U.S. tests massive 21,000 Bomb

Post-9/11 Era Forum

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/03/11/top.bomb.moab.jpg

The U.S. Air Force tested a new 21,000-pound bomb Tuesday, dropping the device from a military transport plane over a test site at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida just after 2 p.m., U.S. officials told CNN.

The Pentagon hopes the test will pave the way for use of the bomb -- should there be a war in Iraq -- against critical targets on the surface and underground.

It was the final test of the new Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, and the first to use actual explosives. Two previously undisclosed tests, one in February and one on Friday, were inert.

The Tuesday test was carried out at an Eglin Air Force Base test site, 60 miles east of Pensacola, Florida. The National Earthquake Information Center said it found no seismic activity as a result of the explosion.

Pentagon officials said they were examining results of the test to determine whether it worked as designed.

The Tuesday test was expected to generate so much noise that nearby residents were warned in advance. A 10,000-foot cloud is expected to result.

MOAB, privately known in military circles as "the mother of all bombs," has been under development since late last year. The bomb carries 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives, which have an indefinite shelf life. It replaces the Vietnam-era "Daisy Cutter," a 15,000-pound bomb with 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives.

The Air Force may release video of the final test, in hopes of placing additional pressure on the Iraqi military.

As originally conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set has also been expanded to include deeply buried targets.

But military officials tell CNN that the MOAB is mainly conceived as a weapon employed for "psychological operations."

"The goal is to not have a war. The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Short of that, an unwillingness to cooperate, the goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight against the coalition and there is an enormous incentive for Saddam Hussein to leave and spare the world a conflict."

Military officials say they hope the MOAB will create such a huge blast that it will rattle Iraq troops and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting. Officials suggest perhaps the Iraqis might even mistake a MOAB blast for a nuclear detonation.

The MOAB is deployed on a pallet from a C-130 aircraft. It initially has a parachute, but as it deploys, the Inertial Navigation System and Global Positioning System take over. The bomb also has wings and grid fins for guidance.

Source: CNN

That is pretty cool - - someone let me know when the video is released.

Yeah, I think some video footage of that will be in the extra features on the Clone of the Attack DVD due out this fall.

I don't know about you, but that would make me surrender is the next one was over head.

Perhaps it will be on the trailor?

Isn't it ironic that we've developed a bomb equal to the old atom bombs to use on a country that we accuse of having weapons of mass destruction?

Yes, but we aren't about to sell ours to terrorist agencies.
It would be possible for Saddam to this though

I should clarify my "damn cool" perspective is from a technologist's standpoint - I'm an engineer and am fascinated by engineering marvels. It should not be overlooked that some of the most advanced human engineering marvels have, much to our misfortune, been in the form of destructive capabilities. But many of them, indeed, do lead to brighter futures based on similar technology..

I'm going to research this a bit more.. I was uner the impression that 21,000 lbs was the explosive force and not the weight of the thing.

More research as I come across it here - since I've been accused several times of making arguments without supporting evidence, I'll be sure to provide extracurricular reading material for each point of interest here..

Coincidence? There's a town called MOAB, UTAH that is famous as a Uranium mining town linked to the Manhattan Project. The name of the town shares the acronym name of this new weapon, perhaps some form of tribute? Here's a book who's synopsis evidences the relationship.

Interesting reference found on another site: "Project Moab moves forward - Jane's International Defense Review Vol 30 August IDR reveals yet more details concerning the still-classified program for an Israeli Boost-phase Intercept missile and UAV system to meet the challenge of the Scud threat. The US BMDO has awarded the Israeli firm managing the project a contract worth US$34 million." Source

Biblical reference to the name "Moab" also, Kings 11:4-7 - "For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to The Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of The Lord, and did not wholly follow The Lord, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem (i.e. The Mount Of Olives)." Source


Here we go:


A reuters story states, "The power of the 10.5-ton MOAB bomb falls far short of that generated by nuclear weapons, however. The nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, generated 15 kilotons of energy." Source

both things we already knew.. but what is the exact energy output of this new puppy. We know it's less, but HOW MUCH less..?

Heh.. I guess this answers one of the above questions, "Town of Moab Shuns Link with New Bomb"

Though you read the pet name several times, this is the first solid relationship I've seen mentioned, "..it has come to be called unofficially the Mother of All Bombs, a rough allusion to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s claim before the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) that that conflict would be the "mother of all battles.".. " Source

Here's something, "Rumsfeld spoke as the U.S. Air Force tested its biggest non-nuclear bomb, dropping a 21,000 pound (9,450 pound) onto a test range in Florida" Source 9,450 is actually a conversion of the weight to kilograms, so don't get all excited if you see this type-o in a story

More, "The bomb packs 40 percent more power than America's current most powerful non-nuclear bomb, the 15,000-pound "Daisy Cutter," which was used to pound the caves of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in late 2001, Eglin officials said." Source Do we know any more about the output of the Daisy Cutter? MOAB's 40% more so it could be emperically determined.

AT LAST: The Daisy Cutter U.S. bomb carries "an equivalent of 5-tonne of TNT as the explosive core" Source Therefore, since the MOAB carries 40% more explosive power than the Daisy Cutter, and where 40% is equivalent of 2/5, then the explosive output of the MOAB is 5 tonnes + (2/5 of 5 tonnes) 2 tonnes =

THE MOAB HAS A 7 TONNE EXPLOSIVE YIELD

Hence, there is NO COMPARRISON to a 10,000 tonne nuclear bomb.

See the VIDEO.

Well I'll be damned... there is a big difference in power. That old fart on MSNBC must not have been to bright. It's still a WMD as far as I'm concerned.

I wonder if we have any megaton bombs?

Oh yeah.. another thing that is somewhat confusing to me about this bomb is that if it weighs in at 21,000 lbs (10.5 tonnes) and produces a blast equivalent to 7 tonnes of TNT... well.. why do't we instead drop 10.5 tonnes of TNT for a blast equivalent to 10.5 tonnes of TNT? More bang for the explosive weight being hauled on an aircraft..

I mean, seriously - have we not improved on the design of explosives since the introduction of TNT some 200+ odd years ago? Are you telling me that we can't today build a weapon that out-performs the identical mass in your every day TNT? Where are all these R&D dollars going, lining some fat cat's wallet?

A conclusion must be drawn about this.. either:

A) We're wasting money on weapons that do not out-perform TNT, or

B) We're not being truthful about the actual destructive force of this weapon, or

C) The TNT-based explosive force measurement system is incapable of accurately comparing the output of two weapons with only some common properties such as weight.

Noteworthy, is that the U.S. might well be deceptive about the capabilities of the weapon. Just as we don't reveal the actual, theoretical top speeds of our fighter jets, even though those speeds can be determined imperically by analysis of the airframe, hull and engine specifications - but that's another discussion.

Noteworthy also, is that this bomb, unlike a heap of TNT of the same weight, doesn't just "BOOM" and pack a big punch. According to several of the technical articles I posted previously in this thread, it spreads incindiary particulates in the air as it descends, then ignites the whole mess into a giant fireball. This fireball would have an "explosive" nature, would make a "boom", would be measurable in terms of TNT relative equations, however, had the entire device been detonated like a tightly-packed fire-cracker, it'd probably make a much...MUCH.... bigger "boom". That's the difference between an incindiary device and an explosive one. This could very well account for the lower-than-expected results that eyebrows are being raised at.

actually I think that explosives have a certain measuring scale, like earthquakes. Therefore, this is the reason why the people always compare the bast to an amount of tnt.