The heaviest ammunition in the arsenal is FAB-9000

74
The heaviest ammunition in the arsenal is FAB-9000
FAB-9000 in one of the museums. Photo Airwar.ru


In the arsenal of the domestic bomber aviation There are general purpose high explosive bombs of various calibers and types. The most powerful and heaviest weapon This class is the FAB-9000 product. It was developed in the middle of the last century to perform particularly complex combat missions. However, its real characteristics and capabilities turned out to be excessive for most purposes, so it was used only occasionally and in limited quantities.



Record caliber


In 1946, a new line of high-explosive aviation bombs was adopted for service by the Soviet Union's bomber aviation, which were created taking into account the experience of the Great Patriotic War. the warThis line included several general-purpose bombs of various calibers: from 100 to 5000 kg.

The heaviest of these munitions were intended for long-range bombers. They were used to destroy large ground targets, as well as ships.

In the early 1950s, promising long-range bombers with increased payload characteristics were developed for long-range aviation. For example, the new Tu-16 could carry more than 9 tons of cargo on the internal sling, and for the Tu-95 this parameter reached 12 tons. The new bombers could use the entire existing range of ammunition.

Taking into account the parameters of the aircraft, the Air Force requested 9000 kg ammunition. However, the development of such a product and the launch of its production were associated with certain difficulties. However, the industry coped with the task and introduced a new bomb as soon as possible.

In 1954, almost simultaneously with the new bombers, 9-ton aviation ammunition was adopted. At the same time, modernized versions of other high-explosive aircraft bombs began to arrive in arsenals, modified to meet the requirements of the new generation of combat aircraft.


FAB-9000 product diagram. Graphics Airwar.ru

The production of bombs of the 1954 model was established at several enterprises, which quickly replaced the previous generation of high-explosive aircraft bombs (FAB). Most of the ammunition produced was of small and medium calibers.

Due to the limited range of tasks, the heavy FAB-5000 and FAB-9000 were produced in smaller quantities. According to various estimates, no more than several thousand 9-ton bombs were produced, but the requirements of the Air Force were fully satisfied.

Ammunition and carriers


The FAB-9000, model 1954, is a general-purpose high-explosive aerial bomb designed to destroy ground and surface targets. It was used to destroy large concentrations of enemy manpower and equipment, field fortifications, industrial facilities and other targets.

The bomb was developed as part of the 1954 model ammunition family and has a corresponding appearance and design. It was created using common design and technological solutions, but also has differences associated with its large caliber.

FAB-9000 has a steel body with a reinforced head and thin walls. The head part of the body consists of several conical surfaces, to which an anti-ricochet ring is added. The central part of the body has the shape of a truncated cone, which tapers slightly towards the tail of the bomb. The shank is made in the form of a cone with several longitudinal planes connected by a transverse ring. The total length of the bomb exceeds 5 meters, and the body diameter is 1,2 meters. The actual weight of the product is about 9,4 tons.

The ammunition was loaded with a TNT charge weighing about 4,3 tons. To detonate it, a set of three fuses was used with the ability to set detonation modes. The fuses were installed in the sockets of the head and tail fairings.


FAB-9000 on transport trolleys. Photo Tu22.ru

During the tests, it was proven that the FAB-9000 has better combat qualities compared to other domestic non-nuclear bombs. The shock wave from the explosion of this bomb was guaranteed to destroy enemy personnel at a distance of up to 55-57 meters. Within a radius of 200-225 meters, the bomb could cause concussions and other injuries. The fragments of its hull scattered hundreds of meters, maintaining their destructive power.

The standard carriers of the FAB-9000 were domestic long-range bombers Tu-16, Tu-95, 3M and M4, which were in service in the mid-50s. Later they were joined by the Tu-22. The heavy bomb was transported on an internal sling using a bridge beam holder MBD6-16. Each carrier could take on board only one such ammunition.

Combat application


According to available data, since the adoption of the FAB-9000 bomb in various modifications - combat and inert - it has been repeatedly used in long-range aviation exercises. During these exercises, the crews practiced the use of such weapons in various situations. In addition, during these activities, the characteristics of the ammunition and its compliance with the design parameters were checked.

During this period, the Soviet Air Force did not participate in major armed conflicts and did not have the opportunity to test bombers and their weapons in real conditions. The situation changed only in the 1980s, during the war in Afghanistan. Then it was decided to use several types of heavy bombs to perform complex combat missions.

In the mid-1980s, the enemy, trying to defend against Soviet attacks, began placing their bases in caves. Only aviation could hit such targets, but it needed appropriate ammunition. To destroy such targets, various types of weapons were used, including heavy high-explosive aerial bombs.

