# Russia tests powerful 'dad of all bombs'



## Mike Baker (11 Sep 2007)

LINK


----------



## p_imbeault (11 Sep 2007)

"Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added."
Oh perfect the solution to all of our problems!  :


----------



## Munxcub (11 Sep 2007)

Except of course for the large hole it puts in it... heh


----------



## 28402 engineers (11 Sep 2007)

how does High Explosive not harm the environment? It certainly doesn't do people any good.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Sep 2007)

This "doesn't harm the environment" is just another example of how being green is all "in" today.  I mean, perhaps "Daddy Bomb" doesn't cause radioactive fallout, but I can only imagine what the "greenhouse gases" emitted are...
Just curious: how much CO2 does a human produce in one year (from breathing and flatulence, etc)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2007)

I'm wondering, with their latest sabre rattling, incursions into allied airspace (including ours), and now this DOAB, if this is not the new round of bluster that they've been speaking of. Giving themselves over to the bravado and nationalist backslapping that was the "We are better than you, have more bombs and manpower than NATO" cause of the Cold War. This bomb sounds like their eco version of having bigger and better, so as not to be accused of resuming the nuclear race. Everything is too reminicent of the good old days. The rhetoric, posturing and arms development are all there.


----------



## Pte.Butt (11 Sep 2007)

> The Russian weapon's blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.



Correct me if I am wrong, but thats about a 1/3 of a kilometer, wouldn't this be comparable to the Halifax explosion of that French Naval ship in 1917? If so, this is a frightening bomb, though Nuclear weapons seem for more horrible.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Sep 2007)

Is this not what used to be called a fuel-air explosive? The original burst dispersed vaporized fuel which a subsequent 'event' ignited. It supposedly created a huge blast wave followed by a vacuum followed by a reverse wave, all of which was claimed to be devastating.


----------



## FredDaHead (11 Sep 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Is this not what used to be called a fuel-air explosive? The original burst dispersed vaporized fuel which a subsequent 'event' ignited. It supposedly created a huge blast wave followed by a vacuum followed by a reverse wave, all of which was claimed to be devastating.



So something like the kinetic/thermic part of a nuclear blast? Sounds like a good area weapon, without the tactical nukes' disadvantages.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2007)

Here is the other Russian "Father of all bombs", the 50+ MT _Tsar Bomba_.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

In the unlikely event that someone in the Soviet leadership had decided to make this part of the nuclear Order of Battle, there are really only two possible targets for the weapon: turning Cheyenne Mountain into Cheyenne Lake; and extending North Bay by several square kilometres. If the design had been fully loaded with the uranium tamper, the resulting 100 MT blast could have been used to burn down virtually all of West Germany.

I believe the former USSR had also made some calculations which demonstrated a Gigaton weapon was possible in theory (one billion tons of TNT equivalent), and there were some recent articles in magazines like Popular Mechanics and Discovery suggesting the United States has also done some work on the idea, presumably to vaporize incoming asteroids or comets which might impact the Earth. I would go for the death ray myself, but personal preferences should be kept out of these sorts of debates


----------



## Mike Baker (12 Sep 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Here is the other Russian "Father of all bombs", the 50+ MT _Tsar Bomba_.
> 
> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
> 
> ...


I read that when they tested that bomb, it shattared windows in Finland, an they could see the light from the explosion close to Sweden.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (13 Sep 2007)

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1155952320070912



> The report said the new bomb was much stronger than the U.S.-built Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb -- MOAB, also known under its name "Mother of All Bombs". "So, Russian designers called the new weapon 'Father of All Bombs'," it said.
> 
> Showing the orange-painted U.S. prototype, the report said the Russian bomb was four times more powerful -- 44 metric tons of TNT equivalent -- and the temperature at the epicenter of its blast was two times higher.



 Holy crap, that's one big BOOM!


----------



## R.O.S (13 Sep 2007)

> "bomb doesn't hurt the environment"



Well then, guess we don't have to worry.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Sep 2007)

Well if we are measuring size ....... 

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070913/78518873.html

U.S. develops 14-ton super bomb, bigger than Russian vacuum bomb

WASHINGTON, September 13 (RIA Novosti) - The U.S. has a 14-ton super bomb more destructive than the vacuum bomb just tested by Russia, a U.S. general said Wednesday. 

The statement was made by retired Lt. General McInerney, chairman of the Iran Policy Committee, and former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 

McInerney said the U.S. has "a new massive ordnance penetrator that's 30,000 pounds, that really penetrates ... Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate." 

He also said the new Russian bomb was not a "penetrator." 

On Tuesday, the Fox News television channel said: "A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime.". 

Commenting on the report, McInerney said: "Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ... They've forced us into the military option." 

McInerney described some possible military campaign scenarios and said: "The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign," he continued. 

He said that bombing would be launched by 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types. 

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their [Iranian] nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back," the general said describing the campaign, adding it would be "easy." 

McInerney is well-known among the U.S. conservatives. He is the chairman of the Iran Policy Committee co-chaired by James Woolsey, former CIA director, William A. Nitze, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Richard Schifter, former Assistant Secretary of State, and Professor Raymond Tanter, former Personal Representative of the Secretary of Defense to arms control talks in Europe. 

The McInerney statement was made following a Fox News report that U.S. "officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer," since Washington believes diplomatic efforts have failed.


----------



## Jungle (14 Sep 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm wondering, with their latest sabre rattling, incursions into allied airspace (including ours), and now this DOAB, if this is not the new round of bluster that they've been speaking of.


It may not be all bad...
if this DOAB can make our DAODs disappear, it just may be a good thing !!!  ;D


----------



## Adrian_888 (14 Sep 2007)

I like this one.

"Rukshin said the new bomb would allow the military to "protect the nation's security and confront international terrorism in any situation and any region."

Now they just have to wait for all of the terrorist to all mass together in a 990 foot radius, with no nearby civilians or friendlies, and Russia's national security problems will be a thing of the past.  :-X


----------



## R.O.S (14 Sep 2007)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Now they just have to wait for all of the terrorist to all mass together in a 990 foot radius, with no nearby civilians or friendlies, and Russia's national security problems will be a thing of the past.  :-X



The Russians call this place Chechnya  ....


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2007)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Now they just have to wait for all of the terrorist to all mass together in a 990 foot radius, with no nearby civilians or friendlies, and Russia's national security problems will be a thing of the past.  :-X



You forget the Russian military mindset:

1. They only need to believe that _at least_ one terrorist is inside the 990 foot radius, 

2. If people are within 990 feet of a terrorist it must be because they are assisting the terrorist, and;

3. Any Russian commander or unit who is within 990 feet of a terrorist when this thing goes off is too stupid to be allowed to continue anyway. If they were that close, why didn't they kill the terrorist already?


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Sep 2007)

The Russians also *claim* that they dropped this from a Blackjack while the US MOAB is pushed out the back of a C-130.  Yet in this video the bomb's trajectory and extractor chute(?) would make it seem that they also simply kicked it out of the back of an Antonov.

http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1521063,wiadomosc.html

Also, what the hell do they mean by "nanotechnology"?  Are they serious? :


----------



## R.O.S (16 Sep 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Also, what the hell do they mean by "nanotechnology"?


Means its stain repellent technology, shorta like teflon.  ;D

The article you (dirtydog) had a to link has some interesting points written. http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1521063,wiadomosc.html
1 - The bomb was dropped from the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160.
2 - When the bomd is dropped its sucks and uses up the oxygen around it (again this is straight from the article).
3 - It has two stages... one is a small explsion used to spread small explosive materials in surrounding area.... second is the actual "daddy" explosion.
4 - Other then not being radio active, it does not expose any chemicals on the blast area (enviroment is the knew things these days)
5 - Other countires and Poland have many similair bombs in their arsenal. The LBPP-100 for instance was build in Poland and tested there too.


----------

