American MOAB: the most powerful conventional ammunition

19
American MOAB: the most powerful conventional ammunition

The United States returned to the idea of ​​​​creating super-powerful conventional air bombs in the early 70s of the last century, during the Vietnam War. The Americans needed weapon mass destruction, but not nuclear, which would be effective in the jungle where the enemy was hiding.

This is how the 6,8-ton BLU-82B was born, which the US Armed Forces even often used to create helicopter landing pads right in the middle of the jungle. After all, the explosion of this bean literally demolished all obstacles, including thickets and buildings, within a radius of 300 meters from the epicenter of the explosion.



The Vietnam War ended, and the Americans continued production of the BLU-82B and even used it during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq.

In addition, the United States did not stop there and invented an even more “monstrous” aerial bomb, which is called the “Mother of all bombs” and the most powerful conventional weapon in the world.

We are talking about the Massive Ordnance Air Blast project, the development of which started in 2002. By the way, it was the abbreviation MOAB that formed the basis for the nickname Mother of all bombs.

The product received the index GBU-43/B and, in fact, was a high-explosive aerial bomb, but of very high power and with additional “bells and whistles” responsible for correcting the flight.

The MOAB is 9,2 meters long and weighs 9,8 tons. A pair of stabilizers extended along the body and four folding rudders located in the tail of the bomb are responsible for improving aerodynamics and control.

Characteristically, thanks to the aluminum body and lightweight controls, as well as a small amount of electronics (satellite and inertial navigation), it was possible to “shove” 43 tons of explosives into the GBU-8,5/B.

In this case, it is worth noting that we are not talking about TNT, but about Composition H6 - an explosive mixture of explosives that is approximately 35% more powerful than conventional explosives. As a result, the explosion power of Mother of all bombs reaches 11 tons of TNT, which is the most powerful indicator among conventional weapons adopted for service.

By the way, the last amendment is extremely important. According to some reports, Russia has an aerial bomb weighing 7,1 tons and with a capacity of 44 tons of TNT. However, the product is strictly classified and the only evidence of its existence is a video shown on Russian television about the test of an aerial bomb, which was carried out on September 11, 2007.

19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    14 September 2023 15: 33
    According to some reports, Russia has an aerial bomb weighing 7,1 tons and with a capacity of 44 tons of TNT.

    There was an article on VO about this “father” of all bombs. smile
    1. 0
      14 September 2023 16: 25
      The issue is controversial - the US Air Force is armed with the GBU-57A/B Large Penetrator Bomb (MOP), which is a HIGHLY PRECISION 13,6 ton weapon for destroying bunkers and fortifications. Carrier stealth bomber Northrop B-2 "Spirit". The bomb contains only 2,4 tons of explosive filler - the main destructive force is carried by the “super strong” body..
  2. +3
    14 September 2023 15: 38
    According to some reports, Russia has an aerial bomb weighing 7,1 tons and with a capacity of 44 tons of TNT. However, the product is strictly classified and the only evidence of its existence is a video shown on Russian television about the test of an aerial bomb, which was carried out on September 11, 2007.

    Yes. Was. T.N. AVBPM. Why is it not used with the IPC?????
    Why is FAB-9000 not used with MPC?
    Will the Russian Armed Forces ever start fighting for real?
    1. +2
      14 September 2023 15: 50
      Why is FAB-9000 not used with MPC?
      Will the Russian Armed Forces ever start fighting for real?

      God knows what else
      "we were asked"
      .
    2. 0
      14 September 2023 15: 59
      Because they are worn by strategists/long-range bombers (who are not even in service, only missile carriers remain), who will have to fly into the air defense coverage area. The MPC does not increase the range so much that it does not enter.
      1. 0
        14 September 2023 16: 06
        Quote from Huggie
        Because they are worn by strategists/long-range bombers (who are not even in service, only missile carriers remain), who will have to fly into the air defense coverage area. The MPC does not increase the range so much that it does not enter.

