NationStates Jolt Archive

In the past, the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd's researchers have always opted for weaponry that instills psychological warfare. Now that becomes prominent as our researchers have begun designing a replacement for the United States' Massive Air Ordnance Blast (MOAB / "Mother of all Bombs") using it's technology and another existing design, the 44,000 pound T-12 Cloudmaker. It is concieved to be able to destroy large concentrations of troops, fortifications and airbases as well as striking fear in the hearts of your adversaries. With this, you can attain mass destruction of enemy land forces without radiation or fear from attack by other nations wary of the use of nuclear weapons.

Project Draft: AZ-MCOB-A Massive Conventional Ordnance Bomb

http://www.globemaster.de/assets/images/moab.jpg

Primary Function: Guided air-to-surface weapon
Guidance System: Initial parachute, GPS/inertial gyroscopes
Launch Weight: 53,500 pounds (50,000 pounds of explosives)
Explosive: H-6 explosive (20% aluminum in a waxed 1.5:1 RDX:TNT mixture.)
Length: 200 inches
Diameter: 54 inches
Unit Replacement Cost: $400,000

We require technical and financial assistance. Out of a required $40 billion, $10 billion has been supplied by the government, $20 billion by the Dominion of Kotterdam and $10 billion by the Dominion of Exetonia.

*10 bil is being wired direct from government funding. At last, an end to collateral damage* - Exetonian Government

OOC:
You're a little small but you might be able afford what you just offered. Are you sure about this?

Population: 20,000,000
Civil Rights: Few
Economy: Thriving
GDP per Capita: $20,000
GDP: $400,000,000,000
National Budget: $94,723,200,000
Percentage of GDP Spent on Defense: 4.74%
Percentage of Budget Spent on Defense: 20%
Military Budget: $18,944,640,000

This weapon has drawn serious interest from the Dominion's Air Force. We are dispatching k10 Billion ($20 Billion USD) as well as a team from the Advanced Airborne Weapon Development Group (AAWDEVGRU) from Viking Military Technologies, and offer Dominion Air Force aircraft for use as a launch test aircraft.

How are you going to get it to the target? drag it?

meh, so the school students will suffer, i am ok with it.

OOC: Actually, airblast bombs (I think this is one) like Daisy Cutters and MOABs are designed for clearing a forest or field, etc. And they are designed not to make a crater.

OOC:Actually I think the MOAB can be used for causing destruction too ground and sea forces. And I believe t can make a crater if detonated at ground level

How are you going to get it to the target? Drag it?
OOC:
A B-52 can carry one, a B-1B can carry five and a C-5 can carry five (They can freely drop it, it's a guided munition anyway).

OOC:Actually I think the MOAB can be used for causing destruction too ground and sea forces. And I believe t can make a crater if detonated at ground level
OOC: No, it can't. Same as Daisy Cutters.

And using MOABs on large ships is next to useless.

OOC: Actually, an MOAB, as I understand it, will do precisely jack if detonated on the ground. If I remember properly, the slurry inside the bomb has to mix with the air before it will detonate. It kills infantry with its pressure wave, and by actually creating a vacuum and suffocating them, but detonated over a city, it'll pretty much just blow out every window in town, and suffocate a few hundred people, but not knock over a single building.

OOC: Actually, an MOAB, as I understand it, will do precisely jack if detonated on the ground. If I remember properly, the slurry inside the bomb has to mix with the air before it will detonate. It kills infantry with its pressure wave, and by actually creating a vacuum and suffocating them, but detonated over a city, it'll pretty much just blow out every window in town, and suffocate a few hundred people, but not knock over a single building.
OOC: From what I heard from reliable sources, it does create a vaccum.

Mainly Daisy Cutters are used for clearing landing zones in the Vietnam war I believe.

OOC:
Okay then, I can always switch from Tritonal (used in air blast bombs) to H-6 (officially the strongest conventional explosive). Brisance (shattering/crushing effect) will maximize at 100%, at the cost of 10% power. It will still destroy everything in it's blast radius.

How are you going to get it to the target? Drag it?
OOC:
A B-52 can carry one, a B-1B can carry five and a C-5 can carry five (They can freely drop it, it's a guided munition anyway).
A B-1b can only carry about 120,000lbs of munitions. And even so, HOW WOULD THEY FIT?

OOC: Actually, an MOAB, as I understand it, will do precisely jack if detonated on the ground. If I remember properly, the slurry inside the bomb has to mix with the air before it will detonate. It kills infantry with its pressure wave, and by actually creating a vacuum and suffocating them, but detonated over a city, it'll pretty much just blow out every window in town, and suffocate a few hundred people, but not knock over a single building.
OOC: From what I heard from reliable sources, it does create a vaccum.

