And the new Cold War continues to head in the wrong direction.

Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Russia builds 'most powerful bomb'

* Story Highlights
* Russia claims it has the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb
* It is said to be more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs"
* Russia says it is similar to a nuclear bomb without harming the environment
* Next Article in World »

* Read
* VIDEO

Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Back in 2003, the U.S. proudly trotted out the so-called "mother of all bombs," a device described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

Now, Russia claims it has built the "dad of all bombs."

Russian state television says the military has successfully tested what it describes as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb.

The military claims the bomb is comparable to a nuclear weapon in efficiency and capability, but unlike a nuclear weapon, it doesn't hurt the environment.
advertisement

The Channel One television report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.

With extra oil revenues, the Kremlin has been taking steps to rebuild its global clout and its military.




with all attention on Iraq and the middle East, we have been letting China and Venezuela gain much greater political influence around the world and Russia's continual military buildup, bullying tactics with other countries and suppression of democracy in it's own country. It doesn't help that Mr. KGB is running the country either.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']

with all attention on Iraq and the middle East, we have been letting China and Venezuela gain much greater political influence around the world and Russia's continual military buildup, bullying tactics with other countries and suppression of democracy in it's own country. It doesn't help that Mr. KGB is running the country either.[/QUOTE]

if by attention you mean military attention, because there has been plenty of talk regarding china, russia, venezuela and north korea. not to mention china and russia are very much involved with iran.

really, i think its better to hear that they are developing non-nuclear weapons as opposed to developing them. besides its not nearly as disturbing as putin dissolving the government today and getting ready to set up a puppet government...

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin dissolved Russia's government Wednesday in a major political shakeup ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections, the Kremlin said.
Click to expand...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070912/D8RJUT003.html
 
I'd love to suggest that Putin find better ways to spend Russia's money considering their infrastructure, economic inefficiencies, and education levels, but I'd be doing so in a glass house.

Life's a bummer sometimes.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']

The military claims the bomb is comparable to a nuclear weapon in efficiency and capability, but unlike a nuclear weapon, it doesn't hurt the environment.


[/QUOTE]

LOL, what the hell? That should make it okay then.
 
The Russians also already have the largest nuke to date, the Tsar Bomba. Fifty megatons of searing explosive goodness.

 
What is the significance of anything less than a nuclear bomb. Mutuallly Assured Destruction already worked its magic in the cold war. New developments of bombing capability inside of a country that already has nuclear capability doesnt really seem to change the political landscape all that much. At least not nearly as much as a country that doesnt have nuke capability getting it.
 
Well, if we rape someone with non nuclear weapons, we can start rebuilding their country instantly instead of decades later.

[quote name='pittpizza']What is the significance of anything less than a nuclear bomb. Mutuallly Assured Destruction already worked its magic in the cold war. New developments of bombing capability inside of a country that already has nuclear capability doesnt really seem to change the political landscape all that much. At least not nearly as much as a country that doesnt have nuke capability getting it.[/quote]
 
Doesn't having a standard bomb as powerful as a nuke render nuclear treaties effectively useless? I mean, what's the point of banning nukes specifically when they've just become another flavor in the mass destruction ice cream parlor?
 
[quote name='CrimGhost']They better nuke those whales...bastards killed my friend.[/quote]
mobydick-poster.jpg
 
[quote name='looploop']Doesn't having a standard bomb as powerful as a nuke render nuclear treaties effectively useless? I mean, what's the point of banning nukes specifically when they've just become another flavor in the mass destruction ice cream parlor?[/quote]

Highly explosive bomb =/= destructive capability of a nuke. While a normal HE weapon just produces combustion via electrically igniting the explosive on a relatively macroscopic level, nukes involve destruction of elements- it's a much more destructive and molecularly impressive operation. Also nukes have a couple of other factors working for them- You mention a JDAM bomb and not many people will know what you're talking about, but when you mention nuclear arsenals, just about everyone can tell you what they are. For that reason, they sort of have a scare factor. Say you've got an upstart colony over in the west wanting independence, and you've got a conventional HE bomb, and a nuke of equal destructive capability (lets say the eleven ton yield of today's MOAB (which would mean your nuke is fucking piddlin', but for the sake of the argument bear with me). Which would scare those upstarts more, threatning with a bombing campaign... or a NUKE?

