# Grand Slam v MOAB....



## Lucky13 (Apr 14, 2017)

Just curious!


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2017)

I was thinking the same, having seen the News.
The 'earthquake' effect of the WW2 'Grand Slam' would _seem_ to be suited to the task that MOAB has just been used for, rather than 'air burst'. Marry this effect ot the precision of MOAB, and there's be one ******* big hole in the target area !


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 14, 2017)

True....
Wasn't the Grand Slam, also known as or called an earthquake bomb or something similar?


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2017)

Yep.
The plan was that it would go 'supersonic' on the way down, penetrate the earth, and cause a mini earthquake, thereby 'toppling' the target, in the case of the Bielefeld viaduct for example, or by causing massive shock-wave / subsidence damage.


----------



## stona (Apr 14, 2017)

How precise is a weapon 'booted out the back door' of a C-130?

This looks like a case of 'we've got it so we'll use it' and I very much doubt that it has been as effective as the USAAF publicity machine would have us believe.

I agree that if those in charge of targeting actually know which caves they want to hit, then a grand slam type of bomb would be the best means of destroying them. The MOAB seems intended to target the occupants of the complex, but will do nothing to prevent the survivors or others returning, unless the USAAF intends to continue dropping ordnance costing hundreds of millions of dollars on a few hundred guerillas on regular and ongoing basis. It's done something similar before.
The MOAB is more like a giant 'cookie', blasting an area somewhat like a massive anti-personnel device and not something I associate with precision.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2017)

That's more or less my thinking - the 'AB' in MOAB being "air burst", although according to the BBC News reports, it's apparently GPS guided.
When I saw it dropping out of the rear end of a Herc, I immediately thought of the Argentinians rolling 'iron' bombs out of the back of one of their Hercs !


----------



## Capt. Vick (Apr 14, 2017)

I would imagine it has some kind of guidance as it has two short wings and 4 "vanes" off the rear.


----------



## T Bolt (Apr 14, 2017)

The Grand Slam and the MOAB are basically the same size, 22,000 lbs vs 21,000 lbs. The tail fins of the MOAB deploy after it is slid out the back of the C-130 and is guided to the target by them, so even though the MOAB is not the largest conventional bomb ever dropped, it is the largest smart bomb ever dropped.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 14, 2017)

I dont know if I believe what is said about this, if you destroy a cave system how come you can declare how many were in it two days later?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 14, 2017)

There's also a lot of confusion about the weight of the bomb and its filling. Americans generally use the short ton (2,000lbs) whereas the British used, and still use, the long ton (2,240lbs). Then there is the metric ton (1,000kg/2,205lbs).

The filling of the MOAB is 18,700lbs (9.35 US tons) of H6 as far as I can find out. The power of the explosion is often being reported as a TNT equivalence of 11 tons, but that is not the weight of explosives as some reports are saying..

All very confusing.

Doesn't the USAF have an even heavier version of the grand slam in the 30,000lb GBU-57 A/B MOP ?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Apr 14, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I dont know if I believe what is said about this, if you destroy a cave system how come you can declare how many were in it two days later?



Because the USAF has a better PR department then United Airlines 

'Re-accomodate' ffs.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 14, 2017)

stona said:


> The filling of the MOAB is 18,700lbs (9.35 US tons) of H6 as far as I can find out. The power of the explosion is often being reported as a TNT equivalence of 11 tons, but that is not the weight of explosives as some reports are saying..
> 
> All very confusing.


If that is the case it is more confusing, the Grand slam used torpex which was 50% more powerful than TNT the Grand Slam said to have 6.5 tons in TNT equivalence.
Grand Slam (bomb) - Wikipedia


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2017)

I'm still slightly puzzled - if this is an 'air burst' weapon, similar, in principle at least, to the WW2 'cookie' or 'blockbuster', why use it to try to knock out underground positions ?
OK, there'd be some damage, but the whole idea of an air-burst weapon is to have maximum blast and shock-wave effect _above_ ground, for example, to flatten structures and / or eliminate surface forces and equipment.
Of course, it may have been fused to detonate after entering the surface.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 14, 2017)

Supposedly the Russians have a FOAB that's twice as powerful.

I keep reading in the news that this was the first time the MOAB had been used in combat, but I'm pretty sure it was used in Afghanistan before.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 14, 2017)

stona said:


> Because the USAF has a better PR department then United Airlines


Not hard these days. Still seems just a little excessive...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2017)

Airframes said:


> I'm still slightly puzzled - if this is an 'air burst' weapon, similar, in principle at least, to the WW2 'cookie' or 'blockbuster', why use it to try to knock out underground positions ?
> OK, there'd be some damage, but the whole idea of an air-burst weapon is to have maximum blast and shock-wave effect _above_ ground, for example, to flatten structures and / or eliminate surface forces and equipment.
> Of course, it may have been fused to detonate after entering the surface.



Because our orange friend wanted to play with his new toy...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 14, 2017)

pbehn said:


> If that is the case it is more confusing, the Grand slam used torpex which was 50% more powerful than TNT the Grand Slam said to have 6.5 tons in TNT equivalence.
> Grand Slam (bomb) - Wikipedia



The Grand Slam contained 9,135lbs of Torpex, 4.57 short tons. The TNT equivalent of 6.5 tons is about correct if short tons were used, and they often were in this context at the time. The figure would be just over 6 tons if long tons were used (unlikely).

The body and fins of a Grand Slam weighed almost 13,000lbs. the case was 7.75 inches thick near the nose and still 1.75 inches thick at the tail. This was to enable penetration, without the bomb breaking up. Grand Slam and Tall Boy could penetrate at least 10 feet of reinforced concrete and on occasion ruptured the 23 feet of concrete used in some U-boat pens by inducing a shock wave in the structure.
The body and fins of a MOAB weigh only about 3,000lbs.

