"Father of All Bombs" (FOAB)

Probably the most interesting thing about this weapon is that it is clearly designed to be carried by a large bomber... no Flanker variant could carry a weapon of this weight.

It is basically a huge fuel air explosive bomb, so it destroys by heat and the shockwave is rather slower than with conventional high explosives, but it is still present, so buildings will still be damaged. The other kill mechanism would be oxygen starvation and enormous pressure changes.

they should overwork the design, its not effective and dengourous and not realy precise against enemys with serious AA capabilitys or airforce or both

make like the MOB at least a guided version

This is not a bunker busting weapon... the target will be an area target like a factory making chemical or biological weapons so the accuracy of the weapon will largely be dictated by the accuracy of the carrier aircraft. With its new conventional bombing role I would expect the Tu-160 would be able to drop this bomb with plenty of accuracy... this is a daisy cutter type weapon that might even be used for a similar role of clearing 200 square metres of jungle for a helicopter LZ.

Another role might be to take out an Anthrax lab and destroy any product on site, or hit a cave in a mountainous area and suffocate those inside.

There's no reason to overwork the design. Currently Russia has no stealth strategic bomber so it's use is obliviously extremely limited until they do.

It is not a strategic weapon... if it ever is used it will be most likely used in the mountains of Afghanistan... or one of the 'stans.

Strategic bombers don't have to carry strategic weapons. A stealthy one however, has the ability to carry payloads equivalent to that of strategic weapons, but under the guise of stealth. However, a non-stealthy one obliviously does not have that guise. Thus, carrying around that heavy of a load, without stealth, and planning to use it against a hardened bunker, is not feasible until they get a stealth bomber (as a hardened bunker would more often than not, be protected by SAMs).

Strategic bombers don't have to carry strategic weapons.
A stealthy one however, has the ability to carry payloads equivalent to that of strategic weapons, but under the guise of stealth. However, a non-stealthy one obliviously does not have that guise. Thus, carrying around that heavy of a load, without stealth, and planning to use it against a hardened bunker, is not feasible until they get a stealth bomber (as a hardened bunker would more often than not, be protected by SAMs).

Perfectly true.

In a strategic nuclear conflict it makes much more sense to use a nuke rather than a heavy conventional weapon.

However Russian strategic bombers have previously been strictly nuclear armed cruise missile carriers, which means their primary role has been long range (ie strategic) and nuclear in nature.

What has changed is that they are adding precision guided conventional weapons to their arsenal, and also adding to their roles.

Instead of pure strategic nuclear cruise missile carrier, they now have the added roles of both theatre heavy conventional bomber and strategic conventional bomber/cruise missile carrier.

In a strategic conflict where nukes are not viable weapons... the best example I can give would be USAF B-52s flying from US bases to bomb somewhere a strategic distance away and then returning to the US.
If the enemy air defences are intact then they can use 3,500km range Kh-555 missiles with conventional warheads to begin to take down air defence sites and air bases while remaining out of range of enemy air power. They would likely operate with inflight refuelling aircraft and have fighter support... either Su-35s or PAK FA aircraft.

Once the enemy air defence has been reduced to a safe level then they can fly medium and high altitude missions to take out targets suitable for the FOABs, which would not include hardened bunkers as this is a fuel air explosive weapon that wouldn't be very effective against a hardened underground bunker.

An FAB-9000 would likely be more effective against an underground hardened bunker than this weapon, which is more like a daisy cutter.

If they wanted to play the US game of shock and awe and scare an enemy country with a really big firework display then this would be ideal... probably quite pretty over water...

Otherwise it is a very specialist weapon... though if a Chechen rebel camp is found in the mountains it is fairly unlikely they will have a huge underground complex so a single FOAB dropped from high altitude.... they wouldn't know what hit them and likely the entire camp would be removed from the map.

question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

collegeboy16 wrote:question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

No, the pressure from FOAB is beyond 44 Kt if it is or any other tank inside the fireball it has Zero chance to survive and the FOAB fireball is 500m wide.

Werewolf wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

No, the pressure from FOAB is beyond 44 Kt  if it is or any other tank inside the fireball it has Zero chance to survive and the FOAB fireball is 500m wide.