Tu-16 aircraft and their crews from several long-range aviation regiments of the Air Force were involved in solving such problems. They attacked identified targets with large-caliber bombs, setting the fuses to explode instantly or with a delay. In the event of a close hit, the FAB-9000 caused the collapse of the cave roof and provoked a landslide that covered mountain roads and paths.


Test drop of FAB-9000 from a Tu-22 bomber, 1985. Photo Tu22.ru

In flat terrain, the effectiveness of the FAB-9000 was not so high. The shock wave easily destroyed adobe buildings, but the radius of destruction of manpower was insufficient. In addition, the plane could only drop one bomb. Under such conditions, bomber aircraft turned out to be less effective compared to attack aircraft or attack helicopters.

If conditions permitted, FAB-9000s were used quite actively. According to various sources, at least several hundred such ammunition were used during the Afghan war. For example, in the last three months of 1988 alone, 289 units were dropped on the Mujahideen. However, when you consider the consumption of smaller caliber ammunition, this number of hits seems quite modest.

At the beginning of 1985, the Iraqi Air Force turned to the USSR with a request for help in improving the combat qualities of the existing Tu-22 bombers. The Iraqi Air Force wanted to make their aircraft carriers of large-caliber bombs - FAB-5000 and FAB-9000. Soon, Soviet specialists developed methods for mounting and using such weapons on Tu-22 aircraft. In May of the same year, test flights began with the training use of heavy bombs. Despite all the difficulties, the work was completed successfully.

Having received instructions and the necessary equipment, the Iraqi Air Force began using high-explosive aerial bombs weighing 9000 kg in the war with Iran.

The combat mission that took place on February 16, 1986 is especially famous. Then Iraqi bombers attacked enemy troops on the island of Al Fao with only three bombs. This attack caused significant damage to the enemy and influenced the course of subsequent battles.

Unclear prospects


As far as we know, after 1988 FAB-9000 bombs were not used in actual combat missions.

There were rumors about the use of such weapons during the first war in Chechnya, but they were not confirmed. There have also been no recorded cases of such strikes being used abroad.


Museum items from the FAB series under the wing of the Tu-16. The one on the far left is FAB-9000. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Obviously, FAB-9000 is not used now. This is due to the fact that there are no suitable targets for them.

Back in Soviet times, the 3M and M-4 aircraft that remained in service were converted into tankers and lost the ability to use weapons. In the early 1990s they were withdrawn from service. In addition, during this period the Russian Air Force abandoned the obsolete Tu-16 and Tu-22, and also revised the composition fleet Tu-95 bombers.

Now our long-range aviation is equipped with Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and Tu-160 missile-carrying bombers in the original and modernized versions. They have sufficient carrying capacity to hang high-explosive bombs of the largest caliber, but this capability is not used.

The strategic Tu-95MS and Tu-160 are equipped only with cruise missiles, while the long-range Tu-22M3 mainly use medium-caliber bombs. It wasn't until 2022 that they used a limited number of FAB-3000s.

Apparently, the Russian Aerospace Forces are currently unable to use the heaviest high-explosive bomb. The rejection of such weapons is quite understandable and justified. The FAB-9000 is difficult to operate and use, and the lack of guidance systems does not allow its potential to be effectively used. In addition, 9-ton ammunition is redundant for most combat missions. Smaller-caliber guided bombs or high-precision missiles do an excellent job of basic combat work.

Mixed experience


70 years ago, Soviet aviation received a unique ammunition - FAB-9000. In terms of its characteristics, this aerial bomb was superior to all others, with the exception of nuclear ones. It was planned to be used to solve particularly complex and important combat missions.

However, practice has shown that a bomb weighing 9000 kg has a limited scope and is redundant in most situations. This influenced the development of other types and types of aircraft weapons. As a result, the direction of heavy aerial bombs did not develop, and modern weapons took the path of limited combat load and increased accuracy. This approach has long proven its effectiveness.
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    28 June 2024 05: 08
    As a result, the direction of heavy aerial bombs did not develop,
    It's a pity, it's a loud thing!
    1. +7
      28 June 2024 05: 18
      if you throw it into an industrial zone... there will be no one to give up.
    2. -2
      28 June 2024 05: 34
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      As a result, the direction of heavy aerial bombs did not develop,
      It's a pity, it's a loud thing!

