the Israeli Army and will be fielded with the French Army by 2007. The system is a unique implementation of fuel-air explosive technology. It is an autonomous add-on kit that can be quickly fitted in the field to any armored vehicle. For minefield breaching, up to 20 rockets are fired in a rapid sequence. The number of rockets used is tailored for the type of target engaged. At the impact point, each rocket disperses a spray of fuel above the target area, to form the fuel-air explosive cloud.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:13 AM
No. Thermobaric bombs are NON-FAE devices. They use some of the same components, but they are NOT FAEs.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No. Thermobaric bombs are NON-FAE devices. They use some of the same components, but they are NOT FAEs.

As defined by
thermobaric bomb - a bomb that uses a fuel-air explosive; "a thermobaric bomb can create overpressures equal to an atomic bomb"


posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:43 AM
Hey yeah, let's use the member edited site to define our weapons.

The explosive effects are similar, and it uses the same method of exploding, but it's still not an FAE. Thermobarics and FAEs are in different categories, although they're similar in the way they function.

From a site I trust FAR more than wiki:

Volumetric weapons include thermobaric and fuel-air explosives (FAE). Both thermobaric and FAE operate on similar technical principles. In the case of FAE, when a shell or projectile containing a fuel in the form of gas, liquid or dustexplodes, the fuel or dust like material is introduced into the air to form acloud. This cloud is then detonated to create a shock wave of extended duration that produces overpressure and expands in all directions. In a thermobaric weapon, the fuel consists of a monopropellant and energetic particles. The monopropellant detonates in a manner simular to TNT while the particles burn rapidly in the surrounding air later in time, resulting an intense fireball and high blast overpressure. The term "thermobaric" is derived from the effects of temperature (the Greek word "therme" means "heat") and pressure (the Greek word "baros" means "pressure") on the target.

Thermobaric munitions have been used by many nations of the world and their proliferation is an indication of how effectively these weapons can be used in urban and complex terrain. The ability of thermobaric weapons to provide massed heat and pressure effects at a single point in time cannot be reproduced by conventional weapons without massive collateral destruction. Thermobaric weapon technologies provide the commander a new choice in protecting the force, and a new offensive weapon that can be used in a mounted or dismounted mode against complex environments.

Thermobaric weapons are NOT FAE weapons.

[edit on 7/25/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Hey yeah, let's use the member edited site to define our weapons.

?. Are you talking about the edit i made?

Thermobaric weapons are NOT FAE weapons.

Depends one whos definition

Thermobarics aren't just a more powerful version of normal high explosive. The term encompasses a range of different types of warhead from fuel-air explosives, which release a cloud of flammable material and detonate it, to metallized explosives whose expanding fireball takes in oxygen from the air.

Under the FAE section

Russia used such "thermobaric" weapons sparingly during the 1994-1996 war in Chechnya. These were employed outside the city of Grozny against villages and mountain positions. Only the RPO-A flame thrower, which has a thermobaric round, was used in fighting in Grozny itself.


The term "thermobaric" is derived from the effects of temperature (the Greek word "therme" means "heat") and pressure (the Greek word "baros" means "pressure") on the target.

I was noticing your source, The word thermobaric means "heat" "pressure" which defines a FAE weapon as well. So theres no doubt that its Globals definition and not a definition in general use

[edit on 25-7-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:11 AM
Slide 6 defines what a thermobaric material is. The rest of the presentation gives a good overview (if a little techo for my liking!) on thermobarics and testing.

Verifying Performance of Thermobaric Material

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 01:11 AM
No, I'm talking about wiki.

Thermobarics and FAEs are both VOLUMETRIC explosives. Volumetrics are very similar in operation. That doesn't make an FAE a Thermobaric, or a Thermobaric an FAE. That's like saying a lawnmower engine will work in a car, and a car engine will work in a lawnmower, because they both operate the same.

Fine. How about SITIS for a source?

Volumetric explosives, which include fuel air explosives (FAE) and thermobarics (TBX), have the potential to be more effective than high explosives against these targets due to their greater energy density and improved target coupling (a volumetric source versus a point source). This topic calls for development of techniques to direct and/or focus blast. These directional blast warheads would be analogous to their mass-focusing counterparts--shaped charge jets (SCJ) and explosively-formed penetrators (EFP). The goals are to: (a) increase lethality by focusing more of the available energy on target; (b) decrease the collateral damage from blast (via directional blast versus omnidirectional blast); and (c) miniaturize the warhead (i.e., decrease the mass and volume) by exploiting the higher energy density of volumetric explosives and eliminating extraneous fuel mass.

How about AFRL?

AFRL is using the firing set to study novel initiation methods in volumetric explosives (the use of small amounts of electrical or mechanical energy to initiate, control, and direct the release of chemical energy from thermobarics and fuel-air explosives).

Sometimes a thermobaric IS referred to as an FAE, but that doesn't make it one. They are both volumetric explosives, which sometimes causes them to be refered to as the same, but they are NOT. If they were the same, then somehow I doubt the AFRL and the SITIS document would be refering to them seperately.

[edit on 7/25/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, I'm talking about wiki.

