Jump to content

They just dropped a M.O.A.B.

Matuchkin

By Matuchkin
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Just Jim

Just Jim

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm blown away (no bad pun intended) that it's so big they have to literally use a parachute to drag it out of the back end of a huge cargo plane! That is such a Kerbal thing to do!!! :cool:

Edited by Just Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

CNN got the news first: the largest non-nuclear bomb has been dropped yesterday in Afghanistan.

It is the largest US non-nuclear bomb. US forces are reported to have something bigger that is unused as of yet and Russians apparently also have something beefier than both of those. Although I do not understand what the fuss is about. It seems a rather pubescent show of force, rather than a relevant deployment of a new strategy or technology. It is just a bomb, but big.

6 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I've heard that it was mainly for the pressure wave.

Is that not the point of pretty much any explosive?

5 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

I'm blown away (no bad pun intended) that it's so big they have to literally use a parachute to drag it out of the back end of a huge cargo plane! That is such a Kerbal thing to do!!! :cool:

That is a fairly common way to drop cargo. The thing is so cumbersome it does not fit bombers, so it needs to be dropped by a big, slow and vulnerable cargo plane. Instead of delivering MREs, they just deliver a thunder sausage.

Edited by Camacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceception

Spaceception

Posted
Posted

Erm, not trying to be political, but what if that bomb killed innocent people? It wasn't a test, and I get that it did kill some of its targets, but still, a mile wide blast radius? What if a innocent family was caught in that blast radius?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Is that not the point of pretty much any explosive?

Not necessarily. Some like the MOAB focus on air blast. Some focus more on shrapnel. Some are incendiaries. Some, such as the USA's Massive Ordnance Penetrator which is heavier overall than the MOAB but has less explosive, are designed to penetrate hardened targets.

I'm a bit surprised a MOAB and not an MOP was used against a cave complex. Though the thinking may have been that the MOP isn't enough to penetrate deep into rock, whereas the MOAB's blast will go into the caves through their openings.

EDIT PS: I think the MOP is probably the heaviest overall bomb in use by the USA now. The T-12 Cloudmaker developed just after WW2 was even bigger, and might also have had more boom than the MOAB but I've not found any detailed specs.

Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted
Just now, Spaceception said:

Erm, not trying to be political, but what if that bomb killed innocent people? It wasn't a test, and I get that it did kill some of its targets, but still, a mile wide blast radius? What if a innocent family was caught in that blast radius?

Not to burst that bubble, but family homes, wedding parties and other non-hostile gatherings are attacked every day by drones, with many innocent victims as a result. That death toll is much higher than this thing could ever have achieved on its own. In those cases it is generally claimed that all or some were combatants.

Besides, a blast radius of a mile does not mean everything is killed within that.

2 minutes ago, cantab said:

Not necessarily. Some like the MOAB focus on air blast. Some focus more on shrapnel. Some are incendiaries.

Fair enough, although the blast wave is the mechanism through which all of those operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Is that not the point of pretty much any explosive?

I'm referring to the pressure shock within the compound bombed, which caused more damage than the actual explosion. At least from what I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WinkAllKerb''

WinkAllKerb''

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Erm, not trying to be political, but what if that bomb killed innocent people? It wasn't a test, and I get that it did kill some of its targets, but still, a mile wide blast radius? What if a innocent family was caught in that blast radius?

if it killed innoncent people, it killed tons of accarii, plant ... tree as well ... 'sigh'

if biped could stop start thinking only about themsleves when they drop bomb that could be great ....

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gargamel

Gargamel

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Camacha said:

Not to burst that bubble, but family homes, wedding parties and other non-hostile gatherings are attacked every day by drones, with many innocent victims as a result. That death toll is much higher than this thing could ever have achieved on its own. In those cases it is generally claimed that all or some were combatants.

 

 

From what I can tell from reports I have read, and the video of the explosion itself, the target was a hillside in a very remote valley.  No collateral targets were present, hence why the local command decided to use the MOAB. 

Quote

Besides, a blast radius of a mile does not mean everything is killed within that.

In this case, the mile blast radius is indicated to have a >50% kill expectancy at that range.  I read that on some DARPA page years ago when they came out with the MOAB, so don't ask me for the source, as I don't have the link anymore, but feel free to refute if you feel necessary.   

Quote

Fair enough, although the blast wave is the mechanism through which all of those operate.

Not true.  Not all explosives use pure blast wave as their destructive mechanism.   A Hand grenade has a very small blast radius where the pressure wave will kill, but yet the shrapnel will still be lethal at a range many times larger than the blast wave will be.  

A Rocket propelled grenade is another explosive that does not rely on explosive force to kill.  When striking it's target, an RPG fires off a shape charge that bores a hole into the target, and injects a cone of molten copper.  This copper spalling is what is lethal, in addition to what expansive gases enter the target.   This is why a chain link fence offset about a meter from a target's side is the best protection against a RPG.  The RPG will hit the fence, and most likely not be triggered as it tries to push through the links, and fall to the ground.  If it does go off, the separation from the intended target will force the shape charge to become ineffective, as there is no material that it is in contact with.  You'll end up with a target with a big scorch mark, but no hole. 