      Why waste time on trifles? Let's dump the explosives car? feel Absurddd. recourse
      1. +5
        28 June 2024 05: 37
        During the Afghan war, at least several hundred such ammunition were used.
        So they were effective...
        1. +3
          28 June 2024 06: 23
          So they were effective...
          They mainly hit Panjshir in caves. The result is not particularly known - that several warehouses and bases were destroyed for sure, and how many spirits were destroyed there - request
        2. +3
          30 June 2024 10: 16
          No. A series of 6 FAB-500 is better than one FAB-3000. A series of 6 FAB-1500 is better than one FAB-9000. Not even all the explosives are started there, judging by the information from your Internet. It is a highly specialized weapon, and in the conditions of modern air defense it is useless. Just suppress the Basmachi in the mountains.
    3. +3
      5 July 2024 14: 20
      There is such a wonderful thing as ODAB-9000. It booms like 44 tons of TNT, but in the air. Within a radius of 500-600 meters, everything turns into fine dust. Another 500-600 meters to the radius - everything is carried away from the surface of the earth to Benka’s mother and a person cannot survive there either. That would be something to attach the UMPC to.
      1. +1
        5 July 2024 14: 34
        ODAB-9000[1], It is called: Aviation vacuum bomb of increased power (AVBPM) Dad is the bomb!
  2. +7
    28 June 2024 06: 07
    I think if something like this had fallen on Azovstal or Avdeevka at one time, everything would have ended much faster there
  3. +2
    28 June 2024 07: 15
    Yes, it’s like “it’s dying.” During the Great Patriotic War, they tested a radio-controlled aircraft TB-3 with a built-in 5-ton bomb. During the flight, the plane was lost due to bad weather. But he fell somewhere.
  4. +2
    28 June 2024 07: 16
    Not less than a few hundred... not more than a few thousand.... Where do you get such momentum from?! It hurts the eyes to read such illiterate constructions, which unfortunately are becoming more and more common. You can write no more or no less than a certain amount. For example, no more than 5000 or no less than 300. But phrases like these... well, at least proofread them after writing!
  5. +5
    28 June 2024 07: 20
    A bomb of this caliber has a huge demoralizing effect on the enemy; after its use, a mushroom cloud rises, which reaches a height of up to 6000m and resembles a nuclear explosion.
    1. +8
      28 June 2024 07: 54
      Do not confuse it with ODAB 9000. It is not surprising that FAB 9000 has a TNT equivalent of 4,5 tons, and ODAB has 44 tons. Guess why at once. In the framework of the existence of odaba 9000 - I can’t imagine why it’s needed - 2x3000 will do the same job without any problems and even better, falling simultaneously nearby they also interfere with each other (by shock waves, naturally)
      1. +2
        28 June 2024 08: 15
        Quote from Enceladus
        Do not confuse with ODAB 9000

        I’m not confusing anything, we were talking about the FAB-9000
        Quote from Enceladus
        2x3000 will do the same job without any problems and even better, falling simultaneously nearby they also interfere with each other (by shock waves, naturally)

        Ah, here it is very confusing and incomprehensible.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. The comment was deleted.
                      11. The comment was deleted.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. The comment was deleted.
                      14. The comment was deleted.
                      15. The comment was deleted.
                      16. The comment was deleted.
                      17. The comment was deleted.
                      18. The comment was deleted.
                      19. The comment was deleted.
                      20. The comment was deleted.
                      21. The comment was deleted.
                      22. The comment was deleted.
                      23. The comment was deleted.
                      24. The comment was deleted.
                      25. The comment was deleted.
                      26. The comment was deleted.
        2. +3
          28 June 2024 08: 56
          Something almost immediately prevented me from editing it - I deleted the previous one. Here's something new.
          Threat. It doesn’t even allow me to delete it, and no more than a minute has passed. Moderators - the previous message can be deleted..

          Fab 9000 is equivalent to 10 times less powerful than Odab and has the same weight. From her, yes, there is a gray fungus to the skies, so to speak.
          I don’t think it’s necessary to explain the principle of operation? The FAB has a high-explosive effect at close ranges (the pressure of the explosive gases itself), then a high-explosive effect (this is already a shock air wave generated by the shock wave of the explosive gases), and fragmentation (the mass of cast iron in the fabric + - half of the bomb itself). The shock wave is supersonic, but as it moves away, its speed drops, as does the pressure drop. If the humidity is high, a condensation cap or even a sphere may form due to sudden condensation of steam.
          ODAB works on a different principle: it explodes, as a rule, above the surface and sprays an aerosol (oxerane, etc.) - which is suspended in the air. At the same time, there are secondary detonators that fly apart along with the aerosol and then go off - I initiate combustion!!!, and not an explosion of this aerosol in the oxygen of the air. This, firstly, generates a characteristic wave of negative pressure (not a vacuum!!!) + secondly, due to several points of detonation, the waves interfere, which can cause pressure differences of 0.6-0.7 bar - which is generally close in characteristics to small tactical charges (0.1kt)....but again, odab has combustion and a subsonic wave with all the ensuing consequences.
          In addition, fabs are used on the ground/obstacle with some slowdown and generate craters themselves, spending a significant part of the explosion energy on this, and most of the fragments remain in the crater. Odub spends all the energy precisely on creating a shock wave.
          Quote: bober1982
          Ah, here it is very confusing and incomprehensible.

