backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by Mortal.. on Sep 15 at 2:22 AM


FOAB after impact and detonation
Russia tries to retake it's position on the world stage.

Yesterday, Russia detonated the largest non-nuclear weapon in history. The bomb is currently dubbed the “Father of all Bombs” as a play on the American Massive Ordnance Air Burst or “Mother of all Bombs.” Russia has not cited an official designation for the bomb, but it has already solidified its nickname.

The American MOAB is air dropped from the back of a C-130 cargo plane. MOAB uses 8 tons of high explosive to produce an explosion of roughly 11 tons of TNT. This was up until yesterday the most powerful conventional bomb in the world. Today it looks like Russia now holds that title.

The “FOAB” is dropped from a Tu-160 Strategic Bomber and uses just 7.8 tons of a new high explosive that produces an explosion equivalent to 44 tons of TNT. That is 4 times that of the American MOAB. The Tu-160 Strategic Bombers are the same ones that Russia restarted last month.

Both bombs are Thermobaric based. They use a “Fuel air burst” to scatter a cloud of fine explosive particles and then using a super heated explosion in the center cause a massive detonation in mid air. This process causes a massive shockwave that can destroy roughly 9 city blocks on the MOAB. The Russian “FOAB” has roughly twice the blast radius at 990 feet.

Both bombs consume all oxygen in the area during detonation, ensuring that even if you survived the blast, you will likely die from oxygen deprivation before the oxygen can fill the gaping space left by the bombs. Russia quotes the "FOAB" as environmentally friendly as it does not leave any fall out or radiation, but the explosion still would surely decimate the area it is dropped in.

Televised remarks from a Russian General state the new “FOAB” is comparable to a nuclear weapon in efficiency and capability. By comparison, the nuclear device dropped on Hiroshima had an explosion rated at 13,000 tons of TNT. Nevertheless, as far as anyone has confirmed, Russia now has the largest and most powerful air burst weapon in the world.

The U.S. military claims to possess several larger air burst weapons but none have been demonstrated publicly.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By Marlowe on 9/12/2007 9:37:18 AM , Rating: 5
Will the Americans answer with the even bigger GOAB? The Granny of all Bombs? Or maby the smaller, tactical nuke the DOAB, Daughter of all Bombs? Or the bomb that does no physical damage but sucks out everything you have in your pockets, the LOAB - The Lawyer of all Bombs?

Fill in your suggestion to the next bomb below!




RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/12/2007 9:42:05 AM , Rating: 5
GOAB - God of all Bombs


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By wordsworm on 9/12/2007 12:11:26 PM , Rating: 5
I suppose Iran would have to come up with the Allah's Reaper of All Bombs. ARAB.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By porkpie on 9/12/2007 2:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Good one! :)


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By LogicallyGenius on 9/12/07, Rating: -1
By marsbound2024 on 9/12/2007 11:52:16 PM , Rating: 3
Or maybe they should do that to you, especially since America is their biggest customer. LogicallyIdiot.


By cbo on 9/12/2007 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 5
Funny one, I must say but they are Persian.


By Misty Dingos on 9/12/2007 9:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
We get these two bombs together in a nice bomb storage facility with a few thousand gallons of vodka and pretty soon we get BOAB the Baby of All Bombs! Which will be a nasty little kid with a very short fuse. You don't want to be around for the terrible twos. It just isn't pretty.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By Terberculosis on 9/12/2007 9:59:23 AM , Rating: 3
EOAB - End Of All Bombs

An Antimatter weapon that destroys the biosphere of the earth, ensuring no more bombs will be built (by homo sapiens at least).


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By PAPutzback on 9/12/2007 10:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
That's where I was going to go.
GFOAB - The Grand Finale Of All Bombs

How big of a bomb would it take on a fault line to trigger a huge earthquake to actually send a land mass to the Ocean. Some sort of wedge bomb.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 10:40:38 AM , Rating: 3
> "How big of a bomb would it take on a fault line to trigger a huge earthquake to actually send a land mass to the Ocean"

Land masses won't slide into the ocean no matter what. Eventually, California will likely break off and form an independent island, but it won't break off and sink.

