Russia develops the 'Dad of all bombs'

[Gan]

Russia (http://get.lingospot.com/f?url=http%3A//search.breitbart.com/q%3Fs%3D%22russia%22%26sid%3Dbreitbart.com&eid=csl&tid=cdd53b7dd&site=breitbart.com)'s military has successfully tested what it describes as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb.

Channel One television said the new ordnance, nicknamed the "Dad Of All Bombs" is four times more powerful than the US "Mother Of All Bombs".

"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon (http://get.lingospot.com/f?url=http%3A//search.breitbart.com/q%3Fs%3D%22nuclear+weapon%22%26sid%3Dbreitbart.com&eid=csl&tid=e29eb711&site=breitbart.com) in its efficiency and capability," Col Gen Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's General Staff, said.

Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb does not pose an environmental threat from the release of radiation, he added.

The statement reflected the Kremlin's efforts to restore Russia's global clout and rebuild the nation's military might.

The muscle-flexing comes at a time when ties with Washington have become strained over US criticism of Russia's slips on democracy, Moscow's vociferous protests against US missile defence plans and rifts over global crises.

The US Massive Ordnance Air Blast, a large-yield satellite-guided, air delivered bomb, had been described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contained about 7 tons of high explosives (http://get.lingospot.com/f?url=http%3A//search.breitbart.com/q%3Fs%3D%22high+explosives%22%26sid%3Dbreitbart.co m&eid=csl&tid=5109563bf&site=breitbart.com) compared with more than 8 tons of explosives in the US bomb, it is four times more powerful because it uses explosives developed with the use of nanotechnology.

While the American bomb was equivalent to 11 tons of TNT (http://get.lingospot.com/f?url=http%3A//search.breitbart.com/q%3Fs%3D%22tnt%22%26sid%3Dbreitbart.com&eid=csl&tid=3e6124080&site=breitbart.com), the Russian one was equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon's blast radius is 1,000 feet, twice as big as that of the US design, the report said.

Like its US predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian "Dad Of All Bombs" is a so-called thermobaric weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shockwave created by the air burst and high temperature.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paBomb_Wed_18_Russia_bombUD&show_article=1
__________________________________________________ __

Interesting. And no nuclear fallout either.

http://www.breitbart.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/russia.jpg

[Khariz]

Awesome.

[Skeeter]

yay?

[AestheticDeath]

I want to go watch one! From two miles away or so.. Or whatever is decently safe enough.

:P

[sst]

Looks like a new arms race is going to start... I say 6 months and there will be a new moab out to beat this beast

[Khariz]

Looks like a new arms race is going to start... I say 6 months and there will be a new moab out to beat this beast

Naw, the democrats will never fund it.

:club:

Kind of kidding...like congress really knows what's going on in our weapons research facilities.

[Sean of the Thread]

Putin has his panties in a bunch lately.

[sst]

Putin has his panties in a bunch lately.

Eh when you're working on bringing a totalitarian state back into existence you gotta scare the peons.

PS he just dissolved the Russian Government "to make the upcoming elections run smoother"

PPS Why the hell did the Ex KGB head honcho get elected to lead a country?... hrmmm Oh wait we did that too with Bush Sr...

[Asha]

So is this like weapons of mass destruction lite? Something we can all happily build as many as we like of, and chuckle together about?

[Sean of the Thread]

Air blast bombs been around for a LONNNGGG time. We used to use them in Vietnam to cut LZ's out of the jungle.

Google "daisy cutter" in images if you're interested.

[Latrinsorm]

The Russian weapon's blast radius is 1,000 feet, twice as big as that of the US design, the report said.What I don't get is the guy comparing this to a nuclear bomb. Even 400 kton bombs have a blast radius of over a mile. I'm sure whoever it was dropped on wouldn't really appreciate the difference, but still.

[Stanley Burrell]

I love the "hermetically-sealed environmental friendly package" attachment :lol:

Maybe if they really wanted to add some insult to the injury, they could make the warhead shaped like a peace sign and have it play a Doppler effect version of the "Volga Boatman's Song" with a Can-Can theme on a little side speaker attached to "daddy."

[Clove]

What I don't get is the guy comparing this to a nuclear bomb. Even 400 kton bombs have a blast radius of over a mile. I'm sure whoever it was dropped on wouldn't really appreciate the difference, but still.



