Grand Slam v MOAB....

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

Click to expand...

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.

newst said:

The bomb has a one mile radius blast area.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.'

newst said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

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.

stona said:

Because the USAF has a better PR department then United Airlines

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Zipper730 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Zipper730 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.