        The range is enough to cover some Rabotino, where there is no civilian. There are still problems with the carriers. There is an option. New is well forgotten old. To drag the boNbu like a glider behind any large aircraft, even a Boeing. Then the range will be excellent. See picture below.
        1. 0
          14 September 2023 16: 10
          Why is it not nice? And if it’s from hwanera, then the enemy’s locator will have pronblems.
    3. +2
      14 September 2023 16: 02
      Yes. Was. T.N. AVBPM. Why is it not used with the IPC?????
      Why is FAB-9000 not used with MPC?
      Will the Russian Armed Forces ever start fighting for real?

      “When size matters: UMPC at a FAB of increased power” was an article on VO yesterday, or are you more interested in once again expressing your dissatisfaction?
      And where is your plagiarism about Carthage? wassat
    4. +1
      14 September 2023 16: 25
      There is no UMPC, there you need to screw the wings and tail from MIG-21
      1. +2
        14 September 2023 16: 44
        There is no UMPC, there you need to screw the wings and tail from MIG-21

        And also the engine and chassis. Well, since it’s still flying in that direction, there’s a couple more bombs for the suspension.
        1. 0
          15 September 2023 19: 27
          The engine and chassis are not necessary, because we will drop the Tu-160, well, if we can of course
    5. 0
      14 September 2023 17: 05
      Quote: Rumata
      AVBPM. Why is it not used with the IPC?????
      Why is FAB-9000 not used with MPC?

      Are you proposing to send the Tu-95 to Kyiv? After all, this is a BOMB, you have to fly OVER THE TARGET.
      Basically, it’s an old plane, but it’s a pity! crying hi
  3. +3
    14 September 2023 15: 43
    After all explosion of this bean literally demolished all obstacles...

    This “bob” is inferior to the father of all bombs:
  4. +1
    14 September 2023 15: 52
    The MOAB is the most powerful high explosive ammunition in service today. The Americans 50 years ago had a more powerful one (20 tons; T-12).
    The daddy of all bombs is the most powerful conventional ammunition. True, it is not clear whether it is “vacuum” or thermobaric.
  5. 0
    14 September 2023 16: 11
    In general, I heard that it was used and developed precisely for the purpose of making a platform in the jungle. For other purposes, it is not needed with a tin body. For example, in WWII, in order to make a “seismic explosion”, so that the soil would float and fill up a bunker there or gouge out a tunnel... The body was strengthened, but this one will not go completely into the ground, so it is suitable for little. To kill openly standing equipment and infantry - there are things that are many times cheaper. And the radius of destruction is also not impressive - volumetric detonating ones will catch more...
    However, ours also got it wrong with the 9-ton one - the explosive doesn’t detonate completely, it doesn’t have time, so they don’t use it
  6. 0
    14 September 2023 16: 37
    66
    Quote: Rumata
    According to some reports, Russia has an aerial bomb weighing 7,1 tons and with a capacity of 44 tons of TNT. However, the product is strictly classified and the only evidence of its existence is a video shown on Russian television about the test of an aerial bomb, which was carried out on September 11, 2007.

    Yes. Was. T.N. AVBPM. Why is it not used with the IPC?????
    Why is FAB-9000 not used with MPC?
    Will the Russian Armed Forces ever start fighting for real?

    It will be difficult to deliver it on a bomber, say, to Kyiv: there is a high risk of the carrier being destroyed by air defense forces. But as an option, you can try to shoehorn something similar into the R-36M, fortunately we are changing them to Sarmat anyway, or hit with the Avangard in a conventional version: the problem will be that the American NORAD will think that we are using nuclear weapons. So it’s easier to hit with a Dagger with a SB, say at 2,5 kt, launching it from a Su-34 or MiG-31.
  7. 0
    15 September 2023 07: 25
    So you can fill a Boeing 747 with RDX and make an FPV bomb.
    But why?
    The United States successfully hits itself with such “bombs”; they won’t let you lie on September 11th.
  8. 0
    15 September 2023 19: 32
    what And who called it “the most powerful conventional...”? The Americans themselves? Then well, well.
  9. 0
    16 September 2023 19: 23
    GBU-57 is capable of penetrating 61 meters

    I wonder where this figure came from? The picture clearly shows 60' (ft) 1ft = 30,48 cm. 60ft = 18,29 m. And again, 18 meters of what kind of soil? Personally, I doubt that the GBU-57 is capable of penetrating 18 meters of rock.