Thermobaric Bomb – a substitute for small tactical nuclear weapon? - Historum

Edward · November 12th, 2012, 09:13 PM

American developed in 2002 the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)
Russian, were not far behind developing their thermobaric bomb in 2003, reportedly four times bigger than American MOAB.
This bombs, designed to create high blast pressure and heat over a big area (could be of couple hundred meters) which could be a deadly weapon affecting exposed as well as cancelled in bunkers or tanks soldiers. Will this weapon replace tactical warheads in future? Its huge size is a big drawback limiting the delivery system to the air drop from huge aircraft only.

**Ancientgeezer** · November 12th, 2012, 10:02 PM

Not a very rapid development of technology when one remembers that Barnes Wallace's Grand Slam was in operation in 1945 (42 dropped in 4 months).
The Grand Slam weighed 22,000lbs, had a charge of 9000lbs and had a blast yield of 6.5 tons and was principally a penetrator, rather than a blast weapon.

The GBU-43/B weighs 22,600lbs, has a charge of 18,700lbs and a blast yield of 11 tons.

Edward · November 12th, 2012, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer

Not a very rapid development of technology when one remembers that Barnes Wallace's Grand Slam was in operation in 1945 (42 dropped in 4 months).
The Grand Slam weighed 22,000lbs, had a charge of 9000lbs and had a blast yield of 6.5 tons and was principally a penetrator, rather than a blast weapon.

The GBU-43/B weighs 22,600lbs, has a charge of 18,700lbs and a blast yield of 11 tons.

Thermobaric weapon is affecting much bigger area in different way than conventional explosive, which is concentrated at the middle of the explosion. Thermobaric weapon work in different way. apart from blast pressure an thermal effects, it also create massive vacuum after explosion which is deadly for human life.

**AlpinLuke** · November 12th, 2012, 11:03 PM

Gen. Alexander Rustin in 2007, commenting the last experiments of the Russian thermobaric bomb, said that it's 4 times more powerful than the American one, but its weight is of 7 tons [the US version is around 10 tons].

In a few words, the Russians [who actually invented this kind of weapon] have developed further the conception of the notorious America "Daisy cutter" bomb [really a great name for a bomb!] which had used to set terrain free from vegetation to allow helicopter to take land [this usage was common in Vietnam].

Theoretically, it's a good alternative to tactic nuclear weapons. It's "clean" [in the limits that such a tremendous bomb destroying all generates at least pollution ...], without radioactive fallout and the area of the effect of the explosion can be determined before of using it [the effect of a nuclear explosion in the time is affected by winds which can carry the fallout in not exactly predicted direction. The same can happen with the cloud of a thermobaric bomb, but in this case we deal with pollution, not with radiation].

Putting this weapon in the warhead of a missile it's possible to hit far targets with a huge destructive effect.

So far the negative aspect is about dimension [and so weight], 7 tons is not a light cargo for a long range missile. Anyway it's possible. Let's say that with the same big missile it's still more "economical" [relation cost / destruction] to carry a nuclear warhead [with such a weight involved], anyway the path is that ...

azato2000 · November 13th, 2012, 01:41 AM

TOS-1 Soviet thermobaric weapon invented in 80's. It was used in Afghanistan in 1988.
Its nickname is Buratino (russian version of Pinocchio) .

**arras** · November 13th, 2012, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward

Will this weapon replace tactical warheads in future?

I do not think so. Nuclear reaction have no concurrence as long as weight to energy ratio goes. It is several orders more efficient than normal explosive.

That said, thermobaric weapons have bright future ahead. They are capable of things normal explosives are not.

Problem with nukes of course is moral and political. They are never going to be used in ordinary conflicts.

**infestør** · November 13th, 2012, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

I do not think so. Nuclear reaction have no concurrence as long as weight to energy ratio goes. It is several orders more efficient than normal explosive.

That said, thermobaric weapons have bright future ahead. They are capable of things normal explosives are not.

Problem with nukes of course is moral and political. They are never going to be used in ordinary conflicts.

agreed. not that they're more effective (price/performance) but they're more politically correct than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

asnys · November 13th, 2012, 03:37 AM

I don't know anything about the Russian tactical arsenal, but I don't think it will be able to replace any American tactical nuclear weapons. The nuke it's usually compared to is the Davy Crockett, a fractional-kiloton nuclear recoilless rifle, which was deactivated and scrapped in 1971. Our current tactical arsenal consists entirely of 170-kT B61 variable-yield gravity bombs. Thermobarics just aren't in the same class. I don't really think we should have tactical nuclear weapons anyway, but if we're going to, thermobarics won't be able to displace them.

**Nemowork** · November 13th, 2012, 05:53 AM

It depends on how big you want your thermobarics to be. The Russians have been field a line of thermobaric grenades/charges and rocket warheads since the mid 80s or so, they got used in Afghanistan for clearing buildings, bunkers and caves since their combination of sucking air out of the cavity and then overpressure was effectively overkill, nothing in a sealed space was going to survive.

The US had little need of them until the early 2000s when they ended up Afghanistan and Iraq when they met the same tactical problems and got interested.

They did get some limited use in europe since a thermobaric charge fired from a tank shell was reckoned to be useful for clearing minefields without the need for engineers but i dont know if that one was ever seriously produced, it made an impressive video in the experiments though

Edward · November 13th, 2012, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asnys

I don't know anything about the Russian tactical arsenal, but I don't think it will be able to replace any American tactical nuclear weapons. The nuke it's usually compared to is the Davy Crockett, a fractional-kiloton nuclear recoilless rifle, which was deactivated and scrapped in 1971. Our current tactical arsenal consists entirely of 170-kT B61 variable-yield gravity bombs. Thermobarics just aren't in the same class. I don't really think we should have tactical nuclear weapons anyway, but if we're going to, thermobarics won't be able to displace them.

Just quick stroll through Google (if the info is correct what is a doubtful issue);