Article

2007-09-11 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Russia Tests Powerful 'Dad of All Bombs'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2007-09-11 17:40|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

Posted by john frum 2007-09-11 17:43|| 2007-09-11 17:43|| Front Page Top

Posted by john frum 2007-09-11 17:44|| 2007-09-11 17:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Russian mathematicians, physicist and engineers [reverse and otherwise] are remarkable.

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-09-11 17:54|| 2007-09-11 17:54|| Front Page Top

#4 Of course the problem is getting it over the target without the delivery aircraft getting blown out of the sky.

Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.

Well, except for all the nature and wildlife within a 1000 yard radius....

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-09-11 17:57|| 2007-09-11 17:57|| Front Page Top

#5 Tupolev Tu-160

Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph) at high altitude
Combat radius: =10,500km
Maximum range: 17,400 km
Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
Rate of climb: 70 m/s (13,780 ft/min)
Empty weight: 110 t (242,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 267 t (590,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 275 t (606,000 lb)
2 internal bays for 40,000 kg (88,200 lb) of ordnance, options include:
2 internal rotary launchers each holding 6× Raduga Kh-55 cruise missiles (primary armament) or 12× Raduga Kh-15 short-range nuclear missiles

Posted by john frum 2007-09-11 18:18|| 2007-09-11 18:18|| Front Page Top

#6 "Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added."

That has *got* to go down as one of the quotes of the year!

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-11 18:19|| 2007-09-11 18:19|| Front Page Top

#7 Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.

Frigging loadsa laughs, lol! What is this shit?

Posted by rhodesiafever 2007-09-11 18:19|| 2007-09-11 18:19|| Front Page Top

#8 Beta test at Grozny.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-09-11 18:30|| 2007-09-11 18:30|| Front Page Top

#9 Patton was right. We're gonna have to fight those sons of bitches someday.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-09-11 18:58|| 2007-09-11 18:58|| Front Page Top

#10 the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb ... While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives.

So at 5.6 times the yield/kg of TNT this means the Russian "explosive" is really a fuel-air explosive (hydrocarbon + oxygen energy = 5 x TNT). Not much of a boom but a huge fireball.

Posted by ed 2007-09-11 19:22|| 2007-09-11 19:22|| Front Page Top

#11 Patton was right. We're gonna have to fight those sons of bitches someday.

Not necessarily. Russia has less than half the population of the United States and theirs is dropping by about 1,800 people per day while the U.S. is expanding by about 8,000 (excluding immigration). The Russian economy is 1/7th of the U.S. economy and is still very natural resource based.

The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to maintain an empire and compete militarily with the U.S. If Putin wants to walk down the same path he too will bankrupt his country.

Personally, I enjoy watching him squeeze the EU on energy. I hope it lasts.

Posted by DoDo 2007-09-11 19:50|| 2007-09-11 19:50|| Front Page Top

#12 They need to remember that it is only the Dad of All CONVENTIONAL Bombs - unless it measures in the megatons it doesn't count in the US vs. Russia scenario. If they want to use it on Chechnya, that's a different argument.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-09-11 19:50|| 2007-09-11 19:50|| Front Page Top

#13 But they also built the Tsar-Bomba.. the "King of Bombs" ... 50 Megatons

Posted by john frum 2007-09-11 20:22|| 2007-09-11 20:22|| Front Page Top

#14 Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.

I wonder how many carbon credits they gotta buy before they can use it?

Posted by tu3031 2007-09-11 20:53|| 2007-09-11 20:53|| Front Page Top

#15 Don't fergit Russ reportedly reactivating their "Doomsday Machine" vv Cobalt Bombs???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-09-11 21:05|| 2007-09-11 21:05|| Front Page Top

#16 If both sides can deliver hundreds of multi-kiloton warheads, and both sides are even remotely rational, MAD still applies and neither side will use them. The modifier 'rational' is why we are, and should be, so concerned about Iran and Pakistan. And why Tancredo was not wrong to remind them that one of their 'pillars' could/would be permanently eliminated.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-09-11 21:28|| 2007-09-11 21:28|| Front Page Top

#17 Don't forget about the 1000 Mt H-bomb doomsday ship that Khrushchev wanted. It was to be unmanned and explode when a radiation threshold was exceeded. It would have irradiated the northen hemisphere and likely boiled off a chunk of atmosphere into space. Scared the pants off the other Soviets.

Posted by ed 2007-09-11 21:34|| 2007-09-11 21:34|| Front Page Top

#18 And if the 100 Megaton Bomb lands on the stockpile....

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2007-09-11 22:43|| 2007-09-11 22:43|| Front Page Top

#19 Well for starters I gotta wonder if AP is getting their bylines from pravda these days.

First the MOAB isn't a thermobaric or a fuel air explosive. By the book its more like a general purpose bomb. This is what it contains:

"The 21,700-pound [9,500 kilogram] bomb contains 18,700 pounds of H6, an explosive that is a mixture of RDX (Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine), TNT, and aluminum. H6 is used by the military for general purpose bombs"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

A fuel air explosive or a thermobaric is gonna do crap all against a hardened target. Great against structures tho.

Posted by Valentine 2007-09-11 22:59|| 2007-09-11 22:59|| Front Page Top

#20 KOMMERSANT > THE [Russ] GOVERNMENT WILL DEFEAT DEATH. Russ demographics - its shrinking, aging, dying, etc. population. Govt expects to lose up to 27.0Milyuhn by 2050.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-09-11 23:28|| 2007-09-11 23:28|| Front Page Top

23:42 trailing wife
23:41 trailing wife
23:31 gorb
23:31 Classical_Liberal
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:24 Secret Master
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:20 Frank G
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:18 gorb
23:13 trailing wife
23:12 McZoid
23:10 trailing wife
23:06 trailing wife
23:05 mcsegeek1
23:02 3dc
22:59 Valentine
22:56 McZoid
22:54 Seafarious
22:51 Seafarious
22:50 McZoid
22:49 Zenster
22:48 twobyfour
22:46 gromgoru