Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jason 'Ding' Dowd jdowd@****.edu
Subject: [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:43:09 -0700
Alright, well, first my apologies for making a couple of presumptuous,
untrue statements. My bad.
It's the 15,000 pounder that's the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the
US arsenal. It contains 12,600 pounds of explosives, a mixture of ammonia
nitrate, TNT, and kerosene. (This means that they are OVER 6 KILOTONS of
explosive power; TNT is the basis of measure when you see "XX kilotons") I
can't remember offhand who mentioned it, but someone mentioned a BLU-82,
which is what this weapon was designated, also known as "Big Blue 82" and a
"Daisy Cutter". (Originally I said that a Daisy Cutter was something else.)
They were used originally in Vietnam multiple times to clear landing fields
for helicopters, and a couple of times to destroy enemy concentrations, by
slightly modified C-130 Hercules'. The explosions had over a mile radius.

Anyway, I don't want to clog up the list anymore about this, so if anyone
wants more information just use your preferred web search engine and look
for "BLU-82" or "DAISY CUTTER".

The above information was a combination of a magazine article I have and
the rather informational page at:
http://members.aol.com/SamC130/bc130.html


Jason "Ding" Dowd
http://home.san.rr.com/jdowd
"There is no problem in this world that cannot be solved by the
judicious application of high explosives."
Message no. 2
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Jason 'Ding' Dowd wrote:

> It's the 15,000 pounder that's the most powerful non-nuclear
> weapon in the US arsenal. It contains 12,600 pounds of explosives, a
> mixture of ammonia nitrate, TNT, and kerosene. (This means that they are
> OVER 6 KILOTONS of explosive power; TNT is the basis of measure when you
> see "XX kilotons")

Actually, if all 12,600 lbs of the explosive were TNT, the bomb's
power would be just over 6 TONS (12,600 lbs / 2000 lbs per ton = 6.3
tons).
Now, having said that, it is possible that they have done
"something" to increase the bomb's explosive power, but by a factor of a
thousand? I am highly skeptical. Effectively, this is just a big
conventional bomb. if a 2000-lb bomb contains aproximately 1000 lbs of
explosive, you could strap 12 2000-lb bombs together and get roughly the
same effect
An FAE works on an entirely different principle, and goes to great
lengths to maximize the explosive energy transfer of the fuel. Hell,
pound for pound, simple gasoline contains more explosive energy than
dynamite (which is basically just TNT mixed with fillers to make it more
stable).

Marc
Message no. 3
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:24:43 -0400
Marc Renouf wrote:
> Actually, if all 12,600 lbs of the explosive were TNT,
> the bomb's
> power would be just over 6 TONS (12,600 lbs / 2000 lbs per ton = 6.3
> tons).
[snip]
> An FAE works on an entirely different principle, and
> goes to great
> lengths to maximize the explosive energy transfer of the fuel. Hell,
> pound for pound, simple gasoline contains more explosive energy than

"Explosive"? Just to be retentive, gasoline *isn't* explosive. To
be explosive, the shock wave must *follow* the combustion. Otherwise,
it's just rapid combustion. Sure, the blast may knock over a tree or
two, making the point rather academic, but...

> dynamite (which is basically just TNT mixed with fillers to
> make it more
> stable).

Dynamite is nitroglycerine mixed with charcoal to make it passably
stable (it destabilizes nicely with age). Nitro on its own will blow
if you look at it funny. TNT on the other hand is rock solid. It
takes a lot of work to destabilize TNT through heat or impact.

James Ojaste
Message no. 4
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

> "Explosive"? Just to be retentive, gasoline *isn't* explosive. To
> be explosive, the shock wave must *follow* the combustion. Otherwise,
> it's just rapid combustion. Sure, the blast may knock over a tree or
> two, making the point rather academic, but...

Sorry, I should have been more clear here. What I was implying is
that there is more energy content in gasoline than in an equivalent weight
of dynamite (though this probably has much to do with the amount of filler
in dynaimte).
It should be pointed out, however, that while liquid gasoline is
not explosive, gasoline fumes are. This is in essence what makes an FAE
work.

> Dynamite is nitroglycerine mixed with charcoal to make it passably
> stable (it destabilizes nicely with age). Nitro on its own will blow
> if you look at it funny. TNT on the other hand is rock solid. It
> takes a lot of work to destabilize TNT through heat or impact.