Cheers

Steve

Edit: I've just read the wiki article on the Grand Slam. The drop on 13th March 1945 at the Ashley Walk range was the first drop of a LIVE bomb. The first drop of an inert bomb was in the previous November.
The Ashley Walk bomb, dropped from 16,000ft, produced a crater 124 ft in diametre and 30' deep and was deemed a success by all concerned. The very next day Squadron Leader Calder of No. 617 Squadron would drop one in anger, also from 16,000ft, on the Bielefeld viaducts.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 14, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Because our orange friend wanted to play with his new toy...


I have the same concern with the UKs two carriers, very quickly some situation will arise where they simply have to be used.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I have the same concern with the UKs two carriers, very quickly some situation will arise where they simply have to be used.


If we can afford the aircraft, find enought sailors to crew the carriers, find a couple of ships to act as an escort and hope nothing else happens in the world as that would probably take the entire RN to deploy them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Apr 14, 2017)

Supposedly Le Grand Orange did not order this, local commander did..


----------



## mikewint (Apr 14, 2017)

The US MOAB was developed for use in Iraq but was never used there as the massive numbers of Iraq troops/tanks never developed and the bombs effect was too wide spread to use on confined targets, i.e., civilian causalities
The MOAB uses 9.3 tons of TRITONAL a mixture of 80% TNT and 20% Aluminium powder. The Al has the effect of increasing both the heat and time of the blast. Thus Tritonal is 18% more powerful than TNT alone yielding the TNT equivalent of 11 tons. The MOAB is not a ground penetrator but an air blast weapon. The air blast has two basic effects. First it produces a massive supersonic shock wave and the extended time air blast sucks all oxygen from the area. The effect covers a radius of 150m ( 492 ft). The ground effect is similiar to the BLU-82 Daisy Cutters used in Vietnam
The Russians claim that their FOAB bomb at 7.1 tonnes (7.8 US tons) is a thermobaric weapon using a new type of high explosive plus Aluminium powder and Ethylene oxide. At 7.1 tonnes (7.8 US tons) of explosive it produces a blast equivalent to 44 tons of TNT with a blast radius of 300m (984ft). Russian films of their FOAB test are highly suspect. They never show the bomb and aircraft together and the blast appears to be a standard fuel-air explosion. Conventional explosives are a mix of fuel and oxidizer. The fuel-air bomb is all fuel and uses oxygen from the atmosphere
The British Grand Slam was a penetrator weapon designed to penetrate concrete bunkers before exploding. They could penetrate as deep as 40m (131ft) into the earth. The Grand Slam was filled with 4.144 tonnes (4.57 US tons) of TORPEX TORpedo EXplosive 42% RDX, 40% TNT, 20% Aluminium powder. Due to its penetration it produces a camouflet (cavern) which then serves to undermine existing structures by removing their supporting foundations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stan reid (Apr 14, 2017)

The U.S. tested the T-12 Cloudmaker bomb in the late 1940s that came in at about 44,000 pounds.


----------



## stona (Apr 15, 2017)

It's probably worth mentioning that the Grand Slam was use in very small numbers, just 41 were dropped during the war, compared to 854 Tallboys. 
They were perhaps most effective against viaducts and bridges, previously almost immune to attack, seven of which were destroyed in a ten day period in March 1945 by a combination of 18 Grand Slams and 78 Tallboys.

As an odd fact for a WW2 quiz, the Grand Slam (later Bomb, HE, Aircraft, MC, 22,000lb which doesn't have quite the same ring to it) was not *officially* approved for RAF use until April 1945.

The Germans described these bombs as 'Panzerbombe SAP', the Tallboy being 'Panzerbombe SAP 5400Kg'

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2017)

stona said:


> The Germans described these bombs as 'Panzerbombe SAP', the Tallboy being 'Panzerbombe SAP 5400Kg'
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Any idea what SAP means?


----------



## stona (Apr 15, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Any idea what SAP means?



Semi Armour Piercing, which would appear to be English, but I have a diagram, made by the Germans in July 1944, of a Tallboy and the title is, exactly as written
*Brit. Panzerbombe SAP 12000 LB 5400 Kg*
Bold original*.*
The diagram is extremely accurate, including internal detail, so the Germans must have dismantled an unexploded Tallboy. The German measurements are metric but transpose exactly to the British imperial measurements. They identify the structure of the bomb, from the fuses used to the tension locks to attach the tail (Spannschloss fur Leitwerk) in better detail than I've seen in any British drawing! Externally the diagram even notes the coloured ring with the explosive type stencil (grun), the smaller red ring nearer the nose, the screwed on steel tip (aufgeschraubte Stahlspitze) the body of the bomb as painted green (anstrich grun) and the tail section as riveted aluminium (Leitwerk-Aluminium genietet).
It makes a fine modellers reference 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Walrus (Apr 15, 2017)

Airframes said:


> if this is an 'air burst' weapon, similar, in principle at least, to the WW2 'cookie' or 'blockbuster', why use it to try to knock out underground positions ?



From a report I saw, the heat from the explosion sucks all the air up and so out of the cave system (theoretically)

I was also wondering about the body count, thinking that the idea was to collapse the cave system.
But having been reminded here that the explosion was above ground, presumably the cave system remained largely intact.


----------



## grunnvms (Apr 15, 2017)

I remember reading that the US used a similar weapon in the second Gulf war. It was meant to destroy underground bunkers by deeply penetrating in the earth before exploding. It was a newly developed bomb back then, in fact it was still warm from the liquid explosives they filled it with, when the USAF got it from the manufacturer.


