Talk:GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Could we get a picture of the bomb with a size reference? Like a person standing next to it? I mean, the Grand Slam bomb was 22,000 pounds and actually hung out of the belly of the largest Allied bomber aircraft. This is 5 tons more than that. Just how big is this waste of taxpayer money/exercise in penis compensation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 01:15, March 9, 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sketch that compares a human to the MOAB, Grand Slam, and Daisy Cutter, but I think copyright issues would preclude using it on this site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-comp.gif Oralloy 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the point of this page? The US DoD stuffs a bunch of ammonium nitrate in a big can, puts it on television, and it becomes worthy of an encyclopedia article? Wji

  • It is not ammonium nitrate, it is AL powder that is around 14 nanometers is in size, a booster charge of TNT and a secondary charge of RDX. PETN 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Composition H-6 has the aluminum, TNT, and RDX mixed together evenly. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

m.o.a.Blast or m.o.a.Burst? Both seem pretty popular. Graft

Blast. [1] Hephaestos

Wji, I seem to recall this article got created because its acronym is the same as the Biblical term Moab -- which arouses interest: curiosity, disbelief, outrage, whatever. Also, America used the MOAB in the 2003 Iraq war. Otherwise, ordnance isn't that interesting to most readers. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I suppose someone should tell the people at Daisy cutter, Thermobaric weapon, Wire-guided missile, Scud, MIM-104 Patriot, Full metal jacket bullet, Hollow point bullet, or any other similar article that we're not interested.

Guys! This is the MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS! The largest bomb in history that's not a nuke! It deserves an article.Philwelch 07:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's the largest bomb in the current US arsenal that is not a nuke. The T-12 that the US produced during the 1950s had about twice as much explosive power, I believe. [2] But anyway, MOAB still ought to have an article, if only because it is occasionally in the news and is a notable arm for its use in Iraq and largeness, etc. --Fastfission 03:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Grand Slam bomb is the largest combat tested as the arms salesmen like to point out when selling weapons.

Well I got rid of the second paragraph about the contrived acronym. Three things: a) I don't think it had anything to do with the issue at hand. b) I'm pretty sure the fact that Moab is also a region in (I think) Israel doesn't mean it was named because of that, I think everyone is pretty much sure the acronym means both 'Massive ordinance...' and/or 'Mother of...' but is not a reference to the region. c)We don't need an entire paragraph explaining something that is already stated in the first paragraph.

I hope OPSEC [3] is being considered here. This is an open source.


Contents

[edit] MOAB use

This article says the MOAB wasn't used in Iraq, what on earth caused those huge nuclearesque mushroom clouds over baghdad we all saw on the news during 'operation shock and awe'? Everyone thought it was a nuke, then another went off, and another, all the size of small TNW's yet the media swiftly started calling them MOAB's. Jachin 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Those were perfectly ordinary everyday bombs, almost certainly 2,000 lbs or smaller. Almost any large explosion will cause a "nuclearesque mushroom cloud". As for the media, I wouldn't trust them to be accurate on military matters. My all time favourite quote was from a news crew on a helicopter in Gulf War 1... an F-15 came to have a look at them and was described as "an F-111 from a nearby carrier". BobThePirate 11:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes they were used in Iraq. Also, if you open Google Earth and look at MOTSU in Eastern North Carolina, you can see 3 of them about to be loaded on ship. Here is the exact: 34° 0'38.95"N 77°58'1.37"W Also, sligtly east there are 2 emtpy sleds.
Look at this article here: http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1761039.html or here http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.moab.gulf/
Cheers... 70.125.43.99 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Your links show that some were SHIPPED to Iraq. That isn't the same as saying they were used in Iraq.
They may well have been used in Iraq, but I don't think it has been reported if they were. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOAB Power

It should be mentioned that a MOAB is IN NO WAY comparable to a nuclear weapon because: a)It is a conventional weapon, b)It has nowhere near as much power as a nuclear weapon (0.08 kilotons I believe, as opposed to the 10-12 kilotons of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs), c)It does not have the same radioactive aftereffects. Feel free to debate this, but I think that the number of confusing references to nuclear effects should be cleaned up. Any thoughts? --The1exile 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant kilotons, not megatons.
With 9 tons of explosive that is 1.35 times as powerful as TNT, the MOAB should have a blast similar to 12 tons of TNT, or 0.012 kilotons. Some of the smallest nuclear weapons (like the W54 warhead) could be set as low as 10 tons, or 0.01 kilotons. Oralloy 14:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Although, your rational seems plausible, think about it this way. Take away the EMP, the radiation and the thermal wave, and what you have left is a MOAB (PRESSURE). 70.125.43.99 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H6 Explosive

Links verifying that the MOAB uses the explosive "H-6":

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/CLAMO-Public.nsf/0/85256a1c006ac77385256cf30062f470/Body/M2/MOAB%20Weapon%20Review.doc?OpenElement

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/moab.pdf Oralloy 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Links that show H-6 as being 1.35 times as powerful as TNT:
Page 26 of this PDF about older military "blast effects" spreadsheets lists TNT equivalencies:
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Weapons/files/Old%20BEC%20papers.pdf
It shows H-6 as being 1.35 times as powerful as TNT on average.
Version 4 (dated 2000) of the spreadsheet is available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military//library/report/2000/BECV4.xls
It still lists the same TNT equivalencies as in the PDF document.
The military is using version 6 of the spreadsheet now. But so far as I know, 5 and 6 haven't been released to civilians. They may be classified. Oralloy 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


    • You need to note that this is a Thermobaric Varient of H6. There is also a slurry version that is classified. H6 is a bastard child of RDX (Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine), 14 nanogram aluminum and TNT (trinotoluene). The TNT is a booster charge that spreads the aluminum talc airborn, mixing it with air (which happens to be about 1/3 oxygen). When the 14 nano AL particles spread out, they start to rust and release hydrogen as the water binds to the particles. This starts the increase of heat in the area. The second charge then goes off that starts the aluminum talc burning in what is known as a pressure wave. This pressure wave is discribed here: Thermobaric_weapons#Weapon_effects and here Nuclear_explosion#Blast_damage
The Slurry version is just like the BLU-82, only obviously bigger. 70.125.43.99 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Also look here: Talk:Shoulder-Launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon
Peace out! 70.125.43.99 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
H-6 is a specific composition. If it were altered to be a thermobaric explosive, it would no longer be H-6.
Also, here is Pic's homepage: http://www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/index.asp
...Cheers
PETN 01:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The PAX explosives are based on DNAN (dinitroanisole), which makes them melt-pour explosives instead of polymer-bonded explosives.
These explosives are described a bit in this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6648998.html
I wouldn't be surprised if we switched over to something like PAX-28 once the TNT ran out, but I haven't heard that this has happened yet. Oralloy 08:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Simply having aluminum in the explosive does not make it count as a thermobaric explosive. Many explosives contain about 20% aluminum because it reacts with the large molecular fragments left just after the explosive detonation, adding to the energy of the bomb.
A thermobaric explosive contains much larger quantities of aluminum (or other fuel) that continues to react with oxygen in the air where it is detonated.
Note this page on thermobarics: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/thermobaric.htm
At the bottom they list three timescales for the explosion. #1 is the actual detonation of the primary explosive. #2 is the burning of the molecular fragments from the detonated explosive. This is where the aluminum in explosives like H-6 come in. And #3 is the timescale of the burning of the excess fuel in a thermobaric explosive. Oralloy 08:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, the aluminum in H-6 is not separate, but mixed in with the TNT and RDX.
I am not sure what the advantage would be to filling the MOAB with a thermobaric explosive, since it was designed to be exploded aboveground. Thermobarics work best in enclosed spaces.
The reports of a slurry filled weapon originated when the bomb was first made, when reporters assumed it contained the same kind of explosive as the Daisy Cutter. Using a slurry had an advantage with a fat bomb like the daisy cutter, since normal high explosive would form voids in it if it was cast in such a bomb. I don't see how a slurry would be an advantage in a narrow bomb like the MOAB. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot argue what I cannot touch. Shotguns are illegal by the Geneva Convention, and heavens knows, I have never carried one... = ) PETN 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the wiki link for H-6 in this section refers to RDX, implying that it is a synonym. As noted here and elsewhere, H-6 is a mixture that includes RDX. --Morkilus 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] insidious vandalism here?

check the history, some content was removed I think. I am trying to piece it all back together but may have missed some pieces... walk the diff starting about here: [4] to see what I mean. Several anons probably need warning too. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

well, just one I think. I warned that one. The next two anon edits tried to remove the vandalism but didn't realise they were omitting previously deleted materials, I think. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] couple problems with the article

  1. This munition is not particularly similar to the BLU-82 at all. It bears a passing resemblance, in that it is dropped from a cargo plane, and makes a big flash-bang-etc. However, the "daisy cutter" (and I think that term should be removed, as well) is a slurry, rather than a standard HE charge. Additionally, the BLU-82 is designed to drop nose-first, and detonate a few inches off the ground, thus clearing vegetation. The MOAB glides. That's why it has control surfaces. If this is an antipersonnel weapon, the "air blast" name makes sense, as it would be extremely effective as an overpressure weapon (see thermobaric weapon, above).
  2. The "pound for pound" line is idiotic. Pound for pound, I'd go with the 5.56 NATO. The article is biased in tone, and explicitly in several places.
Avriette 22:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good comments! I happened to stumble across this article thanks to someone advocating a deletion be MOABed, and spotted vandalism, so I certainly am not an expert, but why not consider trying to rewrite the article to improve it and remove WP:POV? ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking of linking it into the replacement for Nuclear bunker buster and RNEP (see here). At any rate, I will change it around a little. It's kind of strikingly POV. Avriette 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how the MOAB would be related to the nuclear bunker buster. It is not designed to penetrate the ground.
You might be interested in the Massive Ordnance Penetrator though. Oralloy 15:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A MOAB will kill anything sealed underground as long as it has the space for air to exit. It would send a blast of overpressure into the void, which would either make yout ears pop, or rupture your intestine. If the overpressure did not kill you, you would wish it had, because now all the oxygen is gone because of the burning AL powder. Sorry for being graphic, but I am sure it prooved my point. PETN 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
A MOAB would have to penetrate the ground first. It is designed to explode aboveground. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Read above, I don't want to respond to all of these. It is Thermobaric. There is a slurry version. The one that bombed Florida was H-6. Thermobarics will suck the air out of mine shafts that are miles deep... PETN 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons Effects

I see there is now a section called weapons effects, which claims that the MOAB is a thermobaric weapon that uses a slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum.

It is neither such a slurry nor a thermobaric weapon. (And thermobaric weapons are completely different than bombs that use a slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum.)

I'm not sure if the section needs to be rewritten or deleted, but it certainly needs to be fixed. Oralloy 15:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • People may be finding stats for the slurry fill. There are both. PETN 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Reports of a slurry MOAB are likely to be erroneous, from reporters who just assumed that the MOAB used the same explosive as the Daisy Cutter. Is there a military source that says it comes in slurry form? Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Read above, I don't want too respond to all of these. PETN 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article rename?

Should this article be renamed to GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb? That would fit the existing pattern better. --SebastianP 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and moved the article, and fixed the double redirects in order to get it listed correctly in the various category listings. --SebastianP 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dispute tag

 The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)

I've moved this to the talk page. We're disputing the mechanism of the weapon -- for which there are at least two versions -- which is generally classified. We can talk about it here, but finding authoritative sources will be almost impossible. We can discuss here. ... aa:talk 05:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T12

Shouldn't the T12 get a mention? I say this because it is a bomb vastly more powerful than the MOAB and developed by the same nation. BioTube 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

The MOAB can be deployed by the American faction in the popular PC game(s) Command and Conquer Generals and Command and Conquer Generals Zero Hour. In the game it appears as an upgraded version on the Fuel-air bomb.

Should we add this? Dfrg.msc 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Preferably not, popular culture references are almost never helpful and merely clog up articles.Leushenko 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest Conventional Weapon Ever?

I think that the description of this as the biggest (most powerful) conventional weapon may actually be correct. The body of the article states that it contains 18,700 pounds of high explosive. The link given on the T12 page says that (at the very bottom, in section 10) that the T12 contains 17,600 pounds of high explosive. Therefore, reference to the T12 as more powerful should be changed, which I shall now do. Supersheep 17:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Still a little troublesome -- the T12 did half of its work (penetrating a hardened target) through sheer kinetic energy, at supersonic speeds. I can't come up with a reasonable way to compare the two.--Parous 06:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a fair point. Maybe a qualification, mentioning the penetration speed of the T-12? I'll have a look and try work it in. Nonetheless, explosive power is the qualification for most powerful weapon - we don't say that a Peacekeeper warhead is the most powerful nuke, even though it has the best penetration (that is, it's the best for silo-killing). Supersheep 08:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I can cite a source that states it is the "most massive" conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

Discovery Channel Website --68.44.106.218 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under wars

Under wars it says Operation Iraqi Freedom. However the M.O.A.B. has NEVER been used in active combat. Can someone care to explain this for me? --68.44.106.218 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it was not used, MOAB was intended for use in OIF and weapons were in-theatre waiting for orders, close enough for me. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limited Military Application?

In the article it is stated, without a source, that there is little military application to this weapon other than to lower enemy morale. I highly doubt this. I am by no means an authority on the subject however I do recall hearing many times it is effective as a way of clearing out enemy positions entrenched in highly rugged/mountainous terrains (as well as being on par with the applications of FAE [fuel and air bomb, very devestating...]). Again I'm not an authority on the matter but perhaps if someone out there is knowledgeable in this could ascertain as to whether there is more to the application of this weapon other than simply damaging enemy morale; Perhaps know reliable sources to research and cite. I personlly believe this weapon is capable of, and has a mission profile pertaining to, more than a simple morale weapon. John 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Until (if?) it gets used in combat, its primary mission may just be to secure bragging rights. A Tsar Bomba, as it were. Time will tell.--Father Goose 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, a very good point you make there, Father Goose. You're exactly right too, nothing is certain until it's actually used in combat. John 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

When I first heard of MOAB It was supposed to be short for "Mother of All Bombs"

Is this a semi offical nickname, or are there any actual nicknames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therubicon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)