PDA

View Full Version : New Russian Megabomb



Sergeant Dorr
09-13-2007, 10:40 AM
I read in the Moscow Times that the russians have developed a new non nuclear bombs capaple of a blast radius of 300 meters and it has about as much power as 44,000 tons of TNT.

tankgeezer
09-13-2007, 11:25 AM
Its a Fuel/ Air bomb. Like the U.S. M.O.A.B. , only perhaps larger. The original thought for fuel air weapons was for clearing mine fields, the fuel cloud spreads out over a large area, and when the air fuel mix is correct, it is detonated, causing a huge shockwave that is supposed to set off all of the mines, kill concealed troops, etc, clearing a path for advancement through the field. It may be large, but it is older technology.(but still impressive to see. Geezer like big Boom!)

AllHailCesar
09-13-2007, 12:13 PM
Thank goodness it's nuclear free.......green boms are the only way to go!

pdf27
09-13-2007, 01:28 PM
...capaple of a blast radius of 300 meters and it has about as much power as 44,000 tons of TNT.
Snigger. A 44kT nuclear weapon has a FIREBALL diameter of about 300 metres and the blast alone will cause 99% fatalities out to 600m.

I can buy a 300m blast zone (not particularly impressive for an unguided weapon, and uselessly powerful for a guided one, but that's by the by), but not a 44kT equivalent.

Firefly
09-13-2007, 04:03 PM
I believe the claim is that the 'Vacuum Bomb' will kill everything within a 3Km radius.

pdf27
09-13-2007, 04:33 PM
ROTFLMAO. To get that sort of kill range from blast alone you need something like a 10 Megatonne device!

Firefly
09-13-2007, 04:50 PM
Come on PDF, are you saying the Russians are lying here?
Actually I think they translated it wrong and its 300 meters.

pdf27
09-13-2007, 06:44 PM
Not all Russians, just the press. Quite a lot of people seem willing to accept those numbers without even a sanity check...

bas
09-13-2007, 09:16 PM
As the defence commentors said on the BBC, the things useless as a weapon against all but the most primitive enemies. Because it is unguided and needs to be dropped out of a bomber.

Egorka
09-14-2007, 05:10 AM
As the defence commentors said on the BBC, the things useless as a weapon against all but the most primitive enemies. Because it is unguided and needs to be dropped out of a bomber.

It is usefull against the concentrated nemy troops and light armored veicles and light housing.
One similar device dropped on the insurgents in Dagestan eliminated 150 - 200 in one short blow.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 07:36 AM
Hello friends.

Its a Fuel/ Air bomb. Like the U.S. M.O.A.B. , only perhaps larger...
More correctly the new Vacuum Bomb has a less weight then the M.O.A.B!!!!( 7.100 kg Vs 8.200 kg). But much more effective radius of hiting -300 metres vs 150 MOAB.
Besides the new bomb has a two times more the temperature in the centre.
The overal power of the bomb is FOUR times more then the MOAB.
.........at least as it told the our brave generals and ingeneers;)
However this ammunition could be useful in the new circumstances agains the terrorists - no radioactive soiling.


Cheers.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 07:42 AM
I read in the Moscow Times that the russians have developed a new non nuclear bombs capaple of a blast radius of 300 meters and it has about as much power as 44,000 tons of TNT.

Moscow news .......;)44 000 tonns ;)
Dorr you better never reat this Russian propogandic Moscow news;)
I remember as in the soviet school the our English teacher forced to read the MN in inglish to learn the lenguages.Coz MN was ALWAYS politically right newspaper and reflected the official Soviet position toward the World Imperialism and Zionism;)
The equvalent weight of the New VAcuum bomb IS roughtly 40 000 killograms of TNT ( not tonns).


Cheers.

Splinter54
09-14-2007, 08:13 AM
I personally agree with Chevan about the proposes such a weapon could have in the modern times - but i also agree with bas and think that precise and guided weapons are more useful, unsless you fight against a whole organised army.
So this bomb is just in the line of evolution of fuel bombs, but i think guided air-ground weapons will lead the way in the future, unless how powerfull unguided air-ground weapons are. Unguided air-ground weapons will be/are used as psychologic weapons (remember those B52 bombers with this crapload of bombs!)
But Vacuum Bomb - sounds quite cool in my honest opinion ^^

pdf27
09-14-2007, 08:42 AM
Thing about big bombs is that blast moves in three dimensions, so blast effectiveness varies with the cube root of blast power. Hence, dropping twenty eight 250kg bombs will have roughly 9 times the explosive effect on a target of a single 7,000kg bomb. The only exception to this is for very, very hard targets where you need a direct hit from a very powerful bomb - and for these things how deeply buried in the target the bomb is counts for more than sheer explosive power.
As you may have guessed by now, I'm a tad sceptical that this weapon has any practical uses whatsoever.

tankgeezer
09-14-2007, 09:46 AM
Hello friends.