D'oh! TNT, nitroglycerine - you know what I meant. :) Thanks
for catching my error in terminology on this one. I'm getting sloppy in
my old age.

Marc
Message no. 5
From: Covington, Bryan bryan.covington@****.com
Subject: [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:13:30 -0400
First Union Capital Markets Corp.

> On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Jason 'Ding' Dowd wrote:
>
> > It's the 15,000 pounder that's the most powerful non-nuclear
> > weapon in the US arsenal. It contains 12,600 pounds of explosives, a
> > mixture of ammonia nitrate, TNT, and kerosene. (This means that they are
> > OVER 6 KILOTONS of explosive power; TNT is the basis of measure when you
> > see "XX kilotons")
>
> Actually, if all 12,600 lbs of the explosive were TNT, the bomb's
> power would be just over 6 TONS (12,600 lbs / 2000 lbs per ton = 6.3
> tons).
> Now, having said that, it is possible that they have done
> "something" to increase the bomb's explosive power, but by a factor of a
> thousand? I am highly skeptical. Effectively, this is just a big
> conventional bomb. if a 2000-lb bomb contains aproximately 1000 lbs of
> explosive, you could strap 12 2000-lb bombs together and get roughly the
> same effect
>
That's what that ammonium nitrate is for (although this
seems kinda low tech and cheap for the US military to use). That oxidizer
makes the whole thing burn at phenomenal rates. When it's mixed properly it
makes a big boom.
I think we've all become kinda jaded hearing megatons and
kilotons all the time as to what that actually means. Think about the kind
of blast a MILLION TONS of TNT would make. That's only a one megaton bomb,
pretty weak by ICBM standards, where 18 megatons isn't uncommon.
Message no. 6
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:56:33 -0700
> I think we've all become kinda jaded hearing megatons and
>kilotons all the time as to what that actually means. Think about the kind
>of blast a MILLION TONS of TNT would make. That's only a one megaton bomb,
>pretty weak by ICBM standards, where 18 megatons isn't uncommon.

Most U.S. weapons are in the 350 kiloton class. Russian weapons average
~550 kt. There are very few multi-megaton weapons anymore; more accurate
targetting makes them unnecessary.

The most horrific effects from nuclear weapons (which isn't as true for
conventional weapons, even FAE bombs) are due to thermal pulse. A 350
kiloton weapon detonated at ~ 3500 meters altitude will cause 3rd degree
burns to a radius of 6.4 km and be able to ignite dark blue cotton. Less
hardy materials such as newspaper, plywood, and wood will also combust. It
is likely that everything within this area of effect will be enveloped in a
firestorm.

This altitude somewhat optimizes blast effects. The shock wave undergoes
normal reflection with the result that concrete and cinderblock walls will
fail under 2.9psi overpressure to a distance of ~ 5400 meters.

For comparison, a 7 kiloton FAE bomb detonated at 500 meters altitude would
generate 10.1 psi overpressure to ranges of 866 meters, damaging reinforced
concrete structures and overturning railway cars. The "wind" generated
would have a velocity of 133 meters/sec.

In addition, it is possible to exceed these effects with a nuclear "cluster
bomb" of, say, eight 20 kiloton devices. The practical effects of
simultaneous detonation of these "tactical" warheads on a day with 35-mile
visibility exceeds a single 1 megaton blast and would probably result in a
firestorm as indicated above enveloping all areas in line of sight of the
blasts.

These calculations and results can be found on:
http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html

In general, there's diminishing returns on weapon size. Roughly speaking,
effective diameter of the blast is a function of the cube root of the
energy. This is one reason why the nuclear cluster bomb would be so
effective. Another is that shock effects would be enormously magnified by
the effects of the shock waves of the different weapons colliding in the
center.

As can be shown by simple shock wave calculations, the result of two shock
waves of given magnitude encountering each other are reflected shock waves
of greater total magnitude.

In light of the above information (an example given in the reference above)
of the total hell nuclear war would cause, the U.S. targetted the city of
Kiev (~2 million) with 40 350kt weapons. Doubtless, certain areas of the
U.S. were similiarly fated. Naturally some of this is due to backup
targetting, though I doubt that would be of solace to the populace.
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Big-ass bombs. (was Fuel-Air Explosives), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!