Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia tests the world's largest ever non-nuclear bomb
The Daily Mail (U.K.) ^ | September 12, 2007

Posted on 09/11/2007 5:59:17 PM PDT by Stoat

Russia tests the world's largest ever non-nuclear bomb

Last updated at 00:56am on 12th September 2007

 Russia has exploded the world's biggest non-nuclear bomb in a dramatic escalation of the new Cold War.

Nicknamed 'the father of all bombs', it was filmed being dropped from a strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball.

The film then showed the debris of apartment buildings and armoured vehicles at a testing range, as well as ground burned by a massive explosion.

Scroll down for more...

Bomb

DESTRUCTION: The world's largest non-nuclear bomb tested by Russians

 

It didn't give the bomb's military name or say when it was tested.

Yuri Balyko, head of the Russian defence ministry's institute in charge of weapons design, said yesterday: "We have got a relatively cheap ordnance with a high strike power."

The test comes as Russia spends massively increased oil revenue on rebuilding its military might.

Scroll down for more...

bomb

It has been nicknamed the "dad of all bombs" and is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs."

 

The device is said to be four times more powerful than America's Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs.

It would target more specific areas than nuclear bombs, and is an immediate threat to problem areas such as Chechnya.

Last night a source close to the US National Security Council said it was a "matter of concern" that Moscow would develop such a huge weapon at a time when there was no obvious need.

Scroll down for more...

bomb

A computer image of a new ordnance from Russian tv which is claimed by the Russian military the world's most powerful non-nuclear bomb

 

He added that the US would ask for an explanation. He said there was "no chance" that America would become involved in a new arms race with the Russians and that the US had no use for bombs larger than the ones already in its arsenal.

While US intelligence was aware that Moscow was working on a new thermobaric device, it did not know that a test was imminent.

The latest raising of tension by Russia comes after president Vladimir Putin revived the Cold War era practice of flying bombers on long-range patrols.

Last week Royal Air Force fighter jets were scrambled to intercept eight Russian military planes flying in airspace patrolled by Nato.

The incident was the latest this summer in which British fighters have been used to warn off long-range Russian reconnaissance aircraft.

The so-called Mother of all Bombs is the biggest weapon in America's arsenal, capable of detonating 21,000lb of explosives above the ground.

The huge bomb, dropped from a slowmoving C130 Hercules aircraft and guided to its target by the satellite-linked global positioning system, can create temperatures of up to 1,000f (538c).

It is designed to obliterate chemical or biological agents concealed in bunkers.

The US is believed to have 15 in its arsenal but none is believed to have been used against an enemy.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Russia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bomb; coldwar2; escalation; fatherofallbombs; foab; russia; russianmilitary; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last
To: Stoat
Russia tests the world's largest ever non-nuclear bomb<

Nah... Actually their new giant Petrograde Class cabbage/beet vodka distillery blew up and the Russkies thought inventing a FOAB was a better story than admitting they F#@$ed up.
101 posted on 09/11/2007 8:55:58 PM PDT by RedMonqey ( The truth is never PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Is this one bigger than the Czar Bomba?

This is conventional, not even in the same league.

This device = ~ 11 Tons of TNT

Tzar Bomba = ~ 57,000,000 Tons of TNT
102 posted on 09/11/2007 8:56:20 PM PDT by zencat (The universe is not what it appears, nor is it something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

MOAB is a penetrator bomb. This RUsskie bomb is a fuel air bomb for surface targets


103 posted on 09/11/2007 9:06:28 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBall
Do you think Bill Clinton did much to strengthen America’s ties with Russia?

Well, he certainly had an affinity for Soviet Russia in his college days, a sentiment shared, no doubt, by his "wife" and evidenced by her eagerness to embrace any and all Socialist concepts.

As to strengthening ties with 'modern' Russia, I grant you that he seemed far more interested in giving away our Top Secret technologies to the Red Chinese.

As to the rest of what you say, I feel that She Who Will Crush All In Her Path will not give Bubba much of a free hand beyond "goodwill ambassadorships" and other "free champagne and hookers" appointments to keep him out of her way. 

I confess I remain convinced that Putin would regard Hillary as a Fellow Traveler, who will bend over backwards to support The Miracle of Socialism, in all it's forms..

She is well aware of her reputation as someone who would be a third-rate backwater lawyer if it weren't for Slick, and I'm guessing that she would love an opportunity to demonstrate her own capabilities.

That being said, it's all an academic matter because I refuse to believe that the American people would be so utterly, breathtakingly stupid as to elect That Woman.

There remains a danger, however, that she will win entirely as a result of vote fraud, and this concerns me greatly.

104 posted on 09/11/2007 9:07:05 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Wrong - bombs are not measured by their actual weight, they are measured by the weight of the explosive charge (equivalent to TNT). The MOP you linked is only a 6000lb ordinance. I believe the additional weight is for penetration prior to detonation.


105 posted on 09/11/2007 9:13:56 PM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
I surrender!!!!! We agree!!!