More correctly the new Vacuum Bomb has a less weight then the M.O.A.B!!!!( 7.100 kg Vs 8.200 kg). But much more effective radius of hiting -300 metres vs 150 MOAB.
Besides the new bomb has a two times more the temperature in the centre.
The overal power of the bomb is FOUR times more then the MOAB.
.........at least as it told the our brave generals and ingeneers;)
However this ammunition could be useful in the new circumstances agains the terrorists - no radioactive soiling.


Cheers.
Well, could be,, I just like the big Boom. The U.S. has used larger Fuel/Air bombs, they work better than the older "Pallet Bombs" . The problem with those was that deployment required our people to be closer than we would like to hostile forces , so the M.O.A.B. was developed to provide a goodly amount of stand off between delivery aircraft, and target. Our guys safe, and big Boom on target. goodness Gracious, Great Balls of Fire!!

Chevan
09-14-2007, 09:47 AM
Thing about big bombs is that blast moves in three dimensions, so blast effectiveness varies with the cube root of blast power. Hence, dropping twenty eight 250kg bombs will have roughly 9 times the explosive effect on a target of a single 7,000kg bomb. The only exception to this is for very, very hard targets where you need a direct hit from a very powerful bomb - and for these things how deeply buried in the target the bomb is counts for more than sheer explosive power.
As you may have guessed by now, I'm a tad sceptical that this weapon has any practical uses whatsoever.

i 'm agree with you now !!!;)
The tactical military application of such great devices is very limited.
However it could be very effective in the cases that you've wrote.
The real plus of this device is the new "nano-tachnoligy" of the explosion substance that could use for the production of the less vacuum bombs (FAB-500 or like that).
Those new little bombs could be more effective and more cheap.
The demonstration of this "Father of all bombs" ( as it was called by the russian generals)
has the PURELY political and propogandic aims- to show the wold ( and domestic) public of the Power of the New Rusian Weaponry;)
Like in OLD good times of cold war when we with american continiously competed in the "Higher, bigger, further" fascinating political game.
We called it Gigantomania;)
Whay we did it - is not importain -coz americans did it.
For instance the huge number of the soviet military projects was bagan of such REASON;)
Nothing serious, just kiddish....

Egorka
09-14-2007, 10:10 AM
As you may have guessed by now, I'm a tad sceptical that this weapon has any practical uses whatsoever.

I told you 200 insurgents kaboomed in 1 blow. It all depends on the target type.

pdf27
09-14-2007, 10:34 AM
I told you 200 insurgents kaboomed in 1 blow. It all depends on the target type.
Chances are a single cluster bomb would do the same thing, far more cheaply and can be carried by more delivery platforms.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 10:52 AM
Chances are a single cluster bomb would do the same thing, far more cheaply and can be carried by more delivery platforms.
No , the cluster bombs is not fully equal for the Vacuum Thermobaric bomb that used the atmospheric oxygen for detonation of explosion substance.
The ONLY Vacuum bomb reach the so hight temperature in the area of explosion and has a such total damaging effect for the hidden infantry in a so great area.

Rising Sun*
09-14-2007, 10:56 AM
Well, could be,, I just like the big Boom. The U.S. has used larger Fuel/Air bombs, they work better than the older "Pallet Bombs" . The problem with those was that deployment required our people to be closer than we would like to hostile forces , so the M.O.A.B. was developed to provide a goodly amount of stand off between delivery aircraft, and target. Our guys safe, and big Boom on target. goodness Gracious, Great Balls of Fire!!

I think that underlines a problem with US military doctrine.

Too much reliance on equipment or ordnance to achieve a result, which distracts doctrine from the unfortunate fact that until a soldier stands somewhere with his heel on the ground, it ain't ground that's been taken.

Infantry mightn't win wars but, by God, it finishes them.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 11:36 AM
I think that underlines a problem with US military doctrine.


I think we all simply envy for them;)
The UBER wearpon for UBER country;)

pdf27
09-14-2007, 02:23 PM
No , the cluster bombs is not fully equal for the Vacuum Thermobaric bomb that used the atmospheric oxygen for detonation of explosion substance.
The ONLY Vacuum bomb reach the so hight temperature in the area of explosion and has a such total damaging effect for the hidden infantry in a so great area.
You only need to kill them once ;)

tankgeezer
09-14-2007, 07:50 PM
Consider also, that even though the M.O.A.B. is smaller than some other munitions, it is a precision guided weapon. This allows all of its passion to be lavished upon the object of it's affection. A simple "dumb' munition may drift off target,or be dropped incorrectly, and even though it may have a much higher yield, that could be wasted due to inaccurate delivery.