          I don’t seem to be a gypsy, I don’t twist, I don’t spin, and I don’t want to confuse! 2 three-ton tanks falling next to each other at the same time due to wave interference create a stronger pressure difference. And the effect will be better than that of 1 bomb of the same total weight, because the speed and pressure of the shock wave is independent of the mass of the explosive (the initial one for TNT is 6,5 km/s, for RDX it can reach 8 km/s). Therefore, even if you explode 100 tons of tola, the pressure drop will be the same, just because of the larger volume of gases released during the explosion, it will spread over a greater distance. This joke is due to the fact that the explosive is not a point charge and it does not explode itself instantly throughout the entire volume, while the outer layers have already been detonated - the outer layers are waiting in line - roughly speaking, the shock wave front will be “thicker”, if I may say so
          1. +2
            28 June 2024 09: 31
            I didn’t even say a word about ODAB, we were talking about FAB-9000, about the fact that after its use the mushroom rises to 6 * km (source - memories of pilots and navigators from the Nizhyn and Zyabrovsky regiments)
            1. +2
              28 June 2024 09: 41
              Quote: bober1982
              that after its use the mushroom rises to 6 * km (source - memories of pilots and navigators from the Nizhyn and Zyabrovsky regiments)

              Yes, I understood and there was no need to repeat it lol Well, if it rises, it means it rises soldier . I just find it hard to believe... because... an increase in explosive power by 2 times does not mean that everything is 2 times, there is a power-law dependence (there are formulas) and that it will not be very visually different from 1,5 thin - just 2-3 times (although the explosives in it 5 times more). But the odab grips are really impressive, even the odab 500 is visually like the fab-1500. Therefore, in any case, ODAB 9000 will produce a lot compared to a similar factory - I wrote about this - and about the impact on the target - everything here is fundamentally different. drinks hi
              1. +2
                28 June 2024 09: 49
                Quote from Enceladus
                Well, if it rises, it means it rises

                And, my respect for you.
          2. ANB
            0
            28 June 2024 10: 07
            . while the outer layers have already been detonated

            In a torpedo BZO, the fuse detonator is located inside the explosive charge. And detonation starts from within. Do bombs work differently?
            1. +2
              28 June 2024 10: 42
              SO the shock wave inside or outside (if, for example, it is a directed explosion and the detonator is on one side of the charge) does not immediately spread to the entire volume of the explosive. Just like in ODAB, the detonation of the aerosol does not occur instantly. It’s just that explosives have a higher detonation speed (6,5 km/s) - the process there is associated with the disintegration of explosive molecules (they are unstable and break into separate parts), and combustion is an exothermic reaction associated, on the contrary, with the combination of fuel molecules with an oxidizer. Therefore, the combustion rates in aerosols do not exceed the speed of wave propagation in the medium and can increase with increasing pressure or the temperature increases throughout the entire volume (for example, in diesel engines).
              In general, detonation and combustion are two different things. For example, the burning speed of gasoline in an engine does not exceed +-35m/s. With diesel it’s a different matter - there, due to adiabatic compression, the temperature rises and ignition occurs in the entire volume at once (something similar can happen with denzin, they are also called detonation, but this is not so, it’s just that ignition does not occur from the spark plug, but in the entire volume at once , but this is also combustion). Gunpowder - even more interesting with them. Their burning rate increases as pressure increases. in air you have a speed of a couple of mm per second, and at a pressure of thousands of bars - already up to 1,5 km/sec
              1. ANB
                0
                28 June 2024 14: 29
                Actually, I didn’t ask about the whole process, but whether it starts outside or inside. I roughly understand the chemical reactions of combustion and the operation of explosives.
              2. +3
                28 June 2024 18: 47
                In general, detonation and combustion are two different things.
                Naturally different. Detonation is when an oxidation reaction (combustion) is caused by the shock wave itself, including in the substance. There is such a textbook, a classic one - Ya.B. Zeldovich "Shock waves".
                1. +2
                  28 June 2024 18: 57
                  Seryozha... I peed above lol , but sorry... detonation is not an exothermic oxidation process. The molecules of high explosives are in an unstable state and are inclined, like uranium, to fission and, due to electrostatic repulsion, provide that same energy (Coulomb repulsion, but not as powerful as during the decay of a nucleus, a nuclear bomb). And combustion is the process of exothermic oxidation of some fuel by some oxidizer.
                  Quote: Aviator_
                  There is such a textbook, a classic one - Ya.B. Zeldovich "Shock waves"