----------



## edgardo gil (Apr 15, 2017)

Airframe, the argentinians don´t rolling their bombs, they adapted a couple of MER on their Herk and they put a bomb in a tanker ship. I guess that if you talk about precision, that´s it. At least far more precision than rolling out the bomb on the back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

1. The bomb drop was on the authority of the theater commander, an authority he already had when Obama was president. This was not ordered/controlled from the White House as too many military actions have been in the past.

2. The US had three options:
a. Do nothing.
b. Send infantry in to attack a well manned, deep, heavily defended and likely booby-trapped cave complex. While it can be done successfully it would be incredibly wasteful of lives (ours, the goal is to waste theirs after all) and material. Not only are the lives of his troops important as a moral consideration, the current political opposition in the US would go ape if there were an action with heavy loss of life. Just look where they went after the SF attack in Yemen where one man was killed. While the political situation shouldn't have any affect on the decision I suspect that it is possible that it did. 
c. Drop a MOAB for an air burst. The tremendous overpressure and consumption of oxygen kills the Al Qaida in place. Infantry, US and Afghani, can then go in, count and identify the bodies, retrieve intelligence and take their time setting sufficient demolition charges to insure that the complex is destroyed.


----------



## stona (Apr 15, 2017)

If it's such a good plan, why hasn't it been done before?
Steve


----------



## yosimitesam (Apr 15, 2017)

Airframes said:


> I'm still slightly puzzled - if this is an 'air burst' weapon, similar, in principle at least, to the WW2 'cookie' or 'blockbuster', why use it to try to knock out underground positions ?
> OK, there'd be some damage, but the whole idea of an air-burst weapon is to have maximum blast and shock-wave effect _above_ ground, for example, to flatten structures and / or eliminate surface forces and equipment.
> Of course, it may have been fused to detonate after entering the surface.



It's a thermobaraic, fuel-air mixture bomb. The bomb burts just above the ground and spreads an explosive "aerosol" like a cloud. Then detonators set it off. It has much greater overpressure (and pulse length) than regular bombs and the shockwave penetrates into caves, bunkers, etc. It works completely different from the deep penetration bombs of Dr. Wallace.


----------



## stona (Apr 15, 2017)

The MOAB is thermobaric? I thought it was filled with H6. A thermobaric weapon would be filled with, essentially, fuel and derives its oxygen from the air. That does not match a high explosive filling like H6.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## mikewint (Apr 15, 2017)

Check out my post #21. The US MOAB is NOT a fuel-air or thermobaric weapon however the presence of the powdered aluminium does mimic, to a degree, the sustained explosion of a thermobaric/fuel-air explosion. The extensive blast radius also mimics the oxygen deprivation of a thermobaric.
I believe that the US shied away from a thermobaric/fuel-air due to a report from the US Defense Intelligence Agency:
*The kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yosimitesam (Apr 15, 2017)

stona said:


> Semi Armour Piercing, which would appear to be English, but I have a diagram, made by the Germans in July 1944, of a Tallboy and the title is, exactly as written
> *Brit. Panzerbombe SAP 12000 LB 5400 Kg*
> Bold original*.*
> The diagram is extremely accurate, including internal detail, so the Germans must have dismantled an unexploded Tallboy. The German measurements are metric but transpose exactly to the British imperial measurements. They identify the structure of the bomb, from the fuses used to the tension locks to attach the tail (Spannschloss fur Leitwerk) in better detail than I've seen in any British drawing! Externally the diagram even notes the coloured ring with the explosive type stencil (grun), the smaller red ring nearer the nose, the screwed on steel tip (aufgeschraubte Stahlspitze) the body of the bomb as painted green (anstrich grun) and the tail section as riveted aluminium (Leitwerk-Aluminium genietet).
> ...


I know the "afterbody" or tail section was mostly hollow but I've never seen a diagram of how far into the tail-secton the rear of the bomb extends nor the actual shape (rounded?) of the rear of the actual bomb body. What does your diagarm show? Curious. Thanks.


----------



## yosimitesam (Apr 15, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Check out my post #21. The US MOAB is NOT a fuel-air or thermobaric weapon however the presence of the powdered aluminium does mimic, to a degree, the sustained explosion of a thermobaric/fuel-air explosion. The extensive blast radius also mimics the oxygen deprivation of a thermobaric.
> I believe that the US shied away from a thermobaric/fuel-air due to a report from the US Defense Intelligence Agency:
> *The kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.*


I got my info from a CNN article. It was obviously FAKE NEWS! OMG! ) Thanks for the info.
<a href="5 things to know about the MOAB - CNN.com">CNN Story</a>


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2017)

I must say I find these technical reports deciding which ways to kill people are too unpleasant to use are more than strange, setting off 10 tons of explosive near people will not have a pleasant outcome.


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 15, 2017)

Interesting topic but isn't the C-130 or such a large plane a good target for the enemy now ?


----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

stona said:


> If it's such a good plan, why hasn't it been done before?
> Steve



Obviously I don't know but I can think of some possibilities, the most likely being that there haven't been any targets where it could be used to advantage without massive collateral damage. The bomb has a one mile radius blast area. Any target it could be used on would have to be far away from civilians. In other cases there may have been times where it could have been used but other ordnance would do the job as well. Remember the MOAB wasn't used to destroy the complex, but to kill the fighters in the complex so that infantry could move in unopposed. How often does a target like that come around in an area where civilians aren't anywhere around? Not often I suspect. A good commander doesn't use a weapon just because it is available but because it is the proper weapon for the situation.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 15, 2017)

Have any troops moved in to inspect the damage yet?

Never mind, found this though not sure of this source...