For comparison sake, an earthquake registering 9 on the Richter scale releases the energy equivalent of 32 billion tons of TNT....so if you want to move a tectonic plate, you're going to need a rather large bomb.


By Inkjammer on 9/12/2007 11:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
And by then everything on the surface is dust anyway. =P


By djcameron on 9/12/2007 12:40:02 PM , Rating: 5
How about the ROOAB? The Rosie O'Donnell Of All Bombs... I think it would be bigger and nastier.


By codeThug on 9/12/2007 4:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking a "black hole" bomb would just about take care of things.

Mutually assured destruction at it's finest.


By arazok on 9/12/2007 10:55:29 AM , Rating: 4
The STFU Bomb. They could drop it on the Russian FOAB factory.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By DEVGRU on 9/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By maven81 on 9/12/2007 12:44:28 PM , Rating: 5
How about you at least learn the language before teaching people a lesson?

For one thing you're wrong, a sumbarine is a she, as they call it "podvodnaya lodka"
A bomb is also female - "bomba" and in the few instances that they have named them it was given a woman's name... "tatyana" for instance.
True, a ship and an airplaine are masculine, however canon - "pushka", rocket - "raketa", and arrow - "strela" are all feminine.
There's no mystery here, this is basic grammar.

Anyway on to the subject at hand... this trully does feel like a return back to soviet times... pretty unnerving.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By Ringold on 9/12/2007 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 5
At least the Soviet's we could deal with, bargain with, and generally get along with pretty well as long as we mutually, in public, continued to spit fire and brimstone.

These new kids playing on the international block don't play the same rules.. or any rules, for that matter.

Soviet's were, additionally, rationally acting players. There wouldn't ever be a nuclear war, except by accident, with Russia as they dont really want to be vaporized and neither do we. Whats to stop, however, a terrorist from using such a weapon? Only opportunity.

I therefore find a resurgent Russia rather comforting... Just as long as its relatively stable.


By maven81 on 9/12/2007 2:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with your assesment. But the way in which this resurgence is being carried out makes me sad. It wipes away much of the progress they have made towards democracy in favor of an almost totalitarian system... again... A system which will derive it's power from anti-western, ultranationalist rhetoric, which really has no place in today's world, especially considering they are now completely tied into the western economy.

Though one has to wonder whether they even want democracy in the first place. Seems generations of conditioning has taught them to prefer "the rule of a strong hand".


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By wordsworm on 9/12/2007 8:44:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At least the Soviet's we could deal with, bargain with

You say this as if the US didn't invade Panama to take control over the canal, or Iraq on what everyone knows were false pretenses, or resumed space weapon technology despite a treaty with the Russians (formerly the USSR) forbidding such research. The US sees itself now as the world's only superpower. It therefore doesn't give $ .02 about international laws unless it applies to someone deemed an enemy of the state. This whole war on terror is a facade. It's pretty clear that there's no way a jet airliner can bring down a tower. This seems pretty obvious. Yet the US voted in for a second term the man who covered up the crime. Politically, it's the American juggernaut that is the world's biggest problem. America claims to support democracy, but refuses to acknowledge democratically elected governments like the one in Palestine right now. It consistently reports falsely on Iran, taking the president's words out of context to make him look like a monster rather than one of the great champions of his people. Most Americans don't really look at his record. They simply listen to the propaganda and judge him on that. Americans constantly have to remind themselves that they're free so that they can forget that more people are incarcerated in the US than any other country in the world. Mexico, a few years back, was about to legalize marijuana, but 'thanks' to US involvement, threats, etc., that sovereign nation quickly discovered that the US can threaten all kinds of nasty things if a government doesn't rule using American policies. The US is a big problem in the world today, while its people seem to imagine themselves as the saviors and police. So before criticizing other people's ways, perhaps you ought to first acknowledge that the US can't rationally look upon itself as a rule abiding nation.