                  Yes, I remember this one, I was leafing through it, but it was more about the topic, and not the composition of one way or another energy source.
                  1. +2
                    28 June 2024 19: 01
                    I actually never dealt with these topics, I just recorded ballistic and muzzle waves. Although the questions are interesting, the specialty is somewhat different. I am dividing the hours for the new school year. They just arrived. And there they forgot a whole group - they were there in the fall semester, but not in the spring semester. I'm expecting an answer on Monday. By the way, this group of ballistics specialists.
                    1. +1
                      28 June 2024 19: 05
                      Well, at our sapper school they talked about such things... and not only in school, but also at the department - after all, even though it’s not a chemistry department, but a physics department, we were also not far from chemistry - and in the evenings the top of my head was blue drinks laughing good
              3. The comment was deleted.
            2. +2
              28 June 2024 18: 49
              Do bombs work differently?
              It can be arranged there any way you like. The main problem is for all the substance to react, otherwise it will be scattered to no avail.
              1. +1
                28 June 2024 19: 11
                Well, with explosives it is more or less normal, although yes, not in particularly sealed containers it tends to react incompletely - this is evidenced by hard black smoke.... in fabs this is noticeable, because the mass of the explosive is large, and its shock wave speed is the lowest among almost all high explosives. And who would wash up at a rest stop for non-living purposes to cut firewood and branches.... sometimes they burned fire checkers (200k/400) wassat A very hot, smoky flame... But you shouldn’t cover it... it won’t explode, of course - but it’s annoying soldier In our slang they called it margarine. Why - idk... apparently because of the similar packaging request recourse
                But remember the first nuclear ones... there the efficiency did not exceed a few percent, most of the uranium and plutonium simply scattered without having time to react, because there, after all, neutrons fly at near-light speeds and many manage to fly away - without giving birth to descendants.
                1. +2
                  28 June 2024 20: 51
                  there, after all, neutrons fly at near-light speeds
                  Well, there are no such neutrons there. And the use of the radiation implosion method made it possible to thoroughly improve the nuclear charge (more precisely, the thermonuclear one), this is the mid-50s, almost simultaneously with us and the Americans. Only recently the name of the method was declassified; I read about it in a history book.
                  1. +2
                    28 June 2024 21: 44
                    Quote: Aviator_
                    Well, there are no such neutrons there.

                    Perhaps I’m just talking about the fact that the speeds are an order of magnitude higher, that’s why the implosion was invented, then neutron reflectors... which increased the efficiency... then thermoyat appeared with a boost boost... although the first tests were on a bikini... half silent the ocean was infected with isotopes
          3. +1
            28 June 2024 18: 44
            If the humidity is high, a condensation cap or even a sphere may form due to sudden condensation of steam.
            Alexey, condensate is formed in the so-called N-wave, into which the shock wave degenerates as it develops. There is first a pressure jump, then a vacuum jump. It is in the rarefaction jump that moisture condenses. Remember the footage of the passage of a shock wave during nuclear tests - there, garbage from the house first flies along the wave, and then against it. In general, a lot of interesting physical effects occur there - for example, when Sumerian boats attacked our ship in the fog in the Bosporus area a couple of years ago, the fog suddenly cleared after the explosion of the first boat, the rest became visible and they were dealt with quickly. Here the action of the shock wave caused the droplets to enlarge and settle.
            1. +3
              28 June 2024 19: 02
              Well, in this regard, just to make it more fun good
              Quote: Aviator_
              condensate forms in the so-called N-wave

              Overall, there's nothing to argue about here. drinks But the most rewarding one is you know where good The bomb technician in me enjoys it wassat
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. The comment was deleted.
                      11. The comment was deleted.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. The comment was deleted.
                      14. The comment was deleted.
                      15. The comment was deleted.
                      16. The comment was deleted.
                      17. The comment was deleted.
                      18. The comment was deleted.
                      19. The comment was deleted.
                      20. The comment was deleted.
                      21. The comment was deleted.
                      22. The comment was deleted.
                      23. The comment was deleted.
                      24. -1
                        29 June 2024 14: 26
                        Quote from Enceladus
                        YES, I deliver pizza for the largest telecommunications company in the Russian Federation