..."The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon (http://get.lingospot.com/f?url=http%3A//search.breitbart.com/q%3Fs%3D%22nuclear+weapon%22%26sid%3Dbreitbart.com&eid=csl&tid=e29eb711&site=breitbart.com) in its efficiency and capability," Col Gen Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's General Staff, said.

...Like its US predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian "Dad Of All Bombs" is a so-called thermobaric weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shockwave created by the air burst and high temperature....


It's compared to a nuclear bomb in its destructive efficiency and the mushroom-like cloud it produces at deployment. Destructive efficiency includes more than blast radius. FFS Read!

[Fission]

What'll be interesting to see is if the nanotech improvements are filtered down to the already existing arsenal of smaller FAE-type weaponry.

Current iterations of RPG/MAWs already hit with the force of a ~150mm artillery shell, and could likely be made even more man-portable, or more powerful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybpr3g0v7_8&NR=1

It could make the Russian TOS-1 Buratino MRLS very interesting, too.
Currently, a full salvo (30 x 220mm FAE rockets) can be delivered up to 2 miles, and provide ensured destruction within a 200m by 400m area with further collateral effects outside that zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ane4jB35Hs

[Latrinsorm]

It's compared to a nuclear bomb in its destructive efficiency and the mushroom-like cloud it produces at deployment. Destructive efficiency includes more than blast radius. FFS Read!It actually says efficiency AND capability: I'd say having 1/5th the blast radius is distinctly less capability, wouldn't you?

[Clove]

It actually says efficiency AND capability: I'd say having 1/5th the blast radius is distinctly less capability, wouldn't you?

Not really, no. When you're comparing a 400kt blast to a 44t blast. Given the ratio of your comparison (9090.91:1) I'd say the conventional bomb was keeping up nicely.

Either way the article doesn't give enough detailed analysis for anyone to say "I dunno why he'd say that". I'll assume it's because a deputy Russian chief of staff HAS access to enough detailed data to make the statement. Either that or he's just trying to be scarey.

[Fission]

There are and have been nuclear munitions with yields considerably less than 400kt, also.

For example, the W48 155mm nuclear artillery shell, fielded until 1992, had an effective yield of ~0.07 kt.

I suspect this is the sort of weaponry they're trying to compare to, rather than the larger citybuster bombs.

[Khariz]

There are and have been nuclear munitions with yields considerably less than 400kt, also.

For example, the W48 155mm nuclear artillery shell, fielded until 1992, had an effective yield of ~0.07 kt.

I suspect this is the sort of weaponry they're trying to compare to, rather than the larger citybuster bombs.

I think it's ironic that this guy's name is Fission. That rules.

[Celephais]

For example, the W48 155mm nuclear artillery shell, fielded until 1992, had an effective yield of ~0.07 kt.
You could just say 70t ... which is easier by context with the 11t american bomb and the new 44t russian bomb.

Neat info though, I was unaware of nuclear artillery...

[Gan]

What'll be interesting to see is if the nanotech improvements are filtered down to the already existing arsenal of smaller FAE-type weaponry.

Current iterations of RPG/MAWs already hit with the force of a ~150mm artillery shell, and could likely be made even more man-portable, or more powerful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybpr3g0v7_8&NR=1

It could make the Russian TOS-1 Buratino MRLS very interesting, too.
Currently, a full salvo (30 x 220mm FAE rockets) can be delivered up to 2 miles, and provide ensured destruction within a 200m by 400m area with further collateral effects outside that zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ane4jB35Hs

I'm curious how the nano technology has increased yield as well. Definately some interesting things resulting from increases in technology.

[Celephais]

Only thing I can think of is the chemical components are smaller/more thoroughly mixed, akin to how an air-fuel bomb works... Just a guess pulled out of my ass.

[Goretawn]

What'll be interesting to see is if the nanotech improvements are filtered down to the already existing arsenal of smaller FAE-type weaponry.

Current iterations of RPG/MAWs already hit with the force of a ~150mm artillery shell, and could likely be made even more man-portable, or more powerful.

I do not see them moving too fast to improve there more conventional munitions, especially their artillery pieces. With the way it looks, it is reducing the weight of current explosives by approximately 1/4th. With the average 155mm (US medium artillery) weighing an average of 98.8 lbs, I can reasonably deduce that the 152mm (Russian medium artillery) would be very close in weight. When reducing that down, trying to propel a 152mm projectile with a weight of only 25lbs would be very difficult. It would not have the the inertia to carry near as far as the current artillery. In addition, the effects of non-standard conditions (wind, rain, air temp, humidity, coriolis (sp) effect etc.) would increase reducing it's accuracy.