Before anyone suggests it, I'm not Muslim, Arab, or even left wing. I'm descended from an orphan, so I don't know my ethnicity, I'm an atheist, so I don't care about religion, and I don't like either left or right wing politics. I believe in being objective and that both sides of issues often have pertinent points, and that rather than take sides based on what I'm told to believe by the state run propaganda machine, aka CBC, I actually remain objective.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By shamgar03 on 9/12/2007 10:31:26 PM , Rating: 1
A couple things...while some of your points are valid, US Imperialism over the past couple decades, the war in Iraq beings for pretty much unknown reasons, your dead wrong on alot of other things.
A) The twin towers were taken down by planes, no ifs ands or buts. Some, non-technical people like to point out "blasts" as the building collapsed, its called compression, as the building collapses it will push air out of the floors below. If you do REAL research on that you will find the case more than believable. Hundreds and hundreds of structural engineers would have to have been silenced to cover that up, so ... I don't buy it.

B) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dick....no seriously though he is great at PR. Alot of American's sympathize with him from what he has said, he just sounds like a normal, nice guy. Unfortunately its not the case. He has damaged Iran's economy, while playing up small parts that have improved. He has basically made the rich MUCH richer, and the poor much poorer (if there is such a word). He's also nuts:
"Months into his presidency, a furore erupted over Mr Ahmadinejad's comment that Israel should be "wiped off the map". His claims that the Holocaust was a "myth" drew further international condemnation." from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_pro...

C) While the United States is not God's gift to the world, and for the last 2-3 decades it has been sort of a dick on the international stage, it did in some ways earn that right (remember WW2, the cold war etc). The US defended freedom when there was no one left to do so, then it did it again (against the Russians). I KNOW you're not going to say the Soviets weren't that bad, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and the Gulag was initially Lenin's idea.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By wordsworm on 9/13/2007 5:08:27 AM , Rating: 1
The position of Israel and the US on him possibly using a nuclear warhead on Israel is absolutely foolish. Using a nuclear warhead on Israel would endanger not only Israel, but all the surrounding middle east with radioactivity, not to mention the electromagnetic blast. This whole idea that he is in the mind to use such force to 'erase Israel off the face of the map' is ludicrous. That's just western propaganda. He believes that if all the Jews and Palestinians were granted democratic freedom, that the Arabic vote would dominate, and that the name of Israel would dissolve. He also said that it's retarded to punish Palestinians by stealing their land when it was the Germans who should have siphoned off a chunk of their land for Israel. I can't say as I disagree with that. What did the Palestinians do to deserve the loss of their land, their heritage?

Your belief that airplanes can take down a tower is also ludicrous. The fuel doesn't burn hot enough to take down a tower. Particularly considering it was no where near the base of the building. What further confounds the official explanation is that billions in gold has gone missing. Gold doesn't vaporize like that. Someone I know pointed out that a plane did take down a bridge. The concrete in a bridge is constantly exposed to water, and water in the concrete would cause an explosion, not dry concrete that's specifically designed to withstand the heat of burning jet fuel. The pentagon is also said to have been hit by a plane. Yet, miraculously, the wings managed to miss all of the lamps, power lines, and even more miraculously, the plane managed to vaporize. It's true that the government has been brainwashing Americans for just over 7 years now, but it doesn't mean that everyone is going to fall for it.

Actually, about WWII, I was going to say that Canada contributed more to the effort in Europe than the US. Certainly, the effort against Japan has the credit going to America. I don't think that their effort would have had long term, but Europe is a different story. For the first 2 years, America was sounding pretty supportive of Hitler's efforts. Perhaps it's because of the Aryan philosophy that the two countries shared.

Gorbachev was a great leader. There were many great leaders in the USSR with vision. Unfortunately, it was also corrupt and a little too greedy for power. I don't think anyone rational can be pro Stalin or Lenin. The ideology behind communism isn't a bad one. It just hasn't been done very well yet to the point where one can say it works or it doesn't work. I'm pretty selfish though. I much prefer having private ownership as opposed to everything being owned by the state. Although, I remind myself that if at any time the taxes aren't payed, quite quickly one can discover that ownership still belongs to the government. In fact, in Canada at least, 'ownership' is really only a lease by which we're granted limited privileges, and that the government still pretty much controls everything. Sometimes, if you really look at things, you'll realize that the line between dystopia and utopia in a give society is only paper thin.