Yeah no tank could survive that type of force, it's easily comparable to small volcano eruptions...it'll annihilate any man made object in sight!

collegeboy16 wrote:question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

Even if the tank was made of alien metals ,that survive anything you throw at it. and the tank doesn't break or burn. it will fly and move violently and anyone inside will die of physical impact with the tank parts. it should be like throwing an 80 tons tank from a 10 floor building with you inside.   

It will not be very pleasant the impact and you will not survive.

On a different note.. anyone knows when we should have the first photos and preview of the Russian army next gen ,
Armata main battle tank.?

Vann7 wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

Even if the tank was made of alien metals ,that survive anything you throw at it. and the tank doesn't break or burn. it will fly and move violently and anyone inside will die of physical impact with the tank parts. it should be like throwing an 80 tons tank from a 10 floor building with you inside.   

It will not be very pleasant the impact and you will not survive.

On a different note.. anyone knows when we should have the first photos and preview of the Russian army next gen ,
Armata main battle tank.?

Its said that the first photos will start to emerge nearing the date of the Victory Day parade in Moscow 2015, we'll start to see photos 8-10 months from now.

Vann7 wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

Even if the tank was made of alien metals ,that survive anything you throw at it. and the tank doesn't break or burn. it will fly and move violently and anyone inside will die of physical impact with the tank parts. it should be like throwing an 80 tons tank from a 10 floor building with you inside.   

It will not be very pleasant the impact and you will not survive.

On a different note.. anyone knows when we should have the first photos and preview of the Russian army next gen ,
Armata main battle tank.?

Have you seen TOS-1 220mm Thermobaric barrages against BTR's and old T-54/55 on shooting ranges?

This little 220mm ripp apart the turret from hull of T-55s and scatters BTR's over several dozen meters and this 220mm have less than 20kg explosive charge compared with 11 tone FOAB bomb.

Even better if they make one without exotic materials and as cheap as possible as the HEAT atgms which imo is very possible considering the fact that it would only fly for a few seconds at best.

Scramjet propulsion is the simplest and cheapest jet design.

Very simply it is a tube that compresses air... fuel is added and burned and exits the rear as thrust. Obviously it is very complicated to design and control but there are few moving parts and no exotic material turbine blades.

question: Would a buttoned up T-90 survive being inside the 300m blast radius of FOAB(say within 150m, then 200, 250 so on)?
Would it still be operational afterwards with minor repairs?

No. Even if the armour survives... which it probably would... the shock wave of the explosion would kill the crew.

This little 220mm ripp apart the turret from hull of T-55s and scatters BTR's over several dozen meters and this 220mm have less than 20kg explosive charge compared with 11 tone FOAB bomb.

The shockwave of the explosion would crush them like they fell from space, the heat would largely turn the human remains to ash and ignite fuel and ammo, and the lack of oxygen would suffocate them.

Werewolf wrote:

Have you seen TOS-1 220mm Thermobaric barrages against BTR's and old T-54/55 on shooting ranges?

This little 220mm ripp apart the turret from hull of T-55s and scatters BTR's over several dozen meters and this 220mm have less than 20kg explosive charge compared with 11 tone FOAB bomb.

will be nice to see TOS-1 with 50km-90km ranges.

Werewolf wrote:
Have you seen TOS-1 220mm Thermobaric barrages against BTR's and old T-54/55 on shooting ranges?

This little 220mm ripp apart the turret from hull of T-55s and scatters BTR's over several dozen meters and this 220mm have less than 20kg explosive charge compared with 11 tone FOAB bomb.

Against lighter vehicles like BTR,yes a nearby explosion from Tos-1 rocket is all it takes to fracture the vehicle into pieces. Something denser and more massive like a T-90 should be able to remain intact structurally-wise tho. the turret ring of modern MBTs are much stronger than T-54/55s because of vastly more powerful guns and afaik it took one hell of an IED to tear off the Abrams turret- something like a hundred pounds worth of explosives tho the blast was mostly shielded by the hull and the ground and the turret is massive for its class, but still.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Against lighter vehicles like BTR,yes a nearby explosion from Tos-1 rocket is all it takes to fracture the vehicle into pieces.  Something denser and more massive like a T-90 should be able to remain intact structurally-wise tho. the turret ring of modern MBTs are much stronger than T-54/55s because of vastly more powerful guns and afaik it took one hell of an IED to tear off the Abrams turret- something like a hundred pounds worth of explosives tho the blast was mostly shielded by the hull and the ground and the turret is massive for its class, but still.