I would imagine it would have a similar effect on some of the smaller MRLS.

You also have to consider the current Russian economy. Would this be cost effective to revamp their entire production of conventional munitions? I don't think so, but that is only my opinion.

[Ignot]

Yeah but does Russia have an Ion Cannon like the US does?

[Gan]

I do not see them moving too fast to improve there more conventional munitions, especially their artillery pieces. With the way it looks, it is reducing the weight of current explosives by approximately 1/4th. With the average 155mm (US medium artillery) weighing an average of 98.8 lbs, I can reasonably deduce that the 152mm (Russian medium artillery) would be very close in weight. When reducing that down, trying to propel a 152mm projectile with a weight of only 25lbs would be very difficult. It would not have the the inertia to carry near as far as the current artillery. In addition, the effects of non-standard conditions (wind, rain, air temp, humidity, coriolis (sp) effect etc.) would increase reducing it's accuracy.

I would imagine it would have a similar effect on some of the smaller MRLS.

You also have to consider the current Russian economy. Would this be cost effective to revamp their entire production of conventional munitions? I don't think so, but that is only my opinion.

Also imaging how large the current stockpiles of usable Russian artilllery munitions are stockpiled. Usable in that not corroded, rusted, etc. by the elements and time.

[Latrinsorm]

It would not have the the inertia to carry near as far as the current artillery.By having 1/4th inertia, it would also go four times as fast given equal launch thingie. It would certainly be wildly inaccurate, but four times as fast! That's pretty cool.

And yes, I guess I should have assumed by "a nuclear weapon" the guy meant "a wikkle baby nucwea weapon".

[Fission]

I do not see them moving too fast to improve there more conventional munitions, especially their artillery pieces. With the way it looks, it is reducing the weight of current explosives by approximately 1/4th. With the average 155mm (US medium artillery) weighing an average of 98.8 lbs, I can reasonably deduce that the 152mm (Russian medium artillery) would be very close in weight. When reducing that down, trying to propel a 152mm projectile with a weight of only 25lbs would be very difficult. It would not have the the inertia to carry near as far as the current artillery. In addition, the effects of non-standard conditions (wind, rain, air temp, humidity, coriolis (sp) effect etc.) would increase reducing it's accuracy.

I would imagine it would have a similar effect on some of the smaller MRLS.

You also have to consider the current Russian economy. Would this be cost effective to revamp their entire production of conventional munitions? I don't think so, but that is only my opinion.

I don't imagine they'll rush out to replace existing supplies, but they've obviously had funding from somewhere to develop this new weapon.

Also, given that the Russians aren't quite as squeamish about collateral damage in warfare, thermobaric weaponry has been used fairly extensively and to good effect in a number of theatres, including Afghanistan and Chechnya. Given their willingness to use such weaponry, I could see them trying to roll the improvements down as existing stockpiles are depleted.

As a weapon system, it's fairly versatile, and can be used for minefield clearing, as well as destruction of personnel, vehicles, and structures. FAE weaponry can also be used for penetration of hazardous defenses, such as when Chechen rebels based in caves, caverns and deep trenches.

On the other hand, as said, FAE weaponry won't supplant normal artillery. There's still a place for raining down shells, though changes of different sorts are happening in that arena as well.

[senorgordoburro]

At this day in the American Military, accuracy is almost more important than the size of the explosion, because the last thing America wants is for a bomb or artillery round to hit the building next to the actual target. And when you are actually in the shit taking fire and you call for air, pilots these days will not drop there ordinance unless the target is very obviously marked, because they will be charged and have there careers ruined it that bomb doesn't hit its mark. For instance, there are now artillery rounds with GPS systems that can completely control the route of the round so that even when firing 15 degrees of course they can still hit there target, and when your shooting at a target 5 or more miles away 15 degrees is a huge difference. Also the trajectory is a vital point to discuss. Naval gunfire is not that effective on the battlefield of today because it is technically a flat trajectory weapon and because of that they can miss by over a mile. With Americas ability to shoot Tomahawk Cruise Missles or drop bombs that are accurate enough to go through a specific window of a building or down a ventilation shaft of a bunker is where you make your money. And regardless to all that, Russia's military is in such poor shape now that there ability to effectively use this new bomb is not very good.