Let me give an example: I read a statistic that suggested 1 in 3 black males can't vote because of criminal convictions. A friend of mine pointed out that the difference between crack and cocaine is race, baking soda, and 10 years in prison. There are 1000s of people throughout American states who are incarcerated for little more than drug use, who are then forced into hard labour camps. That means slavery is alive and kicking in the USA. White people are more often afforded government programs to help them with addictions whereas black people are more often sacrificed.

America is in the unenviable position, and I suppose I can easily say the same of Canadians, of having a very effective whitewashing program that makes us think how superior we are to much of the world. While some Nazi Germans were all for the extermination of the Jews, it was a minority of people who were fully aware of what was going on. In Canada, on the other hand, people knew quite well what was going on with the Japanese and Chinese interim camps. We knew very well how aggressively government was actively eroding at the paltry concessions earlier governments had made for their Native populations. Our hands are as dirty as the next persons.

While we talk about fighting for the freedom of those in Europe, we forget about the stranglehold England had on India's fortunes, and how Hitler's romp through Europe had the inadvertent effect of diverting England's strength to a defensive position, thereby allowing India to wrest themselves free from them.

Your stance on politics comes from high school history book which has as much to do with indoctrinating slanted perspectives and not objectively going over multicultural history books and looking more at the actions of governments with an objective eye, and learning how to see the difference between an opinion and a fact.

It's a shame that humanity has progressed so feebly, even with all the information at our fingertips. We still fail to look at ourselves and our own history objectively. We just want to feel good, like our fathers and our fathers' fathers were heroes rather than people who defended one criminal and immoral government from another.


By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 8:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Nope not even going to try. Thought I might try but uh no. You are so hideously willfully misinformed that you are a lost cause. My prediction for you is that you will end up in a solar powered cabin in Manitoba with a ten year old lap top and a manifesto. Oh and a tin foil hat. Go with god.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By otispunkmeyer on 9/13/2007 3:58:05 AM , Rating: 4
technically it wasnt the planes that took the buildings down, it was the fire and the design of the building. a central core attached to an exoskeleton of steel by open plan floor held up by a system of truss's.

a truss's strength and weakness is its weight. for its weight it can handle alot of load, but also its weight means that its a rather thin structure. thin steel structures heat up rather quickly and above 500-600 degrees steels yield strength takes a real dive from what it was at normal temepratures. i work in steel, this is a known fact, its why you hot roll steel from 1000+ degree slabs...because its far easier to manipulate. however its still easily deformed (plastically) whilst its cooling and only after it drops below 400-500deg does it begin to retain its shape.

so basically once the truss' failed the floors dropped, onto the floors below, which then got overloaded and buckled and basically created a domino effect of failing floors. without the floors theres not much to hold the outside skeleton of the building to the inner core. a combo of fire weakening the steel structure and progressive loss of support meant the building could no longer hold itself up.

the "blasts" as it collapsed are almost certainly just air being forced out the easiest route as the floor above came down and compressed it. with the central core of the building housing all the emergency stair wells and lifts, i think its likely that fire was also forced down those as well as the floors came down and burst out of fire exits and out of the nearest shattered window. you know the whole high to low pressure thing

the terrorists plan will likely of been to knock the towers over, after all, something that large toppling over would of killed far more people. but the building was designed with that fact in mind, and in fact forces from wind alone were much much greater than the force of any aircraft slamming into the side. in short an aircraft was never gonna topple those things.

little tip for ya.... loose change, while it brings up some interesting points, is pretty much a steaming load.

oh yeah... im british


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By Noya on 9/13/2007 8:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
Aside from the main towers, how about WTC 7 ?

It wasn't hit by a plane, its fires were quite small...yet it collapses just like the towers?