An incendiary bomb use very small amounts of explosive pressure to spread flammable materials over large areas.  While a WP or Napalm bomb might be lethal if you are standing very close to it, the intense fire it creates will kill you at a much greater range. 

In the case of the MOAB and other Air fuel Bombs, the initial explosion is designed to spread a highly explosive material over some area, and when it has reached the correct Air/Fuel mix (I believe this is done by trial and error at design time, I don't believe there's a sensor on the bomb), that material ignites.  This secondary explosion is what causes the shock wave that is destructive.  A regular bomb in this case would not have the tunnel penetration that a FAB would.  If you had a FAB the same size as a conventional bomb, the FAB would not put as big a hole in the ground, but would be lethal out to a farther distance.   This is why The MOAB was used, it would penetrate the tunnels farther, causing traumatic and lethal pressure injuries (as opposed to explosive injuries)  to anything inside. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarkOwl57

DarkOwl57

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I'm blown away (no bad pun intended) that it's so big they have to literally use a parachute to drag it out of the back end of a huge cargo plane! That is such a Kerbal thing to do!!! :cool:

*Installs MOAB mod* Hello Air Force? Could you please tell me where you put the parachutes on the MOA- hello? Whelp I'm on an FBI watchlist now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green Baron

Green Baron

Posted
Posted (edited)

If any of the relatives of the killed still was in doubt about the actions of the now killed, now he is not any more. This is a recipe for new terrorists. Also what next ? There will be an answer sooner or later, and then, must the next demonstration be even bigger ? How many are killed then ? Demonstrations of power usually end in disaster, one does not have to be a humanist to realise that.

Oh, and happy easter everyone !

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LordFerret

LordFerret

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DarkOwl57 said:

*Installs MOAB mod* Hello Air Force? Could you please tell me where you put the parachutes on the MOA- hello? Whelp I'm on an FBI watchlist now!

The cargo is placed upon a rolling pallet, and the chutes are attached to the pallet. There are plenty of video examples on YouTube to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

I'm referring to the pressure shock within the compound bombed, which caused more damage than the actual explosion. At least from what I've heard.

I think that must have been the blast wave itself. If it can go a mile in clear air and still be damaging, it can go a mile into a cave system and still be damaging.

When a wave hits a change in material, some of it is reflected. Big changes, like a blast wave going from air to ground, mean *most* of it is reflected. So I believe that the blast from a MOAB would not be very good at going from the air, into the ground, and then into the tunnels again, although it's possible sheer brute force enabled it to cause damage that way anyway. More likely I think is as I mentioned, the blast went through the air and into the tunnels through their entrances.

2 hours ago, gargamel said:

In the case of the MOAB and other Air fuel Bombs

The MOAB isn't a fuel-air bomb. It has been described as a thermobaric weapon, but I'm not sure that's right. The filling is about 75% conventional explosive, 20% aluminium powder, and 5% stabilisers. The mixture is called H6 and is also used for underwater explosives, which makes me suspect the aluminium doesn't react merely with excess oxygen produced by the explosives and not with surrounding air. It does have the effect of lengthening the duration of the blast wave, like a fuel-air bomb causes.

28 minutes ago, TheKosanianMethod said:

Tangentially related show of force.

Indeed. The Pentagon pretty much outright stated the MOAB is meant to have a psychological effect. Remember the 'shock and awe' concept when the USA begun its war against Iraq.

On a lighter note, I didn't notice this before, but the MOAB has ...

800px-MOABAFAM.JPG

grid fins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gargamel

Gargamel

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, cantab said:

I think that must have been the blast wave itself. If it can go a mile in clear air and still be damaging, it can go a mile into a cave system and still be damaging.

When a wave hits a change in material, some of it is reflected. Big changes, like a blast wave going from air to ground, mean *most* of it is reflected. So I believe that the blast from a MOAB would not be very good at going from the air, into the ground, and then into the tunnels again, although it's possible sheer brute force enabled it to cause damage that way anyway. More likely I think is as I mentioned, the blast went through the air and into the tunnels through their entrances.

The MOAB isn't a fuel-air bomb. It has been described as a thermobaric weapon, but I'm not sure that's right. The filling is about 75% conventional explosive, 20% aluminium powder, and 5% stabilisers. The mixture is called H6 and is also used for underwater explosives, which makes me suspect the aluminium doesn't react merely with excess oxygen produced by the explosives and not with surrounding air. It does have the effect of lengthening the duration of the blast wave, like a fuel-air bomb causes.

I

It itself isn't a fuel air bomb, you are correct, but the basic concept is very similar.   But if you look at the name of the type, thermobaric, the baric part is the clue that it is a pressure wave based system, which falls closer to a FAB than anything else.   I have seen it referred to as such elsewhere, so you are correct I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...