Wikipedia already covered terminology problems. What i have been reading states that a "Thermobaric weapon" is something that targets one thing while a FAE is a "area effect weapon". It also states that the russians dont differenate between either and the americans have 4 different types of names for them but are grouped as EBM

Note on terminology

From the open literature it appears that some experts draw a distinction between the terms thermobaric weapon and fuel-air explosive based on the primary intended effects: "thermobaric" relating to closed-zone convection or air displacement as the primary objective, and "fuel-air" for use as area-denial or "daisy cutter"–like ordnance through blast and combustion, in a role somewhat similar to that of cluster bomb weapons. Other sources use "fuel-air" as the general case, subsuming "thermobaric" as previously detailed; still others use the two terms interchangeably. The term "thermobaric" refers to heat ("thermo") and pressure ("baric").

Fine. How about SITIS for a source?

I dont know what SITI or AFRL are.

thermobaric means blast pressure. How can you use this word to differnate between a "thermobaric waepon" and a FAE?. A FAE is a blast pressure weapon so why cant it be termed under the same meaning. Its like truck and a car, both of them can be called a vehicle or even a car

It's Defense Review's understanding that the word "thermobaric" originated in Russia during the days of the Iron Curtain. Here in the West, we referred to these same types of weapons as fuel-air explosives. The word combines the Greek words "thermo" (heat) and "baros" (pressure), which describes how a thermobaric weapon operates. First, the weapon creates an intense overpressure wave/blast and distributes a combustable agent in either aerosol or gel, then ignites it, creating a giant fireball that consumes all of the oxygen in the area, which creates a deep vacuum. The Russians also refer to thermobaric weapons as "volumetric explosives".

I got about 2400 hits for FAE and thermobaric explosions

GOogle search

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:54 AM
where do we start

i would like to hunt down and disembowl the " anonymous expert " who claimed that that photo shows a " artillery shell " that person is either an idiot a liar or both .

the picture clearly shows a reload fot the "carpet mine clearing system"

so much for the claim [ ex] According to a former U.S. weapons expert who served in Iraq, the artillery shell in a photo taken in Lebanon (below) is a chemical weapon delivery device [ /ex]

chuffing moron

if the picture was indeed taken in labanon recently -- it makes me wonder , as the isrealis hant encountered mines in the sort of concentrations that weould warrant the use of a system like carpet

now if the used a little logic and claimed that the isrealis were using mine clearing rockets as APERS weapons to flatten villages and destroy feilds / crops -- then that would be a semi credible claim that might be worthy of investigation

but no -- they have to lie and babble on about WMDs and chemical weapons

thier comparison to a picture of a chemical shell [ the line drawing below ] is laughable

in short -- no the text is not accurate , not by any stretch of the imagination

[EDIT] - OOOPS chinawite already identified the weapon correctly -- my bad , appologies mate

[edit on 25-7-2006 by ignorant_ape]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:24 AM
Zaphod I know it was used in Afghanistan but you sure it was used only once? I’ve seen video of the thing and it didn’t look like it missed to me.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:10 AM
SITIS and AFRL are Department of Defense chinawhite. AFRL is Air Force Research Lab. I'm a lot more likely to believe them calling a Thermobaric and an FAE seperate than wiki, or google calling them the same.

Yes they both use blast pressure, but the METHOD of getting the blast pressure is different and the WAY they use blast pressure is different. An FAE uses a two stage explosion that is almost immediate to detonate the fuel that is spread. A Thermobaric uses a delayed explosion to get a greater blast pressure and higher temperature explosion. A Thermobaric can be used with just about any sized bomb. I've seen tests done with them using a 500 pound explosive that was a Thermobaric device. I have yet to see an FAE that was smaller than a Daisy Cutter.

Again, just because a car and a truck can be called a vehicle THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Westpoint, the USAF claims one use, at Tora Bora and they missed. The other videos are tests in Nevada.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:15 AM
Ok, I’ve just seen HUD image of the test and though it was Afghanistan. Puzzles me as to why they would discontinue it use, they tore up tunnels (which enhance the effects of a Thermobaric bomb) to shreds.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:20 AM
They haven't given up use of them. They just haven't had a need to use them again. Not long after the use at Tora Bora the tunnel fighting pretty much ended in Afghanistan.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:39 PM
Nygdan, hope these posts have helped answer your questions. Yes, yes, yes, possibly. I think the Madsen article muddied the waters when it talked of FMU penetrator and thermobaric, implying something other than what this rocket was intended for, minefield breaching.
For the particular photo showing a soldier carrying a rocket, the Madsen article implied that the rocket may have been used as a chemical weapon, dispersing a lightweight gas. I don't know about that, nor that particular rocket carrying WP. If that could be the case, then definitely "dual use". However, I found Ignorant's thought interesting

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
now if the(y)...claimed that the isrealis were using mine clearing rockets as APERS weapons to flatten villages and destroy feilds / crops -- then that would be a semi credible claim that might be worthy of investigation

Also, the minefields to be breached probably had more leftover Israeli mines than Lebanese and any Hezbollah. The IDF knew what they were up against and knew what they needed to use to do the job
Such is the nature of warfare.

Oh, my mistake when writing "Yes, yes, yes, possibly." I was referring to the ?'s in your paragraph.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by desert]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in