Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Russia Made A Bomb

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Horsepower View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Warning: Fail is closer than it seems!

Joined: 07 September 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Horsepower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Russia Made A Bomb
    Posted: 12 September 2007 at 10:03pm
Check it out guys,

Link

Come Get Some !
Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 10:06pm
Back to Top
Evil Elvis View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Crusher of Dreams

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evil Elvis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 10:15pm
Besides the advantage of the Size of the Explosion the fact that they can use a heavy tactical Bomber to deliver it unlike the MOAB wich are rolled out the back of an AirLift Aircraft such as a C-130 or a C-5.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 10:40pm
If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


But ours is still bigger.

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 10:58pm
I doubt it is guided.
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 11:00pm
Then I still prefer the MOAB... the extra blast area is useless if only the edge hits the target.

Back to Top
Evil Elvis View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Crusher of Dreams

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evil Elvis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 11:01pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


But ours is still bigger.


Here you are wrong thrice,

MOAB stands for Massive Ordenance Air Burst, it is basically a fuel blader and a detonator. They are the same concept. It's the only way to get that Super Heated Shock wave outside of the Thermonuclear explosion.

They claim that it has thrice the power of MOAB. Wich hasnt been confirmed. But you cant make the assumption as to wich one is bigger by looking at a video on Yahoo News. Besides Russians have a nackfor building "Huge" Machines look at the Blackjack, their Su-35 Flanker Aircraft and the massive Assault Hovercraft they sold the Chinease.

Third and last. When your bomb is comporable to a nuclear device (44 tons of TNT) you dont need a super Expensive Lazer or GPS Guidance System. While MOABs have a nice GPS and gyro stabilizer and fins to cruise to it's target. I have to say the Russian approach of nuking the whole gridsquare does have it's own beauty.
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2007 at 11:58pm
Originally posted by Evil Elvis Evil Elvis wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


But ours is still bigger.


Here you are wrong thrice,

MOAB stands for Massive Ordenance Air Burst, it is basically a fuel blader and a detonator. They are the same concept. It's the only way to get that Super Heated Shock wave outside of the Thermonuclear explosion.

They claim that it has thrice the power of MOAB. Wich hasnt been confirmed. But you cant make the assumption as to wich one is bigger by looking at a video on Yahoo News. Besides Russians have a nackfor building "Huge" Machines look at the Blackjack, their Su-35 Flanker Aircraft and the massive Assault Hovercraft they sold the Chinease.

Third and last. When your bomb is comporable to a nuclear device (44 tons of TNT) you dont need a super Expensive Lazer or GPS Guidance System. While MOABs have a nice GPS and gyro stabilizer and fins to cruise to it's target. I have to say the Russian approach of nuking the whole gridsquare does have it's own beauty.
You forgot the Antonov
And I just think that linus has no clue how massive this bomb actually is. (who needs guidance when you can just blow everything up)
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 12:16am
Actually Evil...

Their bomb is fuel-air, meaning the initial explosion disperses a fuel into the air, followed very rapidly by a secondary explosion igniting the fuel, causing the subsuquent fireball.

Our MOAB on the other hand is NOT a fuel-air bomb. The air burst you're referring to means that it is exploded above the ground so that instead of the majority of the explosion being directed into the ground, it's directed outward. Conventional artillery shells have air-burst fuses, and the nukes "used" (in existence) today are air-burst.


As for size, again you are wrong. Our MOAB weighs more and has more explosives (our more than 8.0 tons as opposed to their 7.8)


And "third and last" I am also not wrong on the guidence... ours is satellite as opposed to their "dumb" (since no more info on it's guidance is known).

These type of bombs simply CANNOT be used against any country with a decent air force... the relatively slow delivery system will be intercepted with ease. These bombs are meant for coflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya... and usually when you fight in those countries you don't do total warfare, you aim at a specific military target (a cave entrance) and hit it. Like I said, I'd rather have a satellite guided MOAB hit the cave I'm aiming for then have a bigger boom.


And carl, don't attempt to assume what I do and do not know.


Edited by Linus - 13 September 2007 at 12:23am

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 12:32am
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Actually Evil...