Yesterday's MOAB Drop - The Aftermath


----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

Shinpachi said:


> Interesting topic but isn't the C-130 or such a large plane a good target for the enemy now ?



The C-130 is a good target but it has been successfully used in low level combat for decades in its AC-130 gunship configuration. In this case though the bomb was dropped from a high altitude. I doubt that the Al Quaeda had any anti aircraft capability more effective than MANPADs, RPGs and perhaps 23mm cannon. None of those weapons would have the range to endanger the C-130 even if the Al Quaeda knew it was there.


----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Have any troops moved in to inspect the damage yet?
> 
> Never mind, found this though not sure of this source...
> 
> Yesterday's MOAB Drop - The Aftermath



From the radio news yesterday morning a total of 96 bodies had been found in the installation with the likelihood that more would be found.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Apr 15, 2017)

newst said:


> The bomb has a one mile radius blast area.


No, please read post #21, The blast radius is 150m (492ft). The pressure effects would be widely felt, causing “most glass surfaces, such as windows” to shatter, “some with enough force to cause injury”* as much as a mile from the blast site*


----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

mikewint said:


> No, please read post #21, The blast radius is 150m (492ft). The pressure effects would be widely felt, causing “most glass surfaces, such as windows” to shatter, “some with enough force to cause injury”* as much as a mile from the blast site*



You can do your own research. Here are a few places you can start at. Both from the statements quoted and the video attached the blast area is one heck of a lot larger than 150 meters.

The US dropping the "mother of all bombs" is way less alarming than people think



“The blast radius goes up to a mile,” Farley explains. “That does not mean everything within a mile dies — it means that everything within a mile has a potential to be affected. Structures that are a mile off, or three-quarters of a mile off, may not be destroyed based on how strong they are.”



Here's What The 'Mother Of All Bombs' Would Do To Your City



“Based on the simulator’s calculations, the effects of the bomb would be widely felt, causing “most glass surfaces, such as windows” to shatter, “some with enough force to cause injury” as much as a mile from the blast site, according to the simulator. The actual blast would likely destroy one or two city blocks.”



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html?_r=0



“The weapon is so big that, while the cargo plane is in the air, the bomb rolls out of the rear on a pallet, pulled by a drogue parachute. It is designed to destroy tunnels and other underground facilities, and its blast radius is estimated to stretch a mile in every direction.”



What You Need to Know About the MOAB, the Powerful Bomb the U.S. Dropped on Afghanistan



“While that precision is a major benefit in terms of preserving civilian lives, it does not come close to eliminating collateral damage altogether. A square mile’s worth of blast radius is significant coverage, even in a targeted attack. Once it hits the target and detonates, it becomes as unpredictable as any other bomb, damaging the surrounding area with no ability to scrutinize between targets and civilians. This is likely why the bomb has never been utilized since it was created in the early 2000's.’


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2017)

newst said:


> A square mile’s worth of blast radius is significant coverage,




Why do people say or write things like that, what is a "square mile of blast radius"? If the blast radius is one mile then the blast area is 3.142 square miles. This is no information at all, what people want to know is how bad the effects are along that radius, at the centre it destroys everything (almost) a mile away it breaks windows. Having been to Hiroshima where he building under the explosion remained standing but guttd but everything else was swept away these are not simple linear considerations.


----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Why do people say or write things like that, what is a "square mile of blast radius"? If the blast radius is one mile then the blast area is 3.142 square miles. This is no information at all, what people want to know is how bad the effects are along that radius, at the centre it destroys everything (almost) a mile away it breaks windows. Having been to Hiroshima where he building under the explosion remained standing but guttd but everything else was swept away these are not simple linear considerations.



First, I didn't say that, the source I quoted said it. With that disclaimer in mind I agree with you completely. Unfortunately I don't think we will find an unclassified source that can provide the level of detail you, and many of us, would like.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2017)

newst said:


> First, I didn't say that, the source I quoted said it. With that disclaimer in mind I agree with you completely. Unfortunately I don't think we will find an unclassified source that can provide the level of detail you, and many of us, would like.


I realise that you didnt say or write that, that is why I asked "why do people" not "why did you". I strongly suspect some well connected person with a degree and background in the "media" waded into something requiring actual knowledge. There are many discussions here concerning units, precision is vital in the real world. "A square mile of blast radius" reduces the discussion to the level of Monty Python, sadly in the modern world hese people stay in their posts and so those who follow them are even more childishly ill informed, no one pays a price.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 15, 2017)

newst said:


> You can do your own research. Here are a few places you can start at. Both from the statements quoted and the video attached the blast area is one heck of a lot larger than 150 meters.



I must be using words that don't have the same meaning to both of us. A careful reading of my post will reveal that I did NOT say the blast AREA was 150m I said the blast RADIUS was 150m. That gives a blast AREA of 70685.8 square meters or 770639.8 square feet considerably LESS than a square mile, 0.0276 square miles actually.



newst said:


> “The blast radius goes up to a mile,” Farley explains. “That does not mean everything within a mile dies — it means that everything within a mile has a potential to be affected. Structures that are a mile off, or three-quarters of a mile off, may not be destroyed based on how strong they are.”


Once again something of which I am posted is getting lost in translation because that is essentially what I posted:
The pressure effects would be widely felt, causing “most glass surfaces, such as windows” to shatter, “some with enough force to cause injury”* as much as a mile from the blast site*




newst said:


> and its blast radius is estimated to stretch a mile in every direction.”


Nope tain't so, of course newspaper reporters are never wrong. Wonder what HELENE COOPER and MUJIB MASHAL military credentials are?