But this is what really gets me: Why did Cheney take control ov NORAD? The first time in its 50'ish year history that a VP (not to mention President) took control of it?

Or this one: What are the odds that the US Military was doing very similar simulations that very morning? And that the Brits were also doing simulations the morning of 7/7?
The two biggest terror attacks in US and UK history and our governments were doing nearly identical simulations the very same mornings?


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By Smurfer2 on 9/13/2007 9:35:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Aside from the main towers, how about WTC 7 ?


True it wasn't hit by planes, but it was hit by debris from the falling tower. This building has two characteristics that sets it apart from other skyscrapers nearby. First, it has multiple disiel generators to keep it running in an emergancy. (NYC had it's emergancy HQ there along with other important corporations) The fire's would have inevitably caught the thousands of galleons of the fuel, 24,000 to be exact in some of the containers. They were located on the 1st through 9th floor. As you know, no one fought these fires, but it may not have collapsed except for the trusses:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a...
They were used to create a large atrium, but because they carried such a load, the failure of one, would result in a failure of the rest of those trusses. (the weight the others needed to support to keep the building from collapse was far more than they were designed for, hence they buckled and failed) I hope that clarifies and no I did not use the wikipedia article for info, used the History Channel, Editor for Popular Mechanics, and government report, located here: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendi...

@Otis: Thought I'd add this as talking to wordsworth is hopeless. The exterior of the steel skeleton was load bearing. You may have known that, but you didn't explicitly mention it.


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By rcc on 9/13/2007 12:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thought I'd add this as talking to wordsworth is hopeless.


It's Wordsworm, he knows what he is, and what his agenda is. But you are right, there really isn't any point.


By Smurfer2 on 9/13/2007 8:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's Wordsworm, he knows what he is, and what his agenda is. But you are right, there really isn't any point.


Thanks for pointing that out, I got a little sloppy.


By erikejw on 9/12/2007 3:48:20 PM , Rating: 5
MILOAB must be the most severe and effective of all bombs when it is developed.There is nothing can can trumph it. It is so nasty noone will survive.

Mother-In-Law Of All Bombs


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By C'DaleRider on 9/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By logaldinho on 9/12/2007 10:04:11 PM , Rating: 3
uhoh maybe you should write a followup story on how the grammar nazis are returning to power.


By Gul Westfale on 9/12/2007 10:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
this thing must have used up all the money in russia. they had only one and they just tested it lol.


By Locutus465 on 9/12/2007 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
You know... I was just thinking the other day how much boring life has been since the cold war ended... :P


By timmiser on 9/12/2007 7:17:48 PM , Rating: 5
FOAB is a 4 letter word.

Do we call it the F-bomb?


RE: So after MOAB and FOAB, what's next?
By marsbound2024 on 9/12/2007 11:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
This one's simple. The FUB. F*** U Bomb.


By marsbound2024 on 9/12/2007 11:05:28 PM , Rating: 4
Well darn, people beat me to it. It's what happens when you don't read all the comments. We could have the GBA Bomb for "Got Back At-ya", "God Bless America" or "George Bush Administration."


By rcc on 9/13/2007 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Just " da Bomb"


Putin just dissolved the government
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 3
Did anyone else catch that Putin just dissolved the Russian gov't??

With all the Russian media censorship and brinksmanship such as this, Russia seems to be backpedalling towards its Communist/Cold-War days.




RE: Putin just dissolved the government
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/12/2007 11:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, everyone else is noticing this as well. Notice the U.S. Govt's not so friendly stance to Russia anymore as well as missile defenses, new aircraft that are undetectable by Russian radar, etc....

Time will tell if things go full circle. Still the Russian Military is laughable at best, they couldn't go head to head with the U.S. even if they wanted to.


RE: Putin just dissolved the government
By indianpunk on 9/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Putin just dissolved the government
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/12/2007 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually you would be surprised by how little development is used here. In the case of the American MOAB it uses the same generic explosives used in every other smaller american bomb, just in a higher quantity and different state. It's still unknown what the Russian FOAB is using. By the way the American explosive substance is manufactured in Australia.