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 10:58 PM
Well, I recall reading that at the end of the Vietnam War, the South Vietnamese air force pushed a "Daisy Wad Cutter" out of the back of a C-130 onto a North Vietnamese Army HQ and killed between 150 and 200 soldiers and senior officers...

tankgeezer
09-14-2007, 11:03 PM
Well, I recall reading that at the end of the Vietnam War, the South Vietnamese air force pushed a "Daisy Wad Cutter" out of the back of a C-130 onto a North Vietnamese Army HQ and killed between 150 and 200 soldiers and senior officers...
That is the "pallet bomb" I spoke of earlier, called a "Daisy Cutter" 14, or 15,000 lbs of explosives. Quite impressive to see.

Chevan
09-16-2007, 01:28 PM
Consider also, that even though the M.O.A.B. is smaller than some other munitions, it is a precision guided weapon. This allows all of its passion to be lavished upon the object of it's affection. A simple "dumb' munition may drift off target,or be dropped incorrectly, and even though it may have a much higher yield, that could be wasted due to inaccurate delivery.

Sure you right.The precision wearpon always much more effective.
The Mega will have the laser head also.

Chevan
09-16-2007, 01:36 PM
That is the "pallet bomb" I spoke of earlier, called a "Daisy Cutter" 14, or 15,000 lbs of explosives. Quite impressive to see.

the 15 000lb Daisy Cutter BLU-82/B that was used in Vietnam is not really impressive in comparition with the Vacuum bomb


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_all_bombs
"Father of all bombs" is the nickname of a Russian-made air-delivered thermobaric weapon that is claimed to be four times more powerful than the U.S. military's GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB or the "mother of all bombs"), making it the most powerful publicly-known conventional (non-nuclear) weapon in the world.[1] It was successfully field-tested in the late evening of September 11, 2007, when it was dropped from a Tupolev Tu-160 heavy bomber with a parachute and exploded.[2]

The weapon yields the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT using 7.8 tons of a new type of high explosive, created applying nanotechnology.[2][3][4] In comparison, the MOAB produces the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT from 8 tons of high explosive. The blast radius of 300 m is twice as large as the MOAB.[5][6]

Although its effect has been compared to that of a nuclear weapon, it amounts to only about 0.3 percent of the power of the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima: the equivalent of around 44 tons of TNT, whereas the Hiroshima blast was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT while Tsar Bomba, the most powerful explosive device deployed was equivalent to 50,000,000 tons of TNT. The M-388 Davy Crockett, one of the smallest nuclear devices ever deployed, has a selectable lower yield equivalent to 20 tons of TNT, though that energy is released mostly as radiation rather than a blast wave.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Foab_blast.jpg
I/m just wondering how Wiki operative reflects the news.:)

Egorka
09-16-2007, 04:09 PM
Chances are a single cluster bomb would do the same thing, far more cheaply and can be carried by more delivery platforms.

Are not the cluster bomb forbiden?

Besides, in the case I mentioned the insurgents were not in the open space - they were hiding in a mountain village. In this case the advantage of the fuel bomb is obvious.

You are right about the delivery platforms, though.

Nickdfresh
09-16-2007, 04:30 PM
Somebody needs to drop a vacuum bomb on my apartment!

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/media/7zL0eWXWLcIJ.jpg

Nickdfresh
09-16-2007, 04:32 PM
the 15 000lb Daisy Cutter BLU-82/B that was used in Vietnam is not really impressive in comparition with the Vacuum bomb

...

But probably every bit as effective, as as noted in this thread, there is a (law of) diminishing returns on the weight, size, and amount of high explosives in a bomb...

Nickdfresh
09-16-2007, 04:35 PM
Are not the cluster bomb forbiden?

No, they aren't forbidden...


Besides, in the case I mentioned the insurgents were not in the open space - they were hiding in a mountain village. In this case the advantage of the fuel bomb is obvious.

You are right about the delivery platforms, though.

Well, sometimes you have to kill an entire village to get a few insurgents...;)

But you could just use a bunch of 250lb, 500lbs, 1000lbs, or 2000lbs bombs for that...

tankgeezer
09-16-2007, 05:26 PM
I wasnt referring to the BLU-82, there was during the Viet Nam conflict, an explosive daisy cutter that was just bagged explosive packed on a Pallet, 7 tons worth, which was air dropped out the rear door of a C-130. (like the Blu-82, but nothing so sophisticated. )not guided, or directed in any way after being dropped. About as dumb a bomb as can be, but it did its job.
I am still a fan of the Fuel/Air munitions though, a much better weapon.