And lastly as pbehn already pointed out 


newst said:


> A square mile’s worth of blast radius is significant coverage,


Is a nonsensical statement. Square mile is AREA and Raidus is a linear measurement

Newst I humbly suggest that you check your sources more diligently


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 15, 2017)




----------



## newst (Apr 15, 2017)

Well I agree with you on this, we are talking past each other because the definitions of terms our references are using are obviously different. Whatever your source is using to define blast area or blast effect area doesn't coincide with the contemporary reports. Are reporters correct and accurate in their definitions of terms? Perish the thought, particularly these days. Still, they are basing their reports on Pentagon press statements.

I just can't believe that DARPA would have spent the hundreds of millions to develop, and the Air Force the additional millions to purchase and deploy, a weapon with as limited a capability as you purport. I guess we will just have to disagree.


----------



## stona (Apr 18, 2017)

yosimitesam said:


> I know the "afterbody" or tail section was mostly hollow but I've never seen a diagram of how far into the tail-secton the rear of the bomb extends nor the actual shape (rounded?) of the rear of the actual bomb body. What does your diagarm show? Curious. Thanks.


I will be back home next month. I'll post something then. The tail made up a substantial portion of the overall length of the weapon.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## mikewint (Apr 19, 2017)

Steve and Yosemite this is what I have
so the tail is a bit more than 50%


----------



## mikewint (Apr 19, 2017)

newst said:


> I just can't believe that DARPA would have spent the hundreds of millions to develop, and the Air Force the additional millions to purchase and deploy, a weapon with as limited a capability as you purport. I guess we will just have to disagree.


Well, Grandpappy always said that "The music is nothing if the audience is deaf" But maybe a shred of hope remains:
It is puzzling to me that you consider a 150m radius blast zone to be inconsequential. That amounts to 760,466 square feet or 17.5 acres turned to vapor in about 15msec. Seems pretty significant to me but then I’ve actually been exposed to high explosive blasts.

In Vietnam one of the hardest things to find was a clear area large enough for a helo to land in and what few there were were soon staked out by the VC/NVA. There was a great deal of interest in a method of making a clearing in the triple canopy jungle at need.
Enter the WWII “leftover” M-121 10,000lb bomb. Loaded with 8,050lbs of Tritonal (same as in the MOAB minus the Aluminum) and delivered by the CH-54 helo. Our group was tasked with evaluating the “instant LZ” produced by the bomb. The program had many problems but the bomb produced a 60m (132ft) radius clear area (1.25 acre) and the concussion wave would stun any VC/NVA within a 500m(1640ft) radius.
The Air Force however wanted a bigger clearing, i.e., enough to land 5 helos at the same time.
Enter the BLU-82 misnamed by many as the Daisy Cutter (the 38” fuse was actually the Daisy Cutter). The BLU (Bomb Live Unit) was a departure from the usual high explosive approach. It was the first in a line of thermobaric (thermo – HEAT baric – PRESSURE) weapons. Designed at Los Alamos it was filled with a 12,600lb slurry of ammonium nitrate, powered Aluminum, and polystyrene. The BLU-82 weighed in at 15,000lbs and produced a blast radius of 80m (262ft). The resulting high temperature (3500F) flame cloud incinerates anything within 550m (1800ft) and consumes all oxygen. The initial compression wave starts at 1,000psi and will cause severe damage to any living thing within a mile. A 300mph wind e.g., creates a pressure differential of just 10psi

A comparison to nuclear explosions might be in order at this point.
The "Little Boy" U235 bomb detonated over Hiroshima had the explosive yield calculated to be equivalent to about 12.5 kilotons of TNT.
The "Fat Man" plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki had the explosive yield equivalent to about 21 kilotons of TNT.
About 40 to 50% of the energy released in the explosion of an atomic bomb is blast. Really big conventional bombs do damage by blast too and one measure of blast for comparison is overpressure; how much pressure over normal atmospheric pressure is exerted by the explosion.
The "Little Boy" U235 bomb detonated over Hiroshima generated an overpressure of 29 psi (728mph wind) at the hypocenter (Ground Zero- the point directly below the air burst).
The "Fat Man" plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki generated an overpressure of 34 psi (853 mph wind) at the hypocenter.
One thing to keep in mind: both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs were air bursts. They were detonated over the cities - at 1900 feet for Hiroshima, 1650 feet for Nagasaki.

You might want to reconsider the MOAB effects which you seem to feel are so inconsequential

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2017)

I visited Hiroshima a long time ago, there was a part of the museum explained in laymans terms that the air blast on the bomb on Hiroshima produced some strange effects. While the building underneath it remained standing but the lead roof completely vaporized, the area of maximum damage was some way away from centre. It was a long time ago but as I remember it the effect was similar to what was seen in the Tsunami footage, a person on the sea shore is hit by a rising wave of water a person a few hundred yards inshore is hit by water full of cars, trees, boulders and debris travelling at amazing speed across flat land.


----------



## Wayne Little (Apr 20, 2017)

Hiroshima and the Peace park (in 2015) , once visited, is a place you don't soon forget.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 21, 2017)

MOAB dropped to show the Chinese that the USA can hit a pin spot (i.g. a silo in North Korea) with a non nuclear bomb.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 26, 2017)

stona said:


> Because the USAF has a better PR department then United Airlines


The USAF might have the best PR department of all the armed forces. The reason requires little explanation: The USAF's doctrine was based on strategic bombing, nuclear-bombing, and nuclear-deterrence. 

