Big Ivan-King Of The Bombs.

In all this talk of nuclear weapons its easy to forget how little is known of Russian capabilities.

The fact that they have the worlds most powerful non-nuclear bomb shows that they should not be lightly dismissed.

The U.S.Massive Ordnance Air Blast,nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs,a large-yield satellite-guided,air delivered bomb,had been described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.1 metric tons of high explosives compared with more than 8 metric tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb,it's four times more powerful because it uses a new,highly efficient type of explosives,which the report didn't identify.

While the American bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT,the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives.The Russian weapon's blast radius is 300 meters,or 990 feet,twice as big as that of the U.S.design,the report said.

www.foxnews.com...


But lightly dismissed they are,usually with derisive comments about the state of their weaponry,said by people who have yet to grasp the fact that state of the art doesn't always mean,'the best.'
The current wars are proof that great resistance can be given by those with less superior equipment.



Its estimated that Russia has between 5000 and almost 9000 nuclear weapons,and amongst that impressive arsenal is the worlds most powerful nuclear weapon ever built,the Tsar Bomba.


It has a 50 mega-ton yield though was originally designed to have a 100 mega-ton yield.

This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design,but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stages was replaced by ones made of lead.
This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of about 51.5 Mt), yet still proved the full yield design.The result was the "cleanest" weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions....

The effects were spectacular. Despite the very substantial burst height of 4,000 m (13,000 ft) the vast fireball reached down to the Earth,and swelled upward to nearly the height of the release plane.The blast pressure below the burst point was 300 PSI,six times the peak pressure experienced at Hiroshima.The flash of light was so bright that it was visible at a distance of 1,000 kilometers,despite cloudy skies....

The atmospheric disturbance generated by the explosion orbited the earth three times.A gigantic mushroom cloud rose as high as 64 kilometers (210,000 ft).

Some time after the explosion, photographs were taken of ground zero. "The ground surface of the island has been levelled, swept and licked so that it looks like a skating rink," a witness reported. "The same goes for rocks. The snow has melted and their sides and edges are shiny. There is not a trace of unevenness in the ground.... Everything in this area has been swept clean, scoured, melted and blown away...."

The area of effectively complete destruction extended to 25 km, and ordinary houses would be subjected to severe damage out to 35 km. The destruction and damage of buildings occurred sporadically at much greater ranges than this due to the effects of atmospheric focusing, an unpredictable but unavoidable phenomenon with very large atmospheric explosions that is capable of generating localized regions of destructive blast pressure at great distances (even exceeding 1000 km).

nuclearweaponarchive.org...


No one has even come close to making a bomb to rival this one.

And with rising oil prices,increased foreign investment,higher domestic consumption and greater political stability having bolstered economic growth in Russia,its quite easy to believe that work on this type of bomb has started again,and no one knows just how many of these monsters they may have in their vast arsenal.





[edit on 13-10-2008 by jakyll]

Yhea that tzar bomb is definatly the daddy.

But something you have to remember is that it is really just a demonstrator of possabilities - kinda one upmanship to the USA. The actual bomb it's self is impracticle, and although it was very efficient aat releasing all the potential power it had cleanly, overall the energy was wasted.

The power of the blast falls off to the inverse square for any explosion, so really using 50 megatonnes is overkill for any scenario - the devestation at ground zero would of been abersoloute even if you were using 1 megatonne!! best use of 50 MT would be to have say 5x10MT devices and overlap the areas of destruction, thus massively increasing area of destruction - and in a war scenario you really don't want all your eggs in one basket (or in this case one bomb in one bomber!)

Scary stuff though - nice to see the ruskies considered the fall out, you gotta look after the enviroment

It would be ludicrous to say Russia is no longer a superpower.
Even with their economy flat in the 90's they were still a superpower.

No matter what happens in the world, they can answer ANY question militarily, anytime with unlimited precision and speed. Don't let anyone tell you different. They would be insulting you thinking you were dumb enough to believe them.

Russia & USA cannot ever go to war with each other. Simply impossible for either side to win in any theater of the planet. No matter what the yield in nukes, all nukes trump anything else. 100 megaton vs 10 megaton, it makes no difference. It's still FIRE.

Russia are an expensive & extremely smart adversary. I think this is why they play good cop / bad cop so well.

Now_Then.

The actual bomb it's self is impracticle, and although it was very efficient aat releasing all the potential power it had cleanly, overall the energy was wasted.

Impractible in what way?

And bear in mind,over 40 years have past,plenty of time to fix any problems and improve on the original.




Atlantican.

Russia & USA cannot ever go to war with each other. Simply impossible for either side to win in any theater of the planet. No matter what the yield in nukes, all nukes trump anything else. 100 megaton vs 10 megaton, it makes no difference.

Very true.
My reason for starting this thread though is to show that the US government/military are always underestimating other countries and their abilities.

Feel free to find threads on the topic of the Tzar bomb, there have been threads here before. RE: your question why it's not a practical weapon.

By the way, a relative of one of my friends flew in the group that dropped that bomb.

Originally posted by jakyll
Now_Then.

The actual bomb it's self is impracticle, and although it was very efficient aat releasing all the potential power it had cleanly, overall the energy was wasted.

Impractible in what way?

And bear in mind,over 40 years have past,plenty of time to fix any problems and improve on the original.

I thought I said! 50MT is overkill!! you don't ever need that much in one spot - not in any foreseeable application anyway... All you end up with is a concentrated area of destruction... As I said before the energy released by the bomb will fall off To the inverse square!!! meaning that unless you have something right at ground zero that is going to take 50 megatonnes of explosive power to destroy then you have wasted a whole lot of time and effort makeing one big huge ass bomb!

