M.O.A.B vs Grand Slam

[Goanna1]

I saw on the news the dropping of M.O.A.B (Mother of all Bombs--Great catchy name).

Yet on further research I found that the Russians have the F.O.A.B (Father of all Bombs) and reputably 4x more powerful than M.O.A.B.

I wondered about its effects compared to the Grand Slam (according to Wikipedia it is described as Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000 lb) from its first use in 1945, considering they both have about 10 tons of explosive power., Torpex explosive used in Grand Slams and Tritonal in M.O.A.B.

I naturally thought considering that 70 years have passed since the Grand Slam was dropped by Lancasters, if and how has bomb penetration and detonation possibly progressed. Although I found out that the Grand Slam was designed for deeper penetration through hardened concrete structures,whereas M.O.A.B is for ground target penetration and obliteration.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Goanna1

[peregrine7]

I don't think this belongs in the general discussion forum, but very interesting.

[Goanna1]

I realised that after posting but couldn't delete and move Doh

[Wulf]

Yeah, it is interesting.  So presumably Tritonal is very much more powerful than Torpex. 

 

Hmmmm ... may be more powerful but I doubt it looks as cool.  Grand Slam and Tallboys were about as cool as bombs get.  Just sayin......

[JtD]

The relative effectiveness (TNT equivalent) of torpex is 1.3, of tritonal 1.05. However, the Grand Slam was filled with (just) 4.1t of explosives, the Moab with 8.5t. The Moab is a pure blast bomb with no capability for penetration, while the Grand Slam is structurally strong enough to achieve reasonable penetration.

[AndyJWest]

Yup: MOAB actually stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast. 'Mother...' is just a nickname. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast

[EAF19_Marsh]

MOAB is air burst; comparison to the Grand Slam would be MOP

[Rolling_Thunder]

11 tons! May as well of used a small nuke. The radiation would make the area unusable for future ISIS fighters and reduced the need to use another 11 ton bomb sometime in the future in the same area.

[Sokol1]

WoW! $16M x body count=36, that's a expensive war. 

 

Of course Defense contractors are happy.

 

 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Fuel air bomb is not the same as standard bomb. Whilst they are around the same weight, GBU-43 has twice the filling vs Grand Slam (8t vs 4t)

 

WoW! $16M x body count=36, that's a expensive war. 

 

Of course Defense contractors are happy.

+ Destroyed tunnel system + message to Kim we can destroy your tunnels.

 

 

11 tons! May as well of used a small nuke. The radiation would make the area unusable for future ISIS fighters and reduced the need to use another 11 ton bomb sometime in the future in the same area.

And have the obvious political consequences of using a nuke since WW2? Are you stupid?

Edited April 14, 2017 by RoflSeal

[Blutaar]

 

 

And have the obvious consequences of using a nuke since WW2? Are you stupid?

 

It became a  moral junkyard we live in, sad to say, i hope we will never see weapons like Nuclear Bombs again going off, some people seem to forget fast our youngest history.

Not only the IS could never use that are again, no one could.

[AndyJWest]

+ Destroyed tunnel system + message to Kim we can destroy your tunnels.

 

Somehow I have my doubts that the USAF would consider it appropriate to task a C-130 for an attack on the DPRK. And I suspect that the fat one's tunnels are a little more sophisticated (and deeper) than the Afghan ones. The bombing may possibly have been intended to send a message to Kim and his generals, but I can't see this specific weapon being significant. 

[SOLIDKREATE]

if that bomb wasn't so big i bet a c-130 with JATO could carry two of them.

[Bearcat]

Do not discuss current politics on these boards.