Their bomb is fuel-air, meaning the initial explosion disperses a fuel into the air, followed very rapidly by a secondary explosion igniting the fuel, causing the subsuquent fireball.

Our MOAB on the other hand is NOT a fuel-air bomb. The air burst you're referring to means that it is exploded above the ground so that instead of the majority of the explosion being directed into the ground, it's directed outward. Conventional artillery shells have air-burst fuses, and the nukes "used" (in existence) today are air-burst.


As for size, again you are wrong. Our MOAB weighs more and has more explosives (our more than 8.0 tons as opposed to their 7.8)


And "third and last" I am also not wrong on the guidence... ours is satellite as opposed to their "dumb" (since no more info on it's guidance is known).

These type of bombs simply CANNOT be used against any country with a decent air force... the relatively slow delivery system will be intercepted with ease. These bombs are meant for coflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya... and usually when you fight in those countries you don't do total warfare, you aim at a specific military target (a cave entrance) and hit it. Like I said, I'd rather have a satellite guided MOAB hit the cave I'm aiming for then have a bigger boom.


And carl, don't attempt to assume what I do and do not know.

ohhh watch out, big man!

And do you mean slow in comparison to the bomb dropped out of a c-130?

Edited by carl_the_sniper - 13 September 2007 at 12:47am
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 12:41am
C-130 is a cargo plane... inherently slow yes.

As for the TU-160, yes, it's faster, and pretty damn fast for a bomber, but the F-15, F-16 and the newer F-22 are even faster, and the TU-160 has no defensive armament to speak of. My money is on the fighter jets.



Edited by Linus - 13 September 2007 at 12:42am

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 12:49am
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

C-130 is a cargo plane... inherently slow yes.

As for the TU-160, yes, it's faster, and pretty damn fast for a bomber, but the F-15, F-16 and the newer F-22 are even faster, and the TU-160 has no defensive armament to speak of. My money is on the fighter jets.

But what is your point?
I assume that you're not a moron and you know that russia has fighters too. (unless i'm not allowed to assume that either?)
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:01am
My point is you won't risk the hardware if there is a great chance that it will be lost.

Yes, the Russians have the Mig-29, a very nice fighter, and comparable to the fighters we have, but it's not always about the hardware... it's about the person USING the hardware, and our pilots are second to none with the amount of behind the stick training, simulator training, and actual combat experience.

Plus, our 3 main fighters all have a higher service ceiling than the TU-160, meaning it has no place to run to, and both the F-15 and F-22 have a higher ceiling than the MiG-29.


Plus, do you realize how much of a tactical and logistical nightmare it would be for the Russians to have a MiG-29 even attempt to fully escort a TU-160 over American soil?

Edited by Linus - 13 September 2007 at 1:03am

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:14am
America doesn't have the world's best pilots.

The su-37 blows away the f-15 (it's a shame that the 47 was cancelled because it could have been just as good as the F-22 or better.

Do you even realize what kind of a nightmare it would be to just fly a c-130 (no matter how well escorted) over any foreign country with a modern military?
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:18am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

America doesn't have the world's best pilots.

The su-37 blows away the f-15 (it's a shame that the 47 was cancelled because it could have been just as good as the F-22 or better.

Do you even realize what kind of a nightmare it would be to just fly a c-130 (no matter how well escorted) over any foreign country with a modern military?


Pilot skill is a matter of contention, but pilot experience is NOT, and the US has the most experienced pilots for the exact reasons I stated above... in-cockpit time, simulation, and actual sorties in combat.

And that is EXACTLY what I stated before, Carl, if you would take 1 second to read and comprehend before claiming I'm wrong. But since you missed it the first time, I'll reiterate it for you.

Originally posted by me me wrote:

These type of bombs simply CANNOT be used against any country with a decent air force... the relatively slow delivery system will be intercepted with ease. These bombs are meant for coflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya... and usually when you fight in those countries you don't do total warfare, you aim at a specific military target (a cave entrance) and hit it. Like I said, I'd rather have a satellite guided MOAB hit the cave I'm aiming for then have a bigger boom.


Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:21am
Oh and just FYI, the SU-37 is not in an active role... only 2 were built... so go ahead, send your 2 prototypes at some F-15's and we'll see how long the air war last.