                        Is it in Rosintel, or what?
                      25. +2
                        29 June 2024 14: 29
                        No, in one of the 3, although I worked in another one of them, but the coronavirus, isolation, etc., and some personal events - I “left” for free... although they paid me compensation so that it wouldn’t come to court - We agreed in general. feel
                      26. 0
                        29 June 2024 14: 31
                        Quote from Enceladus
                        No, in one of the 3,

                        Ah, everything is clear.
                      27. +2
                        29 June 2024 14: 53
                        I worked at Rostec, in one of the subsidiaries in internal audit.... well, this is a tricky thing... When I was a little surprised, they immediately asked me to go outside... like you’re not ready for the feeding trough... "here are some serious guys and we’re a cow milk" I don’t remember how Ducalis put it am Yes, okay...
                      28. -2
                        29 June 2024 16: 00
                        Quote from Enceladus
                        I don’t remember how Ducalis put it

                        This is my cow and we are milking her!
                      29. +1
                        29 June 2024 16: 03
                        I seem to have attached an excerpt... or is this a continuation of the topic about explosives, shock waves and the ZND model? wassat
                      30. 0
                        29 June 2024 21: 02
                        And who drew the “shock wave” - Churchill?
                        Andrzej, she doesn’t depend on Winston Churchill in any way. See the textbook by G.N. Abramovich "Applied Gas Dynamics", there is quite accessible information about the formation of these waves.
                      31. -1
                        29 June 2024 22: 09
                        Serjulio, the question was not for you.
                        And the genius who reduces explosive molecules by detonation and receives energy from clown movement...

                        Please give him the classic definitions:

                        Detonation (French detoner - explode, from Latin detono - thunder), combustion process mixtures of gaseous, solid and liquid flammable substances with an oxidizer, spreading with supersonic speed in the form of a detonation wave.


                        Explosive detonation is a form of their explosive transformation that is caused by passing through a charge. shock wave (HC) and is characterized by a constant and highest speed of propagation of the chemical transformation for given conditions and the state of the explosive.


                        A shock wave is a compression region with a sharp jump in pressure, density and temperature at the leading front, propagating in environment at supersonic speed.


                        You can also tell him about speed of sound in the air and other media. Because it considers the minimum detonation speed to be 2 km/s. This is obscurantism!
                        The detonation speed of diesel fuel in the atmosphere is 1,8 km/s, and black powder is only 600 m/s.

                        And explain to him why, during the detonation of large masses of explosives, much more energy is released. Using the example of a saltpeter explosion in Lebanon.
                        2750 tons of saltpeter are equivalent to 926 tons of TNT, but only in a very fresh state - over time, the salt degrades, and after 6 years in a humid climate, the estimated capacity can be approximately 175 tons of TNT.
                        But the power of the explosion is estimated at 2,2 kilotons of TNT... How did this happen??? And there is no magic here.
                        Despite the fact that the TNT equivalent of nitrate is 0,42 and the detonation speed is 2,55 km/s.
                      32. 0
                        29 June 2024 22: 14
                        Andrzej, since you did not communicate in private, but on the forum, the question was asked by everyone. The shock wave is the second solution to the gas dynamics equations. There is another solution - this is an acoustic wave. But it's probably too complicated here. hi
                      33. 0
                        29 June 2024 22: 39
                        Serjulio, not yet up to the Hugoniot equations and the Zeldovich model.
                        It is enough to reduce the molecules, the absence of detonation in ODAB, the disintegration of molecules into smaller ones and other feverish nonsense from a physicist and a part-time cellular accountant...

                        Claims that detonation is not combustion at all...
                        Here's the story: Zeldovich proposed a model for the propagation of a plane detonation wave in a gas: the front of the shock wave adiabatically compresses the gas to the temperature at which chemical combustion reactions, which in turn support the stable propagation of the shock wave.

                        Black TNT explosions...
                        How many RGDesheks I threw - no black smoke. But there is TNT there.

                        + Such gems of spelling that you are amazed...
                  2. 0
                    29 June 2024 12: 58
                    Quote from Enceladus
                    This is the disintegration of a molecule into smaller ones - which, due to Coulomb repulsion, also release energy.