In case of FOAB it wouldn't make any difference what tank you are in or how strong the turret ring or the materials it uses, are. Within 500m radius it is the Lethal zone for everything living regardless inside a tank,bunker/complex or magic barrier. FOAB beats Magic, every man knows that.
  

Werewolf wrote:
In case of FOAB it wouldn't make any difference what tank you are in or how strong the turret ring or the materials it uses, are. Within 500m radius it is the Lethal zone for everything living regardless inside a tank,bunker/complex or magic barrier. FOAB beats Magic, every man knows that.
  

wiki says blast radius is 300m tho mark-84's is 360 m, maybe 500m is more correct. anyhow, i think 300m is complete destruction- 500m severe etc.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
In case of FOAB it wouldn't make any difference what tank you are in or how strong the turret ring or the materials it uses, are. Within 500m radius it is the Lethal zone for everything living regardless inside a tank,bunker/complex or magic barrier. FOAB beats Magic, every man knows that.
  

wiki says blast radius is 300m tho mark-84's is 360 m, maybe 500m is more correct. anyhow, i think 300m is complete destruction- 500m severe etc.

Well to be honest about FOAB there are lot of contradicting informations i have seen. Some informations say it is based on KAB-9000 bomb which it indeed is and weights 11 tones and has 500m Fireball radius=lethal zone and other informations say it has weight of 7.1-7.5tones with 300m lethal zone (fireball). As long there is no information from military itself it is a rather vague figure, but alone from this explosion tests at this 4 buildings the explosion of the actual fireball looks gigantic compared to the sizes of the buildings.

will be nice to see TOS-1 with 50km-90km ranges.

Smerch has a thermobaric version already... 9N174.

They need to find a delivery vehicle for the FOAB.

Rolling it out the back of a cargo plane can't be particularly effective, even if the blast radius is huge.

dionis wrote:They need to find a delivery vehicle for the FOAB.

Rolling it out the back of a cargo plane can't be particularly effective, even if the blast radius is huge.

Correct, I'm surprised they haven't turn it in to a ballistic missile yet.   

The idea that the FOABs will be rolled out the rear of a cargo plane mainly come from the media because when the Russians said they were testing a FOAB the media of course showed stock footage of the daisy cutter... an american bomb that is carried by the C-130 transport plane and delivered by rolling out the rear cargo bay.

The thing is however that at the time the Russian military clearly stated it was carried by a Tu-160 for the test and that it was a weapon of war... not a tool for clearing jungles to create helicopter Landing Zones.

From what I have read the FOAB weighs 11 tons but because it is all fuel and therefore is a Fuel Air Explosive weapon its power in tons of TNT is something like 41 tons for the single bomb. I would suspect each bomb takes up each of the weapon bays of the Tu-160 and therefore a single Blackjack should be able to carry two on a real mission.

The enormous power makes it useful for large area targets, but its high temperature would also make it particularly effective against chem or bio weapons facilities as well.

It would be an excellent anti poppy field weapon if a bit overkill....


Being able to fly it into an area at medium altitude at mach 2 or at low altitude at mach 1.3 would make it a hard weapon to stop...

GarryB wrote:The idea that the FOABs will be rolled out the rear of a cargo plane mainly come from the media because when the Russians said they were testing a FOAB the media of course showed stock footage of the daisy cutter... an american bomb that is carried by the C-130 transport plane and delivered by rolling out the rear cargo bay.

The thing is however that at the time the Russian military clearly stated it was carried by a Tu-160 for the test and that it was a weapon of war... not a tool for clearing jungles to create helicopter Landing Zones.

From what I have read the FOAB weighs 11 tons but because it is all fuel and therefore is a Fuel Air Explosive weapon its power in tons of TNT is something like 41 tons for the single bomb. I would suspect each bomb takes up each of the weapon bays of the Tu-160 and therefore a single Blackjack should be able to carry two on a real mission.

The enormous power makes it useful for large area targets, but its high temperature would also make it particularly effective against chem or bio weapons facilities as well.

It would be an excellent anti poppy field weapon if a bit overkill....  


Being able to fly it into an area at medium altitude at mach 2 or at low altitude at mach 1.3 would make it a hard weapon to stop...

If they can fit low altitude bombing runs as one of PAK-DA's roles, with a FOAB it will be very similar to a B-2 dropping tac. nukes on large masses of targets.