The first two are generally impalatable when explained in an accurate manner without spin (particularly modern day); the latter produced an arms race that nearly saw our destruction (by our I mean the population residing in the Northern Hemisphere, if not much of the human population), as well as set in motion various continuity of government policies that basically run afoul of the Constitution (I know little on this subject, most of it being secret, but what has been revealed is scary).




mikewint said:


> The US MOAB was developed for use in Iraq but was never used there as the massive numbers of Iraq troops/tanks never developed and the bombs effect was too wide spread to use on confined targets, i.e., civilian causalities


I never knew when it was developed


> The MOAB uses 9.3 tons of TRITONAL a mixture of 80% TNT and 20% Aluminium powder. The Al has the effect of increasing both the heat and time of the blast.


The use of aluminum (aluminum oxide in this case) was used in solid-fueled rockets for this reason as well.


> The MOAB is not a ground penetrator but an air blast weapon. The air blast has two basic effects. First it produces a massive supersonic shock wave and the extended time air blast sucks all oxygen from the area. The effect covers a radius of 150m ( 492 ft). The ground effect is similiar to the BLU-82 Daisy Cutters used in Vietnam


Wouldn't penetrating into the ground be more likely to bust up a tunnel network?


> I believe that the US shied away from a thermobaric/fuel-air due to a report from the US Defense Intelligence Agency:
> *The kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.*


I know ethylene oxide is carcinogenic, but is the combustive byproducts? Because a sufficiently reliable detonator (one could use several detonators that are all armed at the same moment but operate independently, each detonating at the same time -- should one fail, all the others work) should do the job and give ISIS a nice sound beating in the only language they seem to get.

Alternatively, there was also a type of kinetic fireball incendiary which if connected to a penetrator would unleash a horrifying barrage of bouncing rubberized balls of rocket-fuel that would travel through almost any area and just incinerate it. The same would apply for the occupants and would be good for caves.



newst said:


> The C-130 is a good target but it has been successfully used in low level combat for decades in its AC-130 gunship configuration. In this case though the bomb was dropped from a high altitude. I doubt that the Al Quaeda had any anti aircraft capability more effective than MANPADs, RPGs and perhaps 23mm cannon. None of those weapons would have the range to endanger the C-130 even if the Al Quaeda knew it was there.


The B-52, B-1 and B-2 would be useful...


----------



## mikewint (Apr 27, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The use of aluminum (aluminum oxide in this case) was used in solid-fueled rockets for this reason as well.


Aluminum oxide is aluminium that has already reacted with oxygen it is useless as a "fuel". Aluminum oxide is commonly refered to as corundum. It is very hard and is used as an abrasive or blasting (as in sand blasting) agent. It gives rubies and sapphires their color. 
In devices like the MOAB it is Very finely powdered Aluminum METAL that is used. The Aluminum metal ignites and burns extending the effects of the initial explosion and raising the temperature.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 27, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Wouldn't penetrating into the ground be more likely to bust up a tunnel network?



The whole point is to neutralize the soft, squishy carbon-based life-forms that are using the tunnels, that way ground teams can go in after the raid to assess the results without having to excavate tons of earth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Apr 27, 2017)

Back to post #21:
The British Grand Slam was a penetrator weapon designed to penetrate concrete bunkers before exploding. They could penetrate as deep as 40m (131ft) into the earth. The Grand Slam was filled with 4.144 tonnes (4.57 US tons) of TORPEX TORpedo EXplosive 42% RDX, 40% TNT, 20% Aluminium powder. Due to its penetration *it produces a camouflet (cavern) which then serves to undermine existing structures by removing their supporting foundations.*


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 28, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Aluminum oxide is aluminium that has already reacted with oxygen it is useless as a "fuel". Aluminum oxide is commonly refered to as corundum. It is very hard and is used as an abrasive or blasting (as in sand blasting) agent. It gives rubies and sapphires their color.


I know what corundum is, I just didn't know it was Aluminum oxide.

As for rockets, I'm not sure why aluminum oxide would be used then unless it had to do with the fact that everything is mixed in. Contrary to what most people thing, it is actually possible to throttle and stop a solid fueled rocket. It requires the means to vary the nozzle area rapidly, but it can be done.


> In devices like the MOAB it is Very finely powdered Aluminum METAL that is used. The Aluminum metal ignites and burns extending the effects of the initial explosion and raising the temperature.


I didn't know aluminum burned, but pretty much anything burns under the right set of circumstances.


> The British Grand Slam was a penetrator weapon designed to penetrate concrete bunkers before exploding.


For some reason I envisioned some kind of deep tunnel system with periodic doors and stuff.


> Due to its penetration *it produces a camouflet (cavern) which then serves to undermine existing structures by removing their supporting foundations.*


Well, it busts open a void as well as produces a powerful series of pressure waves. They're both nasty if you're nearby or inside something that can cave in. I'd much rather be the guy in the Lancaster dropping it than the people in the bunker.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I know what corundum is, I just didn't know it was Aluminum oxide.


Then you did not know what carborundum is. Corundum is one of the oxides of aluminium with a chemical composition of Al2O3 and a hexagonal crystal structure.https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=DLsDWYfgFOnv8AeB7riACg



Zipper730 said:


> As for rockets, I'm not sure why aluminum oxide would be used then unless it had to do with the fact that everything is mixed in.



You have already been told it was aluminium not its oxide by Mikewint.



Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know aluminum burned, but pretty much anything burns under the right set of circumstances.


Mike used the term burned, it is a laymans term, correct when speaking in laymans terms, on a forum which has some experts posting but is open to the public and "laymen". Mike should have posted "reacts".

Aluminium is extremely reactive, while it is the third most abundant element after Oxygen and Silicon it is almost never found in its natural state. No one has ever seen Aluminium in a natural environment because it self passivates to stable non corrosive state at its surface, it is always covered in a thin layer of oxide, which is stable and prevents further reaction. There are oxides of gold and platinum, that doest mean that they literally burn but they can react with oxygen. It is beyond my knowledge to be certain but as far as I know all elements can combine with oxygen, burning is just a violent representation of oxidisation. 