                    Interesting description. Where do they get the charge in order to repel in Coulomb fashion?
                    1. +1
                      29 June 2024 13: 05
                      Quote: DenVB
                      Where do they get the charge?
                      It’s as if there is a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons (we won’t go deeper), there are electrons on different arbitals and there are unoccupied valence sites - from which molecules are formed from atoms. So molecular bonds can be very weak and can barely restrain their separation. The initiating substance serves as a push... and trinitrotoluene and a kick are enough to break the bonds. When glycerin reacts in dehydrated nitric acid (a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acid, in this case sulfuric acid loves water and binds it), the esterification reaction of glycerin occurs. The molecule is very unstable and when exposed to temperatures above 25 degrees or mechanical stress, the bonds in the molecule are destroyed and this leads to detonation, a rapid (about 1 ms) transformation of liquid into gas with all that it entails. If the explosive volume is large, then the reaction occurs at the front of the shock wave (Jocquet plane in the ZND model). More questions?
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. 0
                        29 June 2024 13: 20
                        Hexogen is much easier and safer to obtain, and even more so. The truth is that this was not required. On the hunt there was quite enough food to warm up and other fun things to do - well, now of course everything is stricter with this, but about 30 years ago there were no particular problems. I don’t touch hot spots - there’s a lot of this stuff there and even a baby can drain the same amount in a steam bath
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      28 June 2024 22: 01
      You are unlikely to surprise anyone at SVO with large explosions and smoke. Some huts are loaded with more ammunition, and then one shell flies in and leaves a lunar crater. The motorcycle league sent under its own power to enemy positions was packed with about 5 tons of all sorts of different things, as far as I remember.
  6. Owl
    0
    28 June 2024 08: 10
    Excessive power to hit a single target; to hit (destroy) a target that has several important objects (structures), it is more effective to use several bombs of lower power, let a larger number of aviation be used, but several accurate explosions from 1 kg or 500 kg of bombs will always be more useful than one, from 5 kg of ammunition.
    1. ANB
      +2
      28 June 2024 10: 09
      . but several accurate explosions from 1 kg or 500 kg of bombs will always be more useful than one from 5 kg of ammunition

      Not always. Depends on the goal. Well, it’s clear that accurate 9t is better than just 9t.
  7. 0
    28 June 2024 08: 29
    Completely dispose of all reserves for bridges and dams in Ukraine and remove them from service. But for the prestige of the country (like an aircraft carrier), adopt the ODAB-8000 (lucky number for the Chinese)! Yes
  8. +1
    28 June 2024 10: 57
    Eh, I wish I could fill the whole of Skakland with such FABs!
  9. 0
    28 June 2024 16: 10
    Something tells me that with a hit accuracy even like that of the UMPC (or even more accurate), the power is already excessive. With a DIRECT hit, 1500 will destroy any target. 9000 made sense when bombing accuracy was low, since it made it possible to hit a target when it exploded at a greater distance.
    1. +2
      28 June 2024 20: 56
      9 tons were supposed to be buried as close as possible to underground structures and destroy them with an underground explosion. How they were actually used in Afghanistan.
    2. -1
      29 June 2024 13: 55
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      9000 made sense when bombing accuracy was low, since it made it possible to hit the target when it exploded at a greater distance.

      Markovsky writes that heavy aerial bombs (FAB-3000 and higher) were initially intended against ships.
      1. +1
        29 June 2024 13: 58
        It is somehow highly doubtful that a bomber would be able to strike under a ship worthy of a three-tonne ship with a free-falling bomb.
        1. -1
          29 June 2024 14: 03
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          It is somehow highly doubtful that a bomber would be able to strike under a ship worthy of a three-tonne ship with a free-falling bomb.

          What's suspicious about this? A three- to five-ton bomb can cause heavy damage to a ship, even if it explodes tens of meters away from it - the shock wave in water is much more destructive than in the air.
          1. +1
            29 June 2024 14: 15
            It is doubtful that a bomber of this size will come within bombing range of a cruiser-level ship.

            In the era of the Tu-22, large ships already had full-scale air defense systems.
            1. -2
              29 June 2024 14: 48
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              In the era of the Tu-22, large ships already had full-scale air defense systems.

              These bombs are from 1954.
  10. 0
    28 June 2024 17: 33
    If it were not for air defense, then use the An-124 as a bomber... The smaller the bomb, the larger the “carpet”. With 5-10 mm of iron balls poured out simply from a height, the result would be good hail. Radars and KAZs on tanks would have been destroyed decently. If an ordinary piece of ice during a hailstorm can cause so much trouble.
    1. +1
      29 June 2024 14: 02
      Gigantomania is a vicious practice.

      For large aircraft there are too many non-obvious factors: cost of a flight hour, suitable airfields, difficulty of maintenance, visibility, media effect of loss...