The point is, nukes have a scary nature, and threat of their force isn't lightly taken.

Secondly, and more obviously, nuclear weapons have the issue of fallout and contamination of radioactive material, versus just the concussive and heat-based shockwave of conventional explosive muntions.

tldr; nukes are scarier and do more damage. Nukes are in a destructive class of their own, and it's difficult to make a conventional bomb with the yield of a high-yield nuke. The MOAB (mother of all bombs) has an explosive yield of eleven tonnes, the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagazaki was fifty kilotonnes. You do the math. ;) Nuke treaties I would expect are created to cover extremely high yield weapons (over 50 tonnes?), not just normal high-explosives and the threat of nuclear contamination.
 
Thanks for the detailed answer, but it didn't really hit what I was trying to get at. What I wanted to say was that we need treaties on these sorts of devastating non-nuclear armaments as well.
Clearly they're not on the same scale as nukes yet in either power or psychological effect, but weapons with 1/5+ the power of Little Boy aren't something the world should let be produced unregulated.
 
Russia can do whatever the heck it wants, it's a sovereign nation. As long as you don't fly any passenger planes into our skyscrapers, it's cool.
 
I can't help but wonder if this isn't a move to shore up their weapon sales as well.. something along the lines of "see, we're still producing bleeding edge weaponry", if you get my meaning.

Not that they're trying to sell this bomb (I don't know) but they certainly selling other weapons.
 
[quote name='looploop']Thanks for the detailed answer, but it didn't really hit what I was trying to get at. What I wanted to say was that we need treaties on these sorts of devastating non-nuclear armaments as well.
Clearly they're not on the same scale as nukes yet in either power or psychological effect, but weapons with 1/5+ the power of Little Boy aren't something the world should let be produced unregulated.[/quote]
I tend to ramble, sorry about that. It's sort of up to personal preference whether or not they should be regulated (I figure they should) but it'll take a while before they are, I think, unless there's large-scale demonstrations of their destructive yield. Until then militaries would likely make the excuse that they're the same catagory as MOAB/FOABs and that conventional weaponry ought to remain as regulated (or unregulated) as it currently is. It'll take an entire city destroyed before there's a huge outcry on the power of these bombs, I expect. In either case, I'm scared for Chechnya that Russia has this FOAB explosive, considering how they've just completely razed cities like Grozny in the past without a regard for civilian lives. Who the fuck knows what they'd do with a high-yield bomb. :shock:
 
[quote name='speedracer']I can't help but wonder if this isn't a move to shore up their weapon sales as well.. something along the lines of "see, we're still producing bleeding edge weaponry", if you get my meaning.

Not that they're trying to sell this bomb (I don't know) but they certainly selling other weapons.[/QUOTE]


i am sure part of it is prob in response to our missile defense program
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i am sure part of it is prob in response to our missile defense program[/quote]

Not uh.
 
Does it matter? Both the USA and the USSR... I mean Russia have over 20,000 nukes each pointing at each other, what is one non nuke bomb really gonig to make a difference? If we are at war we will want to blow the hell out of Russia and make it so no one can live there.

One more bomb in a massive pile won't make a difference.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Does it matter? Both the USA and the USSR... I mean Russia have over 20,000 nukes each pointing at each other, what is one non nuke bomb really gonig to make a difference? If we are at war we will want to blow the hell out of Russia and make it so no one can live there.

One more bomb in a massive pile won't make a difference.[/quote]

I don't think you realise the impact of one nuke. Even small-scale tactical nukes are incredibly destructive. Every single nuke should be accounted for, that kind of firepower isn't something you just parade about.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Does it matter? Both the USA and the USSR... I mean Russia have over 20,000 nukes each pointing at each other, what is one non nuke bomb really gonig to make a difference? If we are at war we will want to blow the hell out of Russia and make it so no one can live there.

