Quantcast

MOAB

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Cabernut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,384
Reaction score
2
Time for someone to make a model rocket of one of those complete with grid fins.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
It is a cute, little bomb compared to various things in the arsenal.

They should figure out how to deploy it from something other than a 130- to slow and vulnerable. Maybe a B1.
 

CzTeacherMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
2,982
Reaction score
169
Mother of all bombs???
I beg to differ... Just look what I just plopped in the toilet...
 

georgegassaway

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,737
Reaction score
636
Let's not become YORF in this forum, please. I'm begging.
Funny, these days, the amount of political stuff on YORF is practically zero. Whenever it starts up, it gets shut down as soon as the mods see it. Both YORF and TRF have rules against political posts, but the mods here usually ignore that "until things get out of hand" (sort of like a policy that "A little bit Pregnant" is OK).

At least I learned this week of a few who are the wannabee mass murderers and outright blatant racists before a certain other thread got locked.

But I do get your point about the YORF poster who has an scatalogical fixation, most outgrow that by Kindergarten.
 
Last edited:

Mushtang

Premium Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
488
Location
Buford, Ga
Funny, these days, the amount of political stuff on YORF is practically zero. Both YORF and TRF have rules against political posts, but the mods here usually ignore that "until things get out of hand" (sort of like a policy that "A little bit Pregnant" is OK).

At least I learned this week of a few who are the wannabee mass murderers and outright blatant racists before a certain other thread got locked.
It's also funny that some people on here object to political posts until they want to make one, and then it's okay for them.
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
1,236
I'm all for getting rid of ISIS and all terrorist groups by any means necessary, including bombing the crap out of them if need be. But I'm wondering if the decision to use this particular "mother of all bombs" was based on a military judgement about the appropriate munition for the mission, or if someone wanted to go yuge and impress them bigly. Obviously there is a psychological aspect to war, and other huge bombs like this one (but smaller) were used in Afghanistan 15 years ago to scare the crap out of the enemy. But it seems in character with the current Commander in Chief to ask for the biggest bomb possible, whether it's needed or not. And my question would be whether that tactic advances our goals in the region or works against us. I don't know. If this bomb is the right weapon, then I'm all for it. If it's just some kind of ego-boosting overkill, them I'm thinking it's not serving our goals.
 

Dwatkins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
660
Reaction score
22
Gen. Keane said it was the perfect weapon for this situation. Besides the large explosion the gas that is ignited invades the caves and tunnels that were the targets of this strike.
 

Ravenex

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
932
Reaction score
42
The purpose of this kind of weapon is to create a very large area of "over pressure" which exceeds 1000 psi. That much pressure can collapse the underground caves, or at the least crush anyone in them.
 

Mushtang

Premium Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
488
Location
Buford, Ga
"They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far. I present to you the newest in ISIS removal line. Find an excuse to let one of these off the chain, and I personally guarantee, the bad guys won't even be able to come out of their caves. Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration... the MOAB."
 

Zeus-cat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,593
Reaction score
800
I'm all for getting rid of ISIS and all terrorist groups by any means necessary, including bombing the crap out of them if need be. But I'm wondering if the decision to use this particular "mother of all bombs" was based on a military judgement about the appropriate munition for the mission, or if someone wanted to go yuge and impress them bigly. Obviously there is a psychological aspect to war, and other huge bombs like this one (but smaller) were used in Afghanistan 15 years ago to scare the crap out of the enemy. But it seems in character with the current Commander in Chief to ask for the biggest bomb possible, whether it's needed or not. And my question would be whether that tactic advances our goals in the region or works against us. I don't know. If this bomb is the right weapon, then I'm all for it. If it's just some kind of ego-boosting overkill, them I'm thinking it's not serving our goals.
I just read that the bomb was moved over there under the previous administration so this wasn't something that the current president specifically ordered to put over there and use. I'm not disagreeing with you about the yuge thing, its just not his original idea. Besides, I certainly wouldn't want to go into caves to root out anyone.

Hey private, we got us some bad guys in a cave. You wanna go in and git I'm? Or should we drop a big bomb?

Big bomb sarge. Drop a big bomb.
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
5,357
Reaction score
839
Location
Alliance, Ohio
I'm all for getting rid of ISIS and all terrorist groups by any means necessary, including bombing the crap out of them if need be. But I'm wondering if the decision to use this particular "mother of all bombs" was based on a military judgement about the appropriate munition for the mission, or if someone wanted to go yuge and impress them bigly. Obviously there is a psychological aspect to war, and other huge bombs like this one (but smaller) were used in Afghanistan 15 years ago to scare the crap out of the enemy. But it seems in character with the current Commander in Chief to ask for the biggest bomb possible, whether it's needed or not. And my question would be whether that tactic advances our goals in the region or works against us. I don't know. If this bomb is the right weapon, then I'm all for it. If it's just some kind of ego-boosting overkill, them I'm thinking it's not serving our goals.

According to one article that I read yesterday, it was the decision of the commanders on the ground. ISIS forces had been retreating into this area for several weeks and as the pursuing elements got closer ISIS greatly increased the placement of IED's, landmines, etc. The use of MOAB not only targeted the main base and the underground hiding places, but was intended to clear the booby traps from a large area so that conventional forces could operate freely.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,066
Reaction score
1,174
I'm all for getting rid of ISIS and all terrorist groups by any means necessary, including bombing the crap out of them if need be. But I'm wondering if the decision to use this particular "mother of all bombs" was based on a military judgement about the appropriate munition for the mission, or if someone wanted to go yuge and impress them bigly. Obviously there is a psychological aspect to war, and other huge bombs like this one (but smaller) were used in Afghanistan 15 years ago to scare the crap out of the enemy. But it seems in character with the current Commander in Chief to ask for the biggest bomb possible, whether it's needed or not. And my question would be whether that tactic advances our goals in the region or works against us. I don't know. If this bomb is the right weapon, then I'm all for it. If it's just some kind of ego-boosting overkill, them I'm thinking it's not serving our goals.
"The MOAB's true name is the GBU-43/B Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb. Each costs about $15.7 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Air Force received 15 such bombs from Boeing Co. in 2011.

As many as 36 suspected Islamic State militants were killed in Afghanistan when the United States dropped "the mother of all bombs," its largest non-nuclear device ever unleashed in combat, the Afghan defense ministry said on Friday."


I think that huge cost per bomb is due to the small number produced where development costs are a very large part of the total cost. That's a huge $436,111 per ISIS scumbag killed. I suspect this was mainly intended as a show of force towards Syria and//or Korea while getting rid of a local problem in Afghanistan. The MOAB is carried by the B2 which in an all out conflict with Korea would be one of the bombers used.
 

Incongruent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
5
According to Wikipedia, the development costs were over $300 million.
 

rcktnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
225
Location
Sheboygan WI
Although very expensive, looked like a good target to use one up. It should have screwed up the tunnel system pretty good so it should have a bit more value to it rather than just counting the "kills." Better to use one here and there I guess, rather than having them sitting around for the next 25- 50 years.
 
Top