      As for me, we need the cheapest and most widespread drone with a payload capacity of 2 tons and a range of a thousand kilometers. It would perform the same tasks as the Su-34, only much cheaper and without risk.
      1. 0
        29 June 2024 15: 27
        This is a purely rhetorical calculation. This option is not at all suitable for work where there is enemy air defense. If you count the flight hour, count how many sorties you need to make to send 120 tons of bombs or missiles to the enemy. Well, it’s stupid to spill metal balls somewhere over a city abroad, if anything can be attributed to a malfunction of the cargo fastening. If the Russian Federation did not give a damn about the devastation and losses of civilians, following the example of the United States, the actions of the army would be radically different. Ukraine is just one of many gaming tables in the global battle.
        1. 0
          29 June 2024 16: 10
          Everything is more complicated.

          It is important not just to throw 120 tons of bombs somewhere, but to destroy as many targets as possible. Even if you throw flechettes from an An-124, you will only be able to cover a certain area. The enemy may not want to densely position uncovered manpower and equipment in this area.

          It is likely that the same targets will reach the same targets more effectively (and cheaper) with Fab-250 heels (if not 30), but they hit exactly where they need to be.
          1. 0
            29 June 2024 20: 08
            We read and don’t understand - what I’m talking about is that if you don’t care about civilian losses and destruction, then carpet bombing will happen again when there is no air defense. During the Second World War, the Allies bombed specific targets in Germany, right?! Stupidly demolishing cities. But ours in this northwestern district do not need to demolish absolutely all the villages, even not cities in Ukraine, for a clean sweep. And run after each target throughout the entire territory. We ourselves will pull ourselves to the front there and destroy them. And it’s easier for artillery to shoot in targeted areas. 9 tons with correction will be cheaper than a rocket, the same hydroelectric power stations and thermal power plants will carry out. Whether it’s in the mountains or over a pile of concrete, she doesn’t care. Readers, you are turning rhetorical analysis into debate.
            1. 0
              29 June 2024 21: 54
              Losses of civilians mean increased consumption of ammunition) they, the population, are not deliberately bombed (as a rule).
  11. 0
    28 June 2024 17: 34
    It’s strange, if it’s working, you need to throw it away, why store it? Any bridge, thermal power plant, railway station is suitable as a target.
    1. +1
      28 June 2024 19: 00
      The trouble is that there is no UMPC for such a device, and air defense will not allow you to bomb directly. It’s tempting, of course, but I feel sorry for the carrier and pilots.
  12. +1
    28 June 2024 19: 59
    a 9000 kg bomb has a limited scope and is overkill in most situations

    The power of a warhead is never excessive!
    1. -2
      29 June 2024 12: 50
      Quote: Luminman
      The power of a warhead is never excessive!

      This would be true if the production of the warhead and its delivery to the explosion site were free.
  13. -3
    28 June 2024 22: 06
    Don't tell our lazy generals! Let them develop a normal new penetrating bomb with normal aerodynamics, and not resurrect ancient bombs that have rusted in warehouses and were seen by Stalin.
  14. 0
    29 June 2024 14: 19
    For 1949 - quite. In Afghanistan they used it out of desperation, because a couple of Basmachi with a DShK in a cave on a serpentine road could easily block even a battalion or a regiment. And there was nothing to smoke them out. It was possible to throw without fear of air defense. Today there are no delivery means, no guidance, no point in such cast iron.
    1. +3
      29 June 2024 18: 21
      The meaning of such mega-cast iron is exactly one. Damage to particularly strong and deeply buried objects.
      The vast majority of metro stations and mine shafts will not survive such an impact. Bridges and dams are burning again...
  15. +1
    1 July 2024 14: 37
    This bomb corresponds to a Grand Slam product from WWII. It was used against particularly strong bridges and hydraulic structures (mainly dams).
    The trick of this weapon is to create a seismic wave when it falls and burrows close to the target object.
    1. 0
      1 July 2024 14: 45
      To reliably hit long-range targets, it is advisable to develop a planar body kit with a fairing and a thruster. The bomb body plays the role of a load-bearing beam. It can be launched from the fuselage of a Tu-95, retrofitted to transport such a product “on the back,” similar to the E3M retrofit for transporting the fuel tank of the Energia rocket.
  16. 0
    5 July 2024 00: 56
    It's sad how many comments have been deleted. What are we afraid of?
  17. 0
    19 July 2024 10: 16
    Old ammunition.
    The dagger is much better
  18. 0
    23 July 2024 11: 02
    The use of large bombs and all sorts of weapons is incompatible with the policy of cutting off the tail piece by piece.