RE: Putin just dissolved the government
By hadifa on 9/12/2007 6:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually you would be surprised by how little development is used here.


And you would be surprised by how little it takes to develop couple of thousand villages in his country.


By shamgar03 on 9/12/2007 10:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't each bomb cost like hundreds of thousands of dollars though? I seem to remember reading about the smart bombs we use today and thinking we were really dropping money on Iraq...


By plowak on 9/12/2007 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Om Sahanti


By alifbaa on 9/12/2007 6:41:55 PM , Rating: 4
Before you climb the moral ladder above the rest of us, perhaps you should remember that your "poor" country is involved in its own nuclear arms race with Pakistan over a piece of land that neither country truly wants. I'm sure your government spent more than enough money on those weapons to develop your country quite nicely.

Please, don't bash the US for developing the military power that kept the Soviets from dominating India and everyone else in South Asia. Such suggestions are especially repugnant to me when your country spent the cold war coming up with reasons why defending the principles of Democracy and personal freedom were someone else's job. Before you lecture anyone else about how to help others, perhaps you should improve your own track record first.


By Ringold on 9/12/2007 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite as dramatic as it sounds.

He replaced the Prime Minister, which came as a surprise, but shouldn't be one generally speaking; I wouldn't expect a former KGB operative to deliberately lay all his cards on the table in plain daylight anyway.

Also, if you look at their economic policies and even the statements of their leaders, they're not at all returning to communism. What we've really witnessed is the KGB/FSB completely recapture the government, many of Russia's largest firms, and generally wrest control of elite Russian society. They generally recognize capitalism is the best past to growth; the hostile take-overs of sorts we've seen is crony capitalism.. but capitalism nonetheless.

This.. KGB/FSB community wants primarily to restore Russia's reputation (and if it can enrich its top ranks along the way a bit all the better). I really don't think we've got anything to fear.. and who knows, possibly much to gain.


RE: Putin just dissolved the government
By timmiser on 9/12/2007 7:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
But the Russian presidents dissolve their governments routinely. Not exactly shocking news if you keep track of their history.


By Gul Westfale on 9/12/2007 10:46:52 PM , Rating: 4
in soviet russia, parliament dissolves YOU!

sorry, couldn't resist.


By Mortal on 9/15/2007 2:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
Daisy Cutter (BLU-82)
By ChristopherO on 9/12/2007 3:15:04 PM , Rating: 3
No offence to Daily Tech on posting the story, but the original wire services (Reuters, AP, etc) seemed to buy into the Russian propaganda without paying attention to existing munitions. I would have hoped the wire-services would have consulted a weapons expert, who would have likely said, "So what? Similar weapons have existed since the Vietnam war". Nationalistic propaganda is only successful if the major press-services facilitate it.

The new Russian weapon is more closely related to the American Daisy Cutter (BLU-82) rather than the MOAB. The American weapon has slightly less explosive, but it includes an oxidizer in the blast, thus causing what would probably be a more violent reaction than the FOAB (unless they too include an oxidizing agent). The BLU-82 is pretty much lethal to any biological matter in an almost thousand-foot radius. For visual purposes, that's the weapon they dropped twice in the movie "Outbreak." The actual detonation would be similar. You aren't going to level a city with one, but you can certainly wipe small towns or villages off the map.

The MOAB really is nothing special. It's about the biggest bomb someone could deploy before getting into a "special" category of bombs. Deploying FAE's on the battlefield is an escalation. It might be fine against terrorists and their rifles, but no warring nations would cross that line, lest the other decides to raise the ante and deploy tactical nuclear devices.

More than likely, the only practical purpose for the FOAB is in similar anti-terrorist measures. However, given their increasing totalitarianism, I'm worried that they'll be overly "liberal" with how they designate a target.