One more bomb in a massive pile won't make a difference.[/quote]

It does, if you can convert your whole stockpile of nukes into vacuum bombs, it'll make it easier to move in on russia since there won't be any nuclear fallout. I surmise the thinking would be the same for the russians who wish to take over the US.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']It does, if you can convert your whole stockpile of nukes into vacuum bombs, it'll make it easier to move in on russia since there won't be any nuclear fallout. I surmise the thinking would be the same for the russians who wish to take over the US.[/quote]

Issue with Fuel-Air Burst munitions is the lack of penitration. It's Russia- they've undoubtably got an incredible network of underground bunkers left over from the Cold War. ;)
 
[quote name='Hex']Issue with Fuel-Air Burst munitions is the lack of penitration. It's Russia- they've undoubtably got an incredible network of underground bunkers left over from the Cold War. ;)[/quote]

Would it really be that difficult to combine a vacuum bomb w/ a bunker buster? They've got nuclear versions so I would think it's not that technically difficult to do the same.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Would it really be that difficult to combine a vacuum bomb w/ a bunker buster? They've got nuclear versions so I would think it's not that technically difficult to do the same.[/quote]
Yes. Fuel-air munitions are weapons that release a cloud of explosive vapur above the ground, which then ignites and produces a vacuum effect, followed by a concussive explosion. A bunker buster needs to penitrate, so I'm not exactly sure how that would work. It's possible, though, that you could create a munition where a high-yield penitrator is held inside the fuel-air bomb. When the vapour munition is released and detonated, you could possibly use that or an auxillary force inside the munition itself (like a cannon effect within the bomb) to propel the penitrator into the ground. It'd be sort of like a sabot. :) But it's entirely theoretical and very unlikely, because penitrative munitions need quite a bit of force to propel them, and I'm not convinced you could get a cannon effect out of a vapour bomb. Neuton's law and all that. Plus, the two weapons are deployed with a different method of delivery, I expect, so it'd be rather counterproductive to encase both munitions in one package.

As far as I know, you've sort of got it one way or the other. The munitions are designed so differently anyway it's sort of a bad idea to combine them into one package. You mentioned nuclear bunker-busters- the issue is that fuel-air munitions need both fuel and air to detonate, and that involves releasing the vapour munition in a fairly large cloud. Thus, they cannot be detonated underground. Nuclear munitions are self contained, so they can penitrate the good ol' terra firma before detonating.

That's my understanding, at least. If we waged a war with Russia, I think penitrative weapons, both nuclear and conventional, would play a large part of destroying their underground infrastructure left over from when Mother Rhoosha was a superpower, with auxillary fuel-air munitions deployed to attack their above ground forces. I think they'd take advantage of those underground structures, since they were designed to withstand largescale American attack back in the day.

Here's an animation of a fuel-air explosive so you can get an idea.

 
[quote name='Hex']Yes. Fuel-air munitions are weapons that release a cloud of explosive vapur above the ground, which then ignites and produces a vacuum effect, followed by a concussive explosion. A bunker buster needs to penitrate, so I'm not exactly sure how that would work. It's possible, though, that you could create a munition where a high-yield penitrator is held inside the fuel-air bomb. When the vapour munition is released and detonated, you could possibly use that or an auxillary force inside the munition itself (like a cannon effect within the bomb) to propel the penitrator into the ground. It'd be sort of like a sabot. :) But it's entirely theoretical and very unlikely, because penitrative munitions need quite a bit of force to propel them, and I'm not convinced you could get a cannon effect out of a vapour bomb. Neuton's law and all that. Plus, the two weapons are deployed with a different method of delivery, I expect, so it'd be rather counterproductive to encase both munitions in one package.

As far as I know, you've sort of got it one way or the other. The munitions are designed so differently anyway it's sort of a bad idea to combine them into one package. You mentioned nuclear bunker-busters- the issue is that fuel-air munitions need both fuel and air to detonate, and that involves releasing the vapour munition in a fairly large cloud. Thus, they cannot be detonated underground. Nuclear munitions are self contained, so they can penitrate the good ol' terra firma before detonating.[/quote]

