Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Father of all bombs?

  • 12-09-2007 10:59am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 332 ✭✭


    Big Bomb

    Any views on this? Looks pretty impressive.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 141 ✭✭bostonian


    Glad to see the Cold War is back on.

    Or, as Borat would say,

    NOT!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I couldn't hear any sound on that, but the shot of the bomb leaving the aircraft probably isn't the suggested Tu-160.

    The Soviets had the rather large FAB-9000 designed to sink American aircraft carriers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Victor wrote:
    I couldn't hear any sound on that, but the shot of the bomb leaving the aircraft probably isn't the suggested Tu-160.

    The Soviets had the rather large FAB-9000 designed to sink American aircraft carriers.

    the Aircraft in the video is definately a TU-160, but there is no frame in which the aircraft and the bomb are both in view, its therefore possible that TU-160's are not the delivery vehicle but the Russians want people to think that it is - due to its range and ability to penetrate stiff defences.

    personally i think it is the delivery vehicle for this weapon, as nothing else makes much sense.

    its not a 'Cold War pt 2' weapon its a weapon that has a number of uses in the potential regional conflicts that Russia faces, indeed because of its delivery method - a high-flying aircraft (you need the height in order to acheive the penetration of underground targets) - it rules itself out of being a weapon to be used against a western, and therefore defended, target.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    OS119 wrote:
    personally i think it is the delivery vehicle for this weapon, as nothing else makes much sense.
    I don't think so. The parachute is open before the bomb drops, suggesting the back of a cargo plane ala MOAB.

    I wonder if the missile carousel is fixed on a Tu-160?
    its not a 'Cold War pt 2' weapon its a weapon that has a number of uses in the potential regional conflicts that Russia faces, indeed because of its delivery method - a high-flying aircraft (you need the height in order to acheive the penetration of underground targets) - it rules itself out of being a weapon to be used against a western, and therefore defended, target.
    Its a blast bomb, no penetration involved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Victor wrote:

    Its a blast bomb, no penetration involved.

    depends upon the type of target, thermobaric weapons can be used against hardened targets - indeed they are staggeringly effective against enclosed locations, but only if they can penetrate.

    they are mainly used against surface targets and targets that could be described as 'semi sub-surface' - like trench systems that have OHP in some areas and are open in others,requiring no penetration, but a thermobaric weapon that detonated either on the surface or just overhead of a target with significant OHP (like 30ft of earth, RF Concrete and with blast doors for access) would remain relatively untouched.

    i know the US is working on a thermobaric weapon to be housed in its BLU 109 2,000lb penetrator with JDAM guidence for precisely that role, using very large bombs against surface targets of the type most affected by thermobaric weapons has proved to be far less efficient than using sub-munitions - indeed if you can fit a TB warhead in a shoulder-fired weapon you can certainly fit in in an air dropped sub-munition.

    i can't see how/why the russians would be developing a weapon-type that others have found less effective than other, cheaper options.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    F.O.A.B. meet M.O.A.B. now kiss!:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    The whole "My dick is bigger than your dick" thing is ridiculous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 161 ✭✭Catcher86


    Poccington wrote:
    The whole "My dick is bigger than your dick" thing is ridiculous.

    Its only done to condone further military spending and research. I don't think that anyone really believes that Russia and the US will ever be at war with each other bar proxy wars. I don't think that any western countries will ever be at war with each other again. Although Putin has been trying very hard to de-westernise Russia.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    wow, I wonder what it could ever be used for. Imagine that dropped onto a full Croke park - 80000 dead from one non nuke


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166,012 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I just saw this on youtube...Tsar Bomba. Kinda makes you shudder to think what if...50 megatons

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16cewjeqNdw&mode=related&search=


  • Advertisement
Advertisement