RE: Daisy Cutter (BLU-82)
By maven81 on 9/12/2007 3:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. Whether similar weapons have existed before is irrelevant. Nor is the article implying that the technology is new. The point is that they tested the biggest one to date, and that seems undeniable. It doesn't even matter if it's a useful weapon or not. The big deal is that they are flexing their muscle again, and that's a new development. This is exactly the same as them exploding the most powerful nuclear bomb decades ago. Did hydrogen bombs exist before? Of course. Was it likely it would ever be used in warfare? I say very unlikely. But the political impact is undeniable, particularly for their own people.


RE: Daisy Cutter (BLU-82)
By ChristopherO on 9/12/2007 4:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
But that's just the point. In quantity of onboard explosives of the BLU-82 is around one ton lighter, however most Fuel-Air devices use natural oxygen for oxidation and don't carry an accelerant. It might be okay to say, "This is Russia's largest such weapon", but it would be inaccurate to imply it is the largest such weapon in the world.

I don't doubt that this might be a nationalistic thing for Russia, but it isn't quite fair to make it sound revolutionary. The tone of all the available articles is somewhat misleading for the public otherwise unfamiliar with competing weapons systems.

Unbiased journalism would have pointed out the daisy cutter, mentioned it uses an unorthodox method of dispersing its payload, and as such it is impossible to tell which device is actually more destructive. Comparing it to the MOAB is foolish, since that's equivalent to comparing a nuclear warhead with an FAX (we're talking totally different classes of weapons systems). The name was pure PR spin on the part of Russia.

And like I said, I don't blame Daily Tech. Reuters/AP should have vetted the story with an expert. I don't expect websites who rely on the newswires to need to do their own fact-checking.


RE: Daisy Cutter (BLU-82)
By maven81 on 9/12/2007 4:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you get this idea that the two have anything in common? According to this link
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun... it's obviously a different category of bomb. Nor does it appear to be any more powerful.


RE: Daisy Cutter (BLU-82)
By ChristopherO on 9/12/2007 6:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
The daisy cutter is also thermobaric (i.e. basically like a FAE, but with oxidizer, since you can't do an effective wide-dispersal without one).

The daisy cutter was pretty simple and unguided but worked on the same principles, but due to the slurry could have created a greater air-pressure shock-wave. The MOAB I thought was designed to work slightly-more conventionally, as it is designed to have better results against hardened targets (but is still thermobaric). Or that's my understanding at least, I could be wrong.

The problem is that we're talking about explosive pressures and bombs that work in an unconventional manner. For instance a bomb with high explosive heat might create considerably narrower destruction than one that has less explosive but creates a significant pressure shockwave (the "baric" portion). The strength of the oxidizing agent and dispersal pattern is more important if what you're trying to do is achieve over-pressure.

For instance if you want to level a training camp, dispersal is more important than penetration.

I have no idea if the new Russian weapon is intended for primarily pressure-based effects, or if the focus is hardened targets. A daisy cutter for instance would be pretty useless against a bunker, but works fine if you need to topple houses.

The Daily Tech article appears to be more precise than what's seen on the wire services, but the "my bomb is bigger than your bomb" message spewed by most wire services misses the point. The MOAB should have been a non-event, but it got coverage, and now this gets coverage. It just seems funny, since we're talking one-upmanship on relatively tiny little bombs... "Look, my Yugo is faster than yours!"

As someone else pointed out, the Tsar Bomba was an event. I'm just glad I wasn't alive back then, because crap like that would keep me awake at night.


RE: Daisy Cutter (BLU-82)
By timmiser on 9/12/2007 7:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
This debate sounds increasingly similar to an AMD vs. Intel debate on which chip is faster.


Hey, wait a minute...
By Inkjammer on 9/12/2007 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 3
But I thought Battlefield Earth was the father of all bombs? John Travolta lied to me!




RE: Hey, wait a minute...
By Misty Dingos on 9/12/2007 10:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
No you were thinking of Gigli. No that was the father of all bombs.


RE: Hey, wait a minute...
By indianpunk on 9/12/2007 11:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
maybe robert downey junior has something bigger up his sleeves
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2y2gf_iron-man-t...