Zipper, you are a special character, you obviously have some good knowledge in some areas yet seem unaware of what I learned at the age of ten in others. I well remember as a ten year old being told that if air contained enough oxygen then we wouldnt have coal or coke fires you could just ignite the iron fire grate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2017)

Aluminum burns rather well, it the main combustible (fuel) material in Thermite after all. 

However it needs a high surface to volume ratio (powder works really well.) large blocks not so well. The heat is dispersed through the large object before you reach ignition temperature in a local area. You also need enough oxygen in the local area to sustain combustion. Thin aluminium sheet in an aircraft with a several hundred mph wind is going to burn a of different than an aluminum I beam with zero wind speed. Please note that aluminium looses strength very quickly. While it melts at around 1220- degrees F it actually looses a lot of strength between 300-500 degrees F (will slump or loose shape if under load) 

In Thermite you have the heat of the reaction liberating oxygen from the iron oxide.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Aluminum burns rather well,
> 
> 
> In Thermite you have the heat of the reaction liberating oxygen from the iron oxide.


All the engineers want is a reaction, Hydrogen peroxide was popular as a fuel because it releases oxygen as a fuel and forms water which expands massively in volume when hot. Oh it explodes when not correctly handled too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2017)

Hydrogen peroxide can be used as sort of a mono-propellant. When broken down by a catalyst it gives you the water and free oxygen you mentioned. I believe (but could well be wrong, going by memory) that the output is around 750 degrees F. The Free oxygen in this case is a by product but since even 212 degree steam needs about 1100 times the volume of the liquid it came from we obviously have plenty of pressure to run a turbine or even just use as rocket thrust. If you want to inject some kerosene into the product from the catalyst chamber you have the free oxygen to support combustion and you have an ignition source in the superheated steam. 

Hydrogen peroxide doesn't actually explode like regular high explosives (the difference between detonation and deflagration is that in a detonation the flame front moves through the material faster than the speed of sound in that material) any quantity of a liquid flashing to steam at that 1100:1 ratio will rupture any normal container with enough force to throw pieces/liquid considerable distances. 
Practical difference to anyone standing nearby is minimal, despite dictionary difference.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2017)

I agree SR, there is a difference between a laymans term and a scientific definition. People talk about tyres exploding when actually they rupture under pressure, no consolation at all the the family and friends of the poor sod who inflated a large tyre outside of a safety cage.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know aluminum burned, but pretty much anything burns under the right set of circumstances.


Depends on your definition of BURN. Oxygen is truly nasty stuff and combines chemically with many substances but there are many exceptions, like the Inert Gasses, gold, silver, platinum, and anything that has already reacted with it like water, carbon dioxide, ceramics, or ALUMINIUM OXIDE. Aluminium oxide like carbon dioxide and water have already reacted and will not react further.
Aluminum is a HIGHLY reactive metal. It is never found in its pure state in nature and ores of aluminum are very nonreactive making it very difficult to extract the pure aluminum. Napoleon III, the first President of the French Republic, served his state dinners on aluminum plates. Rank-and-file guests were served on dishes made with gold or silver. Aluminum reacts very readily with oxygen (albeit slowly) to form the oxide. That's why aluminum doors are a dull grayish color. That dull gray is aluminum oxide or corundum which is stronger and tougher than the aluminum itself. That tough oxide layer seals the rest of the aluminum preventing further oxidation.
Now in light of that consider Aluminum. It is invariably coated with the oxide. Burning the aluminum FIRST requires that you breach the oxide shell which occurs at 3680F. Once the oxide shell is breached the Aluminum reacts with oxygen (burns) and the temperature quickly soars to 6920F



Zipper730 said:


> As for rockets, I'm not sure why aluminum oxide would be used then unless it had to do with the fact that everything is mixed in.


You keep postulating that and I can only suggest that you revisit your source material. Aluminum oxide is not and cannot be a fuel.
Solid rocket fuel is the original rocket fuel, dating back to the early fireworks developed by the Chinese centuries ago. For the SLS (Space Launch System) boosters, aluminum powder serves as the fuel and a mineral salt, ammonium perchlorate, is the oxidizer.
The powerful aluminum-ammonium perchlorate reaction fuels the twin SLS solid rocket boosters.
Aluminum is the most abundant metal on Earth. It’s also highly reactive. Aluminum is so reactive, in fact, that it’s not found naturally in its pure form but only in combination with other minerals. It’s this ability to readily combine with other elements (Oxygen) that makes aluminum so useful.
Ammonium perchlorate, the salt of perchloric acid and ammonia, is a powerful oxidizer (explosive). In the boosters, the aluminum powder and ammonium perchlorate are held together by a binder, polybutadiene acrylonitrile, or PBAN. The mixture, with the consistency of a rubber eraser, is then packed into a steel case.
When it burns, oxygen from the ammonium perchlorate combines with aluminum to produce aluminum oxide, aluminum chloride, water vapor and nitrogen gas – and lots of energy.
This reaction heats the inside of the solid rocket boosters to more than 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the water vapor and nitrogen to rapidly expand. Just like in the liquid engines, the nozzle funnels the expanding gases outward, creating thrust (Newtons Third Law – Action/Reaction Pairs) and lifting the rocket from the launch pad.


Compared to liquid engines, solid motors have a lower specific impulse – the measure rocket fuel efficiency that describes thrust per amount of fuel burned. However, the propellant is dense and burns quite quickly, generating a whole lot of thrust in a short time. And once they’ve burned their propellant and helped propel SLS into space, the boosters are discarded, lightening the load for the rest of the spaceflight.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Hydrogen peroxide can be used as sort of a mono-propellant.