Ok, I understand the basic gist of it but since these bunkers are to contain people and thus 'air', it wouldn't be out of the question for the bomb, once penetrating the bunker, to ignite the air (presuming the bomb payload contains the fuel part of the equation) and get the same explosive force, would it? I mean, it's not like it's penetrating a completely solid ground.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Ok, I understand the basic gist of it but since these bunkers are to contain people and thus 'air', it wouldn't be out of the question for the bomb, once penetrating the bunker, to ignite the air (presuming the bomb payload contains the fuel part of the equation) and get the same explosive force, would it? I mean, it's not like it's penetrating a completely solid ground.[/QUOTE]I think the issue is with the amount of room the vapor will have to spread out before detonation. Underground or in a tunnel/room in a bunker, it won't be able to spread out and cause much damage.
It may take out a room or two and maybe collapse some nearby, but I don't think it would be able to pack the same punch as a bunker buster.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Ok, I understand the basic gist of it but since these bunkers are to contain people and thus 'air', it wouldn't be out of the question for the bomb, once penetrating the bunker, to ignite the air (presuming the bomb payload contains the fuel part of the equation) and get the same explosive force, would it? I mean, it's not like it's penetrating a completely solid ground.[/quote]
There's a couple of things...

First, I think it needs a good deal of air and open space to effectively disperse the fuel mixture before it can be detonated. I can only speculate what the CCCP's old underground bunkers are like, but I think they'd be quite far underground, and mostly tunnels that aren't much larger than a hallway. They might have some larger underground hangars or auditorium sized rooms that *might* prove effective, but then your problem becomes how to detonate the munition at the right time. You've got to detonate a FAE above ground to achieve the desired effect, so it would have to be precisely detonated a few meters above the floor of the facility... but that's a big engineering feat you'd have to overcome.

Secondly, the construction of both wepons is quite different- I'm not sure you'd be able to design something that has the rugged strength of a penitration wepon plus the added payload of a more complex FAE.

I know what you're getting at, and it would be an interesting idea- the sheer destructive blast that would result from detonating a FAE in an underground complex would be enourmous. Their air is circulated, so I think you'd be dealing with an atmosphere that's pressurised, so when you detonate something, it'd be more effective than just outside. But in the end I think the best answer for attacks on subterranian targets is best suited for a plain munition. It's just too many logistics problems to combine the two.
 
[quote name='Hex']There's a couple of things...

First, I think it needs a good deal of air and open space to effectively disperse the fuel mixture before it can be detonated. I can only speculate what the CCCP's old underground bunkers are like, but I think they'd be quite far underground, and mostly tunnels that aren't much larger than a hallway. They might have some larger underground hangars or auditorium sized rooms that *might* prove effective, but then your problem becomes how to detonate the munition at the right time. You've got to detonate a FAE above ground to achieve the desired effect, so it would have to be precisely detonated a few meters above the floor of the facility... but that's a big engineering feat you'd have to overcome.

Secondly, the construction of both wepons is quite different- I'm not sure you'd be able to design something that has the rugged strength of a penitration wepon plus the added payload of a more complex FAE.

I know what you're getting at, and it would be an interesting idea- the sheer destructive blast that would result from detonating a FAE in an underground complex would be enourmous. Their air is circulated, so I think you'd be dealing with an atmosphere that's pressurised, so when you detonate something, it'd be more effective than just outside. But in the end I think the best answer for attacks on subterranian targets is best suited for a plain munition. It's just too many logistics problems to combine the two.[/quote]

Well, I'm not a mechanical engineer but I would think that the 'cannon' you talked about previously would work if you think of it conceptually like a syringe. It'd be almost like a 2-stage rocket, the outer shell would crack the hardened surface and bunker and then followed by a 2nd inner rocket which would penetrate even deeper until it hit it a substantial air pocket and then release the payload. Also, would it really be a big engineering feat for a precision detonation mere meters above the bunker? I mean we've got cameras on missiles now not to mention guidance systems, gps, etc. Plus with UAVs I would imagine precision isn't that big an issue as it was before.

[quote name='Liquid 2']I think the issue is with the amount of room the vapor will have to spread out before detonation. Underground or in a tunnel/room in a bunker, it won't be able to spread out and cause much damage.
It may take out a room or two and maybe collapse some nearby, but I don't think it would be able to pack the same punch as a bunker buster.[/quote]

Well, I was think more along the lines of what Hex talks about above in bold. If these vacuum bombs did have the explosive force of a nuclear bomb, wouldn't that kinetic shock be more devastating to an enclosed environment than an open air one? And you wouldn't need the blast radius of a vacuum bomb detonated above ground anyway, right? These bunkers, while extensive, would still probably within range of the blast radius (though reduced). At least that's what my armchair nuclear engineering tells me. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top