Mainly Daisy Cutters are used for clearing landing zones in the Vietnam war I believe.

OOC:
That's what it was designed for. You kick it out the back of the airplane, and BAM! You've got an instant landing zone faster than you can say Emeril.

It was used in Iraq because it's the only conventional weapon capable of creating a mushroom cloud, and the Iraqi army was terrified the Americans would use nuclear weapons, so it was a major morale hit. In Afghanistan, it was used to suck the air out of caves to get the Taliban soldiers hiding inside.

Switching to H-6 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

OOC:
No,
B-1B
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (214,650 kilograms)
-
Weight: Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
=
287,000 pounds
/
53,500 pounds
=
5.3644859813084112149532710280374 bombs

They fit, trust me, I calculated the payload compartment dimensions.

They fit, trust me, I calculated the payload compartment dimensions.
The difference between empty and maximum takeoff weight does not represent the actual weight it can carry.

Having the right dimenstion also doesn't mean that it can fit.

If it is that case, then a B-1B could easily carry 3 or 4 Daisy Cutters.

OOC:
No,
B-1B
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (214,650 kilograms)
-
Weight: Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
=
287,000 pounds
/
53,500 pounds
=
5.3644859813084112149532710280374 bombs

They fit, trust me, I calculated the payload compartment dimensions.
So they have no fuel?

And FYI, this bomb is 54 feet long, I sincerly doubt that any modern bomber has a bomb bay that big.

OOC:
Even with a fuel load they can still carry it. Come on, the MOAB is already an example of such a massive munition, you're telling me you don't believe that exists? About the dimensions, alright, I'll make it fit. Happy?

Come on, the MOAB is already an example of such a massive munition, you're telling me you don't believe that exists?

A B-1B can't carry 5 MOABs.

Yes, it does. But that doesn't mean that you can carry 5 of these bombs in a B-1B.

OOC:
Even with a fuel load they can still carry it and

Come on, the MOAB is already an example of such a massive munition, you're telling me you don't believe that exists?

yeah but its too large for bombers, has to be droppd by C-130/C-17 making it useless unless you have complete air superitorty and have elimnated all major air defences, like in Afghanistan.

OOC:
I'm not so much keen as to carrying five than being able to carry it at all, okay?

OOC:
I'm not so much keen as to carrying five than being able to carry it at all, okay?
OOC: I don't think any bomber can carry any.

It is just like explaining how a B-1B can't carry a Daisy Cutter.

Can it be used in a missile?

OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.

OOC:
*sigh*

This is giving me a headache as it stands. Alright, I'll make a compromise, I'll change it to the T-12 Cloudmaker's dimensions, check it now and determine for further debate.

OOC:
Bump for notice of the debating parties.

OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.
OOC: No, the B-52H cannot carry a MOAB.
And there's no such thing as a "24 megaton thermonuclear bomb" --- well, in RL, there's no 24 megaton nukes that can be dropped from a B-52H. In the opposite, even a F-16 or an A-4 can carry nukes.

Nukes are not necessarily big.

OOC:
True, now how about the modifications? Are they acceptable now?

OOC:
True, now how about the modifications? Are they acceptable now?
I would say somehow acceptable. But I'll see about what others say.

OOC:Actually the United States used too have pplanes that carried 24 megaton nuclear bombs. They no longer exist.

OOC:
Bump.

OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.

Um, a 24 megaton nuke is nuclear. Nukes are much more weight efficient that conventional explosives. A 2 kiloton nuke weighs just over 15kg for the Uranium.

OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.

Um, a 24 megaton nuke is nuclear. Nukes are much more weight efficient that conventional explosives. A 2 kiloton nuke weighs just over 15kg for the Uranium.
OOC: ...and the B-61 tactical nuclear bomb, which measures 0.3-30 kilotons, is just 700lbs, and can be carried on F-16s.

The B-81, a 1-2 megatons nuclear bomb, is just approx. 2400lb, which weights just a little more than a 2000lb JDAM.

OOC: Of course, you could always develop a large bomber specially for the bomb!

OOC:
That's good and all but can we please stop hijacking my thread of nuclear weapons? The point of the AZ-MCOB-A is to replace nuclear weapons in the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd's arsenal. I've decided not to use them.

OOC:
That's good and all but can we please stop hijacking my thread of nuclear weapons? The point of the AZ-MCOB-A is to replace nuclear weapons in the United Socialist States of Zvarinograd's arsenal. I've decided not to use them.
OOC: Very sorry, just thought that it is something related.

OOC:
Bump.

I believe it is "Massive ordnance air based"

OOC:
No, it's not air blast. I explained I switched the explosive already.

OOC:
Bump.

we support you, and donate 500 million

We're sorry but the project costs are already covered, however you can help in future projects, if need be.

ok. Just tell us what project needs funding.

Hmm if you could get the weight down to 30,000lbs i could use them with my super vulcans.

Anyway good on you for using thigns other than nukes. We already do soemthing similar using large numbers of FAE and thermo baric weapons.

People don't like it when you wipe out the entire contents of a bunker complex with 1 blast.

FAE/TB weapons are also useful for clearing minefeilds. but if do use them make sure they work properly (unlike the russians ones in chetchnia, there are numerous reports of russians forces using them aaginst cities but getting premature detonation ie you get a big highly visable fire ball but not quite the blast wave)

We thank you for your compliment however we would like to reiterate that this is a conventional explosive bomb. It means that it will be slightly weaker but considering the size of such a weapon and that H-6 is officially the strongest conventional (non FAE or TB) explosive, it will still decimate anything in it's blast radius, including those that normally will not be affected by FAE or similar weapons.

OOC: Actually, airblast bombs (I think this is one) like Daisy Cutters and MOABs are designed for clearing a forest or field, etc. And they are designed not to make a crater.

Ahh, but it depends upon the ground the blast is over. I have seen the BLU-82 in action... we used them as psychological warfare in Asscrackistan. They WILL make a crater if over soft ground. While designed to create an immediate landing zone, if they are detonated over land without sufficient buildings/trees/other ground clutter, they will and DO produce nice craters. Not as deep as ordinary ordnance, but significant nonetheless.

And a Daisycutter/MOAB will not do much to a naval vessel, but it would most likely kill anyone NOT in a sealed environment as the firestorm passes. This will cause a vaccuum and subject all objects within the blast radius to a vaccuum. Anything pressurized has a good chance of exploding, including certain munitions.

Ahh, but it depends upon the ground the blast is over. I have seen the BLU-82 in action... we used them as psychological warfare in Asscrackistan. They WILL make a crater if over soft ground. While designed to create an immediate landing zone, if they are detonated over land without sufficient buildings/trees/other ground clutter, they will and DO produce nice craters. Not as deep as ordinary ordnance, but significant nonetheless.
OOC: I see. Explains that why they don't use it over soft grounds and plain lands in Afghanistan.

OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.
OOC: No, the B-52H cannot carry a MOAB.
And there's no such thing as a "24 megaton thermonuclear bomb" --- well, in RL, there's no 24 megaton nukes that can be dropped from a B-52H. In the opposite, even a F-16 or an A-4 can carry nukes.

Nukes are not necessarily big.
The most powerful nuclear warhead ever tested was 58 megatons. It was a Soviet free-fall weapon.

For this weapon, it's not bad, and it can be drooped from appropriate transport aircraft. Though at over 50,000 lbs, it's going to be too much for any C-130 variants, incluing the J-30. This would mean that you'd have to modify a larger aircraft to carry and drop them, as Daisy Cutters and MOABs are dropped from special mission MC-130s rather than the basic cargo variants. The greatest problem I see, however, is that the cost is too high. Drop it down to a few hundred thousand, and you'll be fine, but a simple free-fall bomb costing more than $1 million is a bit much.

A little tidbit/rumor. I heard that the 50 megaton warhead could destroy most of Ohio. That's a lot of firepower.

The Federation of Hrstrovokia is very interested in this venture, but the requested $40,000,000,000 has been found. Perhaps we could buy Production plans when it's finished?

Freedom Country donates 5 Billion to the project.

OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.
OOC: No, the B-52H cannot carry a MOAB.
And there's no such thing as a "24 megaton thermonuclear bomb" --- well, in RL, there's no 24 megaton nukes that can be dropped from a B-52H. In the opposite, even a F-16 or an A-4 can carry nukes.

Nukes are not necessarily big.
The most powerful nuclear warhead ever tested was 58 megatons. It was a Soviet free-fall weapon.

For this weapon, it's not bad, and it can be drooped from appropriate transport aircraft. Though at over 50,000 lbs, it's going to be too much for any C-130 variants, incluing the J-30. This would mean that you'd have to modify a larger aircraft to carry and drop them, as Daisy Cutters and MOABs are dropped from special mission MC-130s rather than the basic cargo variants. The greatest problem I see, however, is that the cost is too high. Drop it down to a few hundred thousand, and you'll be fine, but a simple free-fall bomb costing more than $1 million is a bit much.

OOC:
It's a GPS/GLONASS guided munition, similar to the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), not a free-fall bomb. Review the specifications. And I will probably use the cargo plane both me and Freedom Country are developing.

Bump.

The most powerful nuclear warhead ever tested was 58 megatons. It was a Soviet free-fall weapon.

For this weapon, it's not bad, and it can be drooped from appropriate transport aircraft. Though at over 50,000 lbs, it's going to be too much for any C-130 variants, incluing the J-30. This would mean that you'd have to modify a larger aircraft to carry and drop them, as Daisy Cutters and MOABs are dropped from special mission MC-130s rather than the basic cargo variants. The greatest problem I see, however, is that the cost is too high. Drop it down to a few hundred thousand, and you'll be fine, but a simple free-fall bomb costing more than $1 million is a bit much.
OOC: About the nukes, you probably misunderstood me (or I understood you), I meant that the USA didn't develop a nuclear bomb that is designed for the B-52 that is measured 24 megatons :P . And yes, I know the "Tsar Bomba" bomb... What's weird that many people say it is either 50, 57, or 58 megatons.

/hijack

About the weapon, I'd recall that a Daisy Cutter only cost a few tens or hundreds of thousands. More like tens.

OOC: I'll elaborate on it a little. If the Soviets developed a free-fall bomb that can be air dropped, US aircraft can use it, with modification of course. The reason is US bombers (as well as fighters, strike, and transport aircraft for that matter) generally have higher relative payload capacity than their Soviet countherparts. Anything the Soviets could drop, US aircraft could drop as well.

As for the daisy cutter, you're right. However, this bomb has guidance hardware and software that the DC lacks, and is much larger. It could also have a more expensive explosive filler. Those combine to increase the price a bit, but as I said, more than a few hundred thousand is too high.

OOC: I'll elaborate on it a little. If the Soviets developed a free-fall bomb that can be air dropped, US aircraft can use it, with modification of course. The reason is US bombers (as well as fighters, strike, and transport aircraft for that matter) generally have higher relative payload capacity than their Soviet countherparts. Anything the Soviets could drop, US aircraft could drop as well.

OOC: Understood. It also goes on the reverse, right? I'd recall that with a few modifications Soviet aircraft could drop those Mk.82s...

EDIT:

And I'd also recall that on the AMRAAM the guidance portion is worth 68% of what a whole missile costs.

OOC:
I'll change it to $400,000 then, unless you have further protest to the price?

Bump.

400,000 each bomb? Central Facehuggeria will take 5. Money will be automatically wired upon confirmation.

Also, how much are the production rights? Big Conventional weapons are like my army's dream come true.

OOC:
It's a project, we're debating on the estimated unit replacement cost.

OOC: Oops sorry. Let me know when you have a working sellable bomb!

OOC: OOC:HEY! If a B-52H can carry a 24 megaton thermonuclear bomb than I think it can carry a MOAB... And if a MOAB is Trtional It creates enough of an explosion if burst in the air too destroy tanks and stuff.
OOC: No, the B-52H cannot carry a MOAB.
And there's no such thing as a "24 megaton thermonuclear bomb" --- well, in RL, there's no 24 megaton nukes that can be dropped from a B-52H. In the opposite, even a F-16 or an A-4 can carry nukes.

Nukes are not necessarily big.
The most powerful nuclear warhead ever tested was 58 megatons. It was a Soviet free-fall weapon.

For this weapon, it's not bad, and it can be drooped from appropriate transport aircraft. Though at over 50,000 lbs, it's going to be too much for any C-130 variants, incluing the J-30. This would mean that you'd have to modify a larger aircraft to carry and drop them, as Daisy Cutters and MOABs are dropped from special mission MC-130s rather than the basic cargo variants. The greatest problem I see, however, is that the cost is too high. Drop it down to a few hundred thousand, and you'll be fine, but a simple free-fall bomb costing more than $1 million is a bit much.

The B-52 can probably carry more than 24 Megatons' worth of nuclear weaponry--that doesn't mean that it can carry a 24 Megaton nuclear warhead-equipped weapon.

The B-52 mostly carried a number of nuclear weapons (which may have a total value of 24 or more megatons)...in later years it could carry 20 ALCMs (Air Launched Cruise Missiles. Warhead: W80-1 (yield of
5–150 kt).This is the nuclear-warhead bearing cruise missile that was equipped with conventional explosives to make the CALCM) since it could deliver a large nuclear payload deep within 'enemy' (read: soviet) territory without exposing most of the bombers to enemy air defenses.

OOC:
Oh for...

This suddenly turned into a nuclear weapons debate.

Anyway, bump.