Yup. The most important part of these rockets is the catalyst pack. Nitrogen used to pressurize the peroxide tank which causes the peroxide to pass through a flow valve and injects it into the injection plate of the rocket. The catalyst is made of many silver screens. During the reaction these screens convert the liquid hydrogen peroxide into very hot steam and oxygen at high pressure. This jet of gas is used to power the vehicle.
This kind of rocket, whether using steam or hot water, is the safest of all the rocket engines. Sometimes considered a “cool rocket,” it does not produce flame, and therefore can be made of stainless steel.
The Hydrogen Peroxide is the same product commonly used as a household antiseptic at 3% concentration, but here used at 80% to 98% strength.
The Hydrogen Peroxide is the only product used in the reaction, this places it in the monopropellant liquid rocket fuel classification.
For each volume of liquid injected at the catalyst, after the reaction you get 5000 times that volume in gas expelled at the nozzle.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 30, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Depends on your definition of BURN.


Combust, burst into flames, etc.


> Aluminum is a HIGHLY reactive metal. It is never found in its pure state in nature and ores of aluminum are very nonreactive making it very difficult to extract the pure aluminum.


Pbehn already covered this...


> That dull gray is aluminum oxide or corundum which is stronger and tougher than the aluminum itself.


As a crystal, it has a hardness of 9.0, with diamond being 10


> Now in light of that consider Aluminum. It is invariably coated with the oxide. Burning the aluminum FIRST requires that you breach the oxide shell which occurs at 3680F. Once the oxide shell is breached the Aluminum reacts with oxygen (burns) and the temperature quickly soars to 6920F


That's hotter than an oxyacetylene torch...


> For the SLS (Space Launch System) boosters, aluminum powder serves as the fuel and a mineral salt, ammonium perchlorate, is the oxidizer.


Okay, so the presence of aluminum in the boosters, and aluminum oxide in bombs simply has to do with the reactivity of the aluminum itself, but in different ways?


> Ammonium perchlorate, the salt of perchloric acid and ammonia, is a powerful oxidizer (explosive). In the boosters, the aluminum powder and ammonium perchlorate are held together by a binder, polybutadiene acrylonitrile, or PBAN. The mixture, with the consistency of a rubber eraser, is then packed into a steel case.


The rubberized characteristic I already knew about. I think it was in a documentary about the Challenger explosion.


> When it burns, oxygen from the ammonium perchlorate combines with aluminum to produce aluminum oxide, aluminum chloride, water vapor and nitrogen gas – and lots of energy.
> 
> 
> > Compared to liquid engines, solid motors have a lower specific impulse – the measure rocket fuel efficiency that describes thrust per amount of fuel burned. However, the propellant is dense and burns quite quickly, generating a whole lot of thrust in a short time. And once they’ve burned their propellant and helped propel SLS into space, the boosters are discarded, lightening the load for the rest of the spaceflight.
> ...


----------



## mikewint (Apr 30, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> aluminum oxide in bombs simply has to do with the reactivity of the aluminum itself, but in different ways?



OK, Once more into the Breech. *I don't know how much more clearly I can say it or in what language:*
THERE IS NO - ZERO - NADA - NICHT - NINGUNA - CERO - ACUN - ZADEN ALUMINUM OXIDE IN ANY BOMB! IT IS VERY FINELY POWDERED ALUMINUM METAL. IT BECOMES THE OXIDE *AFTER*
IT REACTS WITH OXYGEN



Zipper730 said:


> Combust, burst into flames, etc.



A solid bar of steel will burst into flames if it is placed in an atmosphere of fluorine gas as will water, human flesh, even ceramics.
COMBUSTION is a rapid oxidation process. Steel oxidizes to rust but the process is slow HOWEVER, very fine 0000 steel wool will burn quite rapidly becoming a combustion in effect. A bar of pure Aluminum will also oxidize slowly to form Aluminum "rust" or Aluminum oxide BUT very finely powdered Aluminum will combust very rapidly as oxidation occurs on the surface only and powders have massive surface areas. Flour mills, grain elevators, coal mines produce fine dust that will combust so rapidly it appears to be an explosion. Black Powder e.g. is NOT an explosive but it does combust very rapidly.

Slippery things are words!


----------



## dogsbody (Apr 30, 2017)

The difference between a propellant and an explosive is just a slower rate of combustion in the propellant.


Chris


----------



## pbehn (Apr 30, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Slippery things are words!


In ancient times the wise ones could select a Yule log which was a huge part of a tree that would burn for the 7 days of the winter solstice celebrations, that is very slow combustion. Let the wood dry and chop it into small pieces than it burns quickly and hot enough to set off a fire in a coke fire/furnace. However if you get enough wood dust in a wood mill it can be destroyed in such a fashion that it takes a month to make the place safe and find the bodies. No consolation at all to tell the relatives that it wasnt actually an "explosion" merely rapid combustion.
Bosley - Wikipedia


----------



## pbehn (Apr 30, 2017)

dogsbody said:


> The difference between a propellant and an explosive is just a slower rate of combustion in the propellant.
> 
> 
> Chris


That is not always the property of the chemicals concerned but also the environment. If you lose control of a propellant it is an explosive.
This applies to a car fuel tank at one end and the space shuttle at the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dogsbody (May 2, 2017)

pbehn said:


> That is not always the property of the chemicals concerned but also the environment. If you lose control of a propellant it is an explosive.
> This applies to a car fuel tank at one end and the space shuttle at the other.



I probably should have added " under normal circumstances ".


Chris


----------