Like I said it is only a 'show' piece, far more sensible to overlap the blast areas from several smaller devices - this is why they use tactics like Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

In short - no matter how much time they have had to refine the design the simple fact is no one needs 50 megatonnes or more in a single device

Don't you think that depends on what they plan to do with it?

What if it was placed underground along a major faultline?

If you can sneak a 50MT device into your enemy-country, then something is very, very wrong with that country

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
If you can sneak a 50MT device into your enemy-country, then something is very, very wrong with that country

Well, Saddam manged to sneak out 100's of tonnes of WMD and the kit to make it under the americans noses in Iraq so I'd go for you could put this Tzar Bomba under a winter jacket and walk right into the Whitehouse, maybe with a hand grenade sellotaped to your forehead for good measure

Now_Then

I thought I said!

My bad.I thought you were referring to something else.

I agree,at the time it was merely a demonstration of what the Soviet's were capable of.But time has past,technology has advanced and developments will have been made in an attempt to make it more effective.

We should also remember that if a bomb like that can be made then so can bombs with a yield of 30-40 mega-tons.

In short - no matter how much time they have had to refine the design the simple fact is no one needs 50 megatonnes or more in a single device

True.But the effect it would have on people who witness the explosion,psychologically,the impact would be enormous.

Well the next bomb to overcome the Atom bombe is antimatter bombes.

Like the mater that can be produced by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider).

Dont think that this is just a peasfull experiment. They are not just looking for a big bang they whant to make one.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Did you folks read the article carefully. The bomb was dropped by parachute. Guided bombs do not drop by parachute...they have their own independent guidance system.

The need for such large bombs of any type is limited to specific targets.
Even the MOAB of which our leadership likes to boast while thumping their chests has only very limited use. They are to big and to expensive.

Do any of you know people who own one of those Smith and Wesson 500....50 Caliber Pistols? If so how often do they shoot it. Not much I would submit. They are to expensive for the ammunition...even with reloading and the recoil is substantial. You just don't shoot such a gun over and over for kicks...and for pumping iron...recklessly/frivolously

What the guidance package on conventional weapons has done is allowed us to scale back the size of most of our bombs. With such targeting accuracy the huge explosive charges are no longer needed. Bulls eyes can be consistently done over and over again. Not much need for huge tonnage bombs on most targets. Conventional bombs have gone from being 500/750 pounders as standard to 250 pounders today. The size of even conventional bombs has decreased. The limited use for very heavy tonnage conventional bombs is today for special or heavily reinforced targets.

By the way..it is the same for nuclear weapons. The accuracy of the delivery systems negates the need for huge megaton warheads. Saves a lot of weapons grade material too. In the past huge megaton warheads were used because the navigation/delivery systems were no where near as accurate as is the case today. All this stuff about who has the biggest tonnage or nuclear bombs is silly. Accuracy is the name of this business today. This means very excellent guidance packages.

Stealth and accuracy are how it is done today.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 14-10-2008 by orangetom1999]

Did you folks read the article carefully. The bomb was dropped by parachute. Guided bombs do not drop by parachute...they have their own independent guidance system.

Thats because they didn't have that technology then.They do now.

You just don't shoot such a gun over and over for kicks...and for pumping iron...recklessly/frivolously

People all over the world join gun clubs just so they can do this kinda thing.

In the past huge megaton warheads were used because the navigation/delivery systems were no where near as accurate as is the case today. All this stuff about who has the biggest tonnage or nuclear bombs is silly. Accuracy is the name of this business today. This means very excellent guidance packages.

Dropping a huge bomb on a large city doesn't call for much accuracy.Its a bit like firing some types of shotguns.You don't aim because you don't have to.You just point it in the right direction and pull the trigger.

There's is bigger so what.

Russia is like Mr Chekov on star trek. they just need something to boast about.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 16-10-2008 by ANNED]

Jakyll,

I Knew this about the MOAB bomb the moment I heard the news release...that it would be used only on specific targets. They were just to expensive. They have been mostly a psychological weapon....in the press.

People all over the world join gun clubs just so they can do this kinda thing.

People would like to do this kind of thing but they don't ...especially with a Smith and Wesson 500 in .50 caliber. Have you priced the ammunition for this caliber pistol.

Here...this site. www.midwayusa.com...

I belong to a gun club and you seldom ever see this handgun shot there. This handgun is primarily for hunting large game.
People shoot what they can "afford" regularly.

Our government/military is working quietly and heavily towards unmanned aircraft...in the future...it is planned to save them huge costs in pilot training and life support systems in aircraft. This both for the Air Force and the Navy...even from aircraft carrier decks. Aircraft which do not have to offer life support to human pilots can also do more radical maneuvers.

Dropping a huge bomb on a large city doesn't call for much accuracy.Its a bit like firing some types of shotguns.You don't aim because you don't have to.You just point it in the right direction and pull the trigger.

It does call for accuracy if you plan to rebuild the city and infrastructure in your own image and plans. The concept is to limit collateral damage and lessen your rebuilding costs. We are back to costs again.
Dropping a huge bomb on a fortified target also calls for accurcay if you are to get the desired effect of the weapon..meaning ..aiming the weapon.

The point here is that accuracy gives advantages down the road in social planning and engineering. They were attempting accuracy as much as possible even back in WW2 with the Norden Bomb sight...as crude as it was by today's standards.

Anyone with real shotgun skills learns how to aim with this tool. This is especially true with shooting clays. Mind you now the technique and goal is different from rifle or pistol shooting but it is still aiming.

Russia is like Mr Chekov on star trek. they just need something to boast about.

Sad to say ..but I think the USA is joining this club in boasting.



Thanks,
Orangetom