RE: Hey, wait a minute...
By Misty Dingos on 9/12/2007 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know after watching the trailer I would have to say that it was better than the latest Fantastic 4 film. And Bob does have Ozzy on his side.


Huh?
By timmiser on 9/12/2007 7:30:00 PM , Rating: 4
OK, did anyone else find the term "environmentally friendly" describing a gigantic bomb as a little misleading??




RE: Huh?
By nukunukoo on 9/12/2007 7:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not unless the materials used are recyclable


RE: Huh?
By otispunkmeyer on 9/13/2007 4:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
did you not hear? this wipes out the peasant village causing you grief and as it does so fertilizes the ground so that you may farm the land.


It just gets even bigger
By nukunukoo on 9/12/2007 6:35:10 PM , Rating: 5
To make a much more explosive device in the future, they will have to overcome the physical limit of how much explosive material they can get into a single casing before the sheer internal weight make it unstable to handle. Both countries are now tying several bomb cores and dropped as a single device. While the US have already introduced the 4X MOAB, the Russians claim that their 4X FOAB is more efficient since it is a "true 4x bomb core" using individual cores as compared to the America's Dual Bomb Core where two 2X cores are tied together. In addition, the Russians claim that the 4X FOAB cores, attached via HyperGlue, is more efficient as compared to the US's FSB (Fast Stick Binding). However, in actual benchmark testing, the amount of damage done to the crash test dummies (CTDs) at ground zero, reveal very little difference in the amount of damage incurred. Of course, using CTDs are mostly synthetic benchmarks and time will reaveal which method is better under Real World Tests.




RE: It just gets even bigger
By Yawgm0th on 9/13/2007 12:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
Way, way too in-depth for a parody of the AMD vs. Intel multi-core debate.

But well-done nevertheless.


If that is the "Father Of All Bombs",
By MrPickins on 9/12/2007 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 3
What does that make the Tsar Bomba?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba




By PAPutzback on 9/13/2007 12:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
WEll nothing seeing as we are talking about non nuclear\atomic bombs in this article. But I did find the comparison to the asteroid hit interesting. Perhaps in the future when China has control of the moon they will be able to pull asteroids into a lunar orbit for use to launch at the earth.

Note the recent comparison with the asteroid impact which formed the Chicxulub Crater, an event larger than Tsar Bomba's yield by some six orders of magnitude, released an estimated 500 zettajoules (5.0×1023 joules) of energy, approximately 100 teratons of TNT, on impact.

Now that's a F*** Bomb.


4X??? cough *bull@@*#* cough
By codeThug on 9/12/2007 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
All humor aside, how are they getting this 4X improvement in explosive power here? Since this ordinance is FAE based instead of a solid explosive (i.e. RDX, C4, or Semtex), what are they adding to the mix to get these results?

Aluminum nano particles, or perhaps additional oxidizer?

It is possible to use the usual FAE mix and perhaps add particle-ized high explosive like Semtex to this?

Any High explosive experts out there?

*sheesh, I sound like a Louis L'Amour book...




no one has asked yet?
By zinfamous on 9/12/2007 6:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Does this come with Bluetooth?




RE: no one has asked yet?
By marsbound2024 on 9/12/07, Rating: 0
C n C generals: zero hour
By otispunkmeyer on 9/13/2007 3:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
MOAB was my favourite weapon ever on that game, heck it was almost as powerful as the chinese nuke!

used to love dealling that mofo out regularly on my opponents followed by some ion canon.




Anti-civilian bomb
By derdon on 9/13/2007 3:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's the purpose probably. They're not going to drop it on some military installation, it's meant to trash cities quickly and killing all the people there (note: takes up all oxygen).

And the analogy is wrong, so very wrong. Mothers and Fathers give life, these things bring only death.




By Avatar28 on 9/13/2007 5:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
The smallest nuke the US ever detonated was the Davy Crockett which mounted on a recoilless rifle. It had a yield of approximately 50 tons of TNT but had the added advantage of only weighing like 100 lbs if that and able to be fired from, say, a jeep.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki