Their's Is More Powerful

[NAC4EV]

Putin’s ‘Father Of All Bombs’ is FOUR TIMES more powerful than Trump’s

World's most powerful vacuum bomb having shockwave with the power of a nuclear bomb. Successful tests show its effectiveness and capabilities are comparable to nuclear weapons.Use of this bomb doesn't damage or pollute the environment (without any kind of radioactive fallout), like a nuclear bomb would.Also known as the vacuum bomb, it uses a fuel-air explosive more powerful than TNT.

 

[hal2kilo]

The biggest problem I see with all these bombs is that there's no stealthy way to deliver these monsters. Can only be used in places with limited air defenses.

 

[Indus]

We obviously need to make a grandfather of all bombs next.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The biggest problem I see with all these bombs is that there's no stealthy way to deliver these monsters. Can only be used in places with limited air defenses.

The Next Gen Bomber is spec'ed out to carry the MOAB or equivalent bomb. Considering this is the only occasion we've used it I don't expect delivering them to the areas where they would be used as being a problem. The advantages of the MOAB is that they are cheap.

Damn shame that the world has a use for such things, but we are consummate executioners.

 

[JSt0rm]

The biggest problem I see with all these bombs is that there's no stealthy way to deliver these monsters. Can only be used in places with limited air defenses.

Well we only wage war with countries that cant really fight back.

 

[Genx87]

Does Russia have small hands? Looks like more dick waving among the warmongers.

 

[feralkid]

"Their's"

Another apostrophe catastrophe.

https://www.google.com/search?q=theirs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Successful tests show its effectiveness and capabilities are comparable to nuclear weapons.

For the record, the MOAB is already on the power scale (from a TNT perspective) with the smaller end of 'tactical nuclear weapons'. But, yes, if this is larger than the MOAB, it would technically fit this description as well.

 

[brycejones]

If wikipedia is to be believed the FOAB has a yield of 44 tons of TNT or .044 KT vs the 9 KT of the Hiroshima device. So yes it is an impressive conventional weapon but its effects will still be limited compared to an actual nuke.

More useful for taking on someone like NK is the GBU-57 which is designed to penetrate bunker complexes and is deployable by the B-2.

The MOAB and it appears the FOAB both depend on using cargo planes for delivery which means they need a pretty low threat environment to operate in. IMO this really limits their combat usefulness to very specific scenarios.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If wikipedia is to be believed the FOAB has a yield of 44 tons of TNT or .044 KT vs the 9 KT of the Hiroshima device. So yes it is an impressive conventional weapon but its effects will still be limited compared to an actual nuke.

More useful for taking on someone like NK is the GBU-57 which is designed to penetrate bunker complexes and is deployable by the B-2.

The MOAB and it appears the FOAB both depend on using cargo planes for delivery which means they need a pretty low threat environment to operate in. IMO this really limits their combat usefulness to very specific scenarios.

I posted this in the 'MOAB' thread, but tactical nukes have a very large power range, and Fat Man/Little Boy were nowhere near the smaller of the group, just the first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
Takeaways: W54 warhead - 10T-20T... W48 - 72T... W79 - 1KT... B61 - variable yield, lowest being 300T...

Also notable is the physical size of the W54 and W48 warheads on the right hand side. They're basically breadboxes, and most have been adapted to some kind of mortar/artillery shell.

 

[theeedude]

What if Putin drops one in Syria. Trump will go nuts demanding an even bigger bomb.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh man, Trump is going to be so upset when he learns that he has the tiny bomb, again. I hope he isn't watching the news, poor little guy.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well we only wage war with countries that cant really fight back.

Sad but true. Always the proxies.

 

[Atreus21]

MFOAB.

 

[local]

The C-130H has a payload capacity of 42,000 lbs, I demand that we use all of it for the GMOAB!

Seriously though isn't this old news? Seems like I remember hearing about the FOAB not long after the MOAB was introduced. I don't think these are all that technical to build they are just a bigger versions of already existing bombs right?

 

[brycejones]

I posted this in the 'MOAB' thread, but tactical nukes have a very large power range, and Fat Man/Little Boy were nowhere near the smaller of the group, just the first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
Takeaways: W54 warhead - 10T-20T... W48 - 72T... W79 - 1KT... B61 - variable yield, lowest being 300T...

Also notable is the physical size of the W54 and W48 warheads on the right hand side. They're basically breadboxes, and most have been adapted to some kind of mortar/artillery shell.

Those weapons are long out of the US inventory except for the B61 and its lowest yield is 7 times greater than then FOAB let allow the MOAB. Realistically unless the shit is completely hitting the fan the idea of "tactical" nukes is pure BS. It is too easy to escalate to missiles flying once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle in a conflict imo.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Those weapons are long out of the US inventory except for the B61 and its lowest yield is 7 times greater than then FOAB let allow the MOAB. Realistically unless the shit is completely hitting the fan the idea of "tactical" nukes is pure BS. It is too easy to escalate to missiles flying once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle in a conflict imo.

They're out of history due to the implications of actually making use of them (escalation of nuclear warfare), which is totally reasonable, and just as you stated. It doesn't change the fact that nukes have existed at the power levels which the MOAB/FOAB exist, hence me pointing it out. I just hate when nuclear weapons are only represented as the 100MT supernukes, and these gargantuan conventional weapons as 'some percentage of Hiroshima' without acknowledging that we bridged the gap decades ago with stuff the size of basketballs.

We could reproduce these in a few months (or faster) if the situation arose that we'd want to/need to, pretty much the same as the 'ramp up' of any other system we did not have ample stockpiles of, short of something exceptionally complex like an ICBM. I doubt we ever would, but as the design exists, it's just as much of a consideration for 'potential weapons of war' as any other one is.

 

[thraashman]

"Their's"

Another apostrophe catastrophe.

https://www.google.com/search?q=theirs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

This was the only thing I was coming in to post.