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:23am

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

America doesn't have the world's best pilots.

The su-37 blows away the f-15 (it's a shame that the 47 was cancelled because it could have been just as good as the F-22 or better.

Do you even realize what kind of a nightmare it would be to just fly a c-130 (no matter how well escorted) over any foreign country with a modern military?


Pilot skill is a matter of contention, but pilot experience is NOT, and the US has the most experienced pilots for the exact reasons I stated above... in-cockpit time, simulation, and actual sorties in combat.

And that is EXACTLY what I stated before, Carl, if you would take 1 second to read and comprehend before claiming I'm wrong. But since you missed it the first time, I'll reiterate it for you.

Originally posted by me me wrote:

These type of bombs simply CANNOT be used against any country with a decent air force... the relatively slow delivery system will be intercepted with ease. These bombs are meant for coflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq and Chechnya... and usually when you fight in those countries you don't do total warfare, you aim at a specific military target (a cave entrance) and hit it. Like I said, I'd rather have a satellite guided MOAB hit the cave I'm aiming for then have a bigger boom.

I understood what you meant about pilot experience.

And I still don't understand if you saying that both bombs "simply CANNOT be used against any country with a decent air force" or just the russian one.

You have to be more clear, otherwise you make an ass of yourself telling other people off.

<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
hybrid-sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

I feel violated.

Joined: 09 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hybrid-sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:26am

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by Evil Elvis Evil Elvis wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


But ours is still bigger.


Here you are wrong thrice,

MOAB stands for Massive Ordenance Air Burst, it is basically a fuel blader and a detonator. They are the same concept. It's the only way to get that Super Heated Shock wave outside of the Thermonuclear explosion.

They claim that it has thrice the power of MOAB. Wich hasnt been confirmed. But you cant make the assumption as to wich one is bigger by looking at a video on Yahoo News. Besides Russians have a nackfor building "Huge" Machines look at the Blackjack, their Su-35 Flanker Aircraft and the massive Assault Hovercraft they sold the Chinease.

Third and last. When your bomb is comporable to a nuclear device (44 tons of TNT) you dont need a super Expensive Lazer or GPS Guidance System. While MOABs have a nice GPS and gyro stabilizer and fins to cruise to it's target. I have to say the Russian approach of nuking the whole gridsquare does have it's own beauty.
You forgot the Antonov
And I just think that linus has no clue how massive this bomb actually is. (who needs guidance when you can just blow everything up)

Antonov what? The 225?

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:27am
Originally posted by hybrid-sniper hybrid-sniper wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by Evil Elvis Evil Elvis wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


But ours is still bigger.


Here you are wrong thrice,

MOAB stands for Massive Ordenance Air Burst, it is basically a fuel blader and a detonator. They are the same concept. It's the only way to get that Super Heated Shock wave outside of the Thermonuclear explosion.

They claim that it has thrice the power of MOAB. Wich hasnt been confirmed. But you cant make the assumption as to wich one is bigger by looking at a video on Yahoo News. Besides Russians have a nackfor building "Huge" Machines look at the Blackjack, their Su-35 Flanker Aircraft and the massive Assault Hovercraft they sold the Chinease.

Third and last. When your bomb is comporable to a nuclear device (44 tons of TNT) you dont need a super Expensive Lazer or GPS Guidance System. While MOABs have a nice GPS and gyro stabilizer and fins to cruise to it's target. I have to say the Russian approach of nuking the whole gridsquare does have it's own beauty.
You forgot the Antonov
And I just think that linus has no clue how massive this bomb actually is. (who needs guidance when you can just blow everything up)

Antonov what? The 225?

Yes. In your spree of naming giant russian things, you forgot the mother of them all... lol.
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2007 at 1:27am
Or how about making an ass of yourself saying someone is wrong when they aren't...?

When I stated "these bombs" I thought it was clear I was talking about both the MOAB of the US and the new fuel-air one of Russia, and how they are meant for conflicts like those seen in Afghanistan and Chechnya, so my bad for not being clear enough.

Edited by Linus - 13 September 2007 at 1:28am

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.202 seconds.