Posted on 09/19/2001 2:19:59 PM PDT by doug from upland
CBU-72 / BLU-73/B Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) - Dumb Bombs
During Desert Storm the Marine Corps dropped all 254 CBU-72s, primarily from A-6Es, against mine fields and personnel in trenches. Some secondary explosions were noted when it was used as a mine clearer; however, FAE was primarily useful as a psychological weapon. Second-generation FAE weapons were developed from the FAE I type devices (CBU-55/72) used in Vietnam.
Specifications |
|
| Weight: | 500 pounds |
| Length: | 85.6 inches |
| Diameter: | 14 inches |
| Guidance: | None |
| Control: | None |
| Autopilot: | None |
| Propulsion: | None |
| Warhead: | 3 BLU-73/B Fuel |
| Fuse: | Mark 339 Mod 0 Mechanical |
| Aircraft | |
FAEs can be launched from aircraft, helicopters or ground vehicles. FAEs can be deployed against a wide range of targets - exposed personnel, equipment, fortified areas, communication centres, urban strong points, minefields etc. They can also be used as a herbicide destroying crops and vegetation.
A typical FAE device consists of a container of volatile gases, liquids or finely powdered explosives and two separate explosive charges. The first charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and scatters the contents forming an aerosol cloud. The second charge then detonates the cloud causing a searing fireball followed by a massive blast wave. The pressure at the centre of the explosion can reach 427 pounds per square inch and a temperature of 2,500 - 3,000 degrees Centigrade. This is 2 times greater than the overpressure caused by conventional explosives. People under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud are the blast wave travels at over 9,800 feet per second. The resultant vacuum pulls in loose objects.
Because it has such effects one recent paper published by the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas describes FAEs thus: "As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation." A Russian paper published in 1995 says "In its destructive capability, it is comparable to low-yield nuclear munitions."
A 1993 US Defence Intelligence Agency report says that even if the cloud fails to detonate properly, "victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents."
FAE detonations create three zones of injury. The first is the central zone where most will die immediately from blast and fire. Casualties in the second zone will survive the initial blast and burns, but will have extensive burns and massive internal injuries and in reality can only be given pain relief before the die. In the third zone people will have had some protection from flying debris but not from the blast effect. Injuries to the extremities and eyes will be common as will burns.
For your information.
Somehow, the fighters survived anyway. I hope ours are more effective than the Soviet models.
"Probably the most terrible thing for us was to see people suffering from the effect of vacuum bombs despite the fact they took shelter from these explosions in the cellars of houses or in shelters. All we could do for those who had been caught in a zone where a vacuum bomb was dropped was admit our helplessness and inability to do anything to help these suffering people.
"It is no secret that vacuum bombs were often used in bombing Chechnya, most often in Grozny. We touched on this at the start of our conversation. The vacuum bomb does most damage to people in enclosed spaces, cellars, bomb shelters etc. The bomb seriously damages the human organism. It affects the body and practically all human organs, primarily the liver and spleen. "
[Passage omitted: elaborates further on bomb's effect]
http://www.ichkeria.org/a/2001/7/gen1407-en10857.html
Anyone remember the Gulf War picture of the A-10 with one of it's 'tails' shot off and a man-size hole in it's wing? And the pilot flew that sucker back.
yeesh.
kewl...
If so, it may be worth the effort of a salvage project. Forget the Cessnas, I want an Intruder!
It was a "durable aircraft and could withstand tremendous damage and still fly" because it was designed and built by the world famous "Grumman Iron Works," a company noted for building hell-for-strong aircraft for the U.S. Navy since before WWII.
The A-6, as are all aircraft destined for service in a U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing, was specifically designed for that extremely harsh environment, plus the combat environement, of course. All carrier-based aircraft are substantially heavier than aircraft designed only for land operations.
Grumman built fine airplanes for the U.S. Navy, and I am proud to have flown them from 1965 until 1981. We made fun of them, but, damn, they could "take a licking and keep on flying!"
Frank L. Davis, Jr.
Captain, USNR (Ret)
Naval Aviator # V23271
I did not fly the A-6. I flew the S-2 "Tracker," the E-1B "Tracer," and the E-2A(&B) "Hawkeye." All were manufactured by Grumman.
As the Hangar Deck Officer of the USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63), I worked with embarked sqadron maintenance personnel to provide space and facilities for aircraft maintenance. VA-52 was embarked in Kitty Hawk in that time frame (1970-72).
My knowledge of the A-6 is based on my Naval service as an Aviator and my civilian employment as a aerospace manufacturing Program Manager.
From what my dad told me and from meeting a few Grumman tech reps, I was always impressed with Grumman's almost personal concern they had for the Navy personnel who flew and maintained all Grumman made aircraft. There has probably never been a more trusting relationship between a military contractor and their customer than the one enjoyed by Grumman and the U.S. Navy that has so far lasted over 70 years.
Too bad Grumman shot themselves in the foot by giving the Navy an outrageously high $$$ figure when asked how much it would cost to put the F-14 back in production. An F-14, developed for air to air and air to mud, would be vastly superior to the F-18. And cheaper.
Grumman really, really PO'd the Navy Brass when they shot that unreasonable cost figure to them. They later reconsidered their offer, but by then it was too late, and the Brass bought the F-18, despite knowing that it was inferior to the F-14.
Grumman has a long and justifiably proud record as a premier manufacturer of strong, dependable carrier based aircraft. With the closure of the A-6 reman program and the end of the F-14, I believe the only Grumman being manufactured today is the E-2C.
That is a shame, but Grumman has no one to blame but themselves. They got greedy, and got their butts handed to them.
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.