LMAO!!!

Be advised that all Prisoners of the Stoat Prison Camp are required to eat a really nice steak at least once a week and are required to "continually amuse and please" the Prisoners in the Camp next door, which is populated entirely by vivacious and buxom but particularly lonely tennis stars, fashion models and "young ladies who were asked to leave exclusive, private schools not because of poor grades but because they were simply too pretty".

Here's your half-hourly ration of Single Malt to get you started   :-)

 

 

img512/4952/whisky3kt.gif


 

 

 

 Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

106 posted on 09/11/2007 9:23:10 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955
even for the 39 nanoseconds of fusion

Right, it would be only over the 39 nanoseconds. Which is an insane energy release. Hard to imagine it's all over but the crying in that short period of time.

Let's calculate the actual energy release compared to the sun.

Sun is 3.8 x 10^23 kiloWatts/sec.

Divide by 1.0 x 10^9 sec to get the net output per nanosecond give us:

Sun output = 3.8 x 10^14 kiloWatts/nanosec x 1000 to get watts.

Sun output per nanosec = 3.8 x 10^17 watts x 39 nanoseconds

Sun output for 39 nanosecs = 3.8 x 10^17 watts x 39 =1.482 x 10^19 watts

Claimed Tzar Bomba output = 5.4 x 10^24 watts

Either my physics is rusty, or you are correct. Something doesn't add up. I'm going to see if there is a source for the output on Wiki.
107 posted on 09/11/2007 9:50:21 PM PDT by zencat (The universe is not what it appears, nor is it something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G; All
Is there a video of this somewhere?

Russia tests superstrength bomb military International Reuters

108 posted on 09/11/2007 9:57:15 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
From the graphic:

"Seven tons of secret explosive equivalent to eleven tons of TNT."

Well, I'll bet that 11 tons of TNT is a lot less complex and more cost effective than 7 tons of "secret explosive". Either that, or someone made a typo

109 posted on 09/11/2007 10:02:32 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JadeEmperor
They copied this with some modifications:

110 posted on 09/11/2007 10:05:34 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Interesting, The B-1Ski even has sticks like the real B-1, and unlike most bombers or transports. So does the B-2, but the Russians aren’t likely to be able to copy that one anytime soon.


111 posted on 09/11/2007 10:05:41 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
"Wrong - bombs are not measured by their actual weight, they are measured by the weight of the explosive charge (equivalent to TNT)."

By your respectful choice of words to correct me, I know something else about you.

The MOAB is 21,000 lbs. It contains 18,700 lbs. of H-6 (18,700 lb BLU-120/B). H-6 has about 1.35 times the power of TNT.

Do you know what kind of explosive is used in the MOP?
112 posted on 09/11/2007 10:07:33 PM PDT by familyop (U.S cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been. Prideful, lifelong civilians hate me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
 
"Seven tons of secret explosive equivalent to eleven tons of TNT."

Well, I'll bet that 11 tons of TNT is a lot less complex and more cost effective than 7 tons of "secret explosive". Either that, or someone made a typo

They might not be able to fit an 11 ton bomb on the aircraft, or it may not have the lifting capacity.

I agree that 11 tons of TNT would be a lot cheaper, but telling the world that you have a "secret explosive" also tends to furrow the brows of defense analysts as well as guarantee better hookers for your diplomats overseas.

113 posted on 09/11/2007 10:09:33 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
So does the B-2, but the Russians aren’t likely to be able to copy that one anytime soon.

Geez, I hope not!

114 posted on 09/11/2007 10:12:47 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
They might not be able to fit an 11 ton bomb on the aircraft, or it may not have the lifting capacity.

The C130 Hercules can easily carry over 20 tons. And that's what they used to drop this thing. I'm not sure whether I should be unimpressed with the writers at The Daily Mail or with the Russians.

115 posted on 09/11/2007 10:14:02 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Um, communism?


116 posted on 09/11/2007 10:15:16 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Division Soldier fighting terrorists in the Triangle of Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
The C130 Hercules can easily carry over 20 tons. And that's what they used to drop this thing.

"Quizzical expression on face"

bbbbut....both the Daily Mail and Reuters report the aircraft to be the Tupolev Tu-160:

It showed a Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber dropping the bomb over a testing ground. A large explosion followed.

117 posted on 09/11/2007 10:19:34 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Karl Marx was Prussian, not Russian.


118 posted on 09/11/2007 10:27:40 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

The Russians always have to one up weapons, no matter how stupid or useless they are. Tsar Bomba is an excellent example. For what possible reason could anybody need a 100 MT bomb? A 10 MT bomb would be massive overkill for a large city.

This is just more of the weapons propaganda that we saw during the Cold War. Bigger submarines, bigger nukes, bigger rockets, bigger artillery, etc. What is Putin going to do with it next, parade it in the streets?


119 posted on 09/11/2007 10:32:56 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

And . . . ?


120 posted on 09/11/2007 10:34:11 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Division Soldier fighting terrorists in the Triangle of Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson