Russian army tests the father of all bombs

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Random_Task, Sep 12, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Russian army 'tests the father of all bombs'
    Daily Telegraph
    Just as long as you're no where near it when it detonates 8O
  2. Pretty interesting this whole vacuum bomb thing.

    Can anybody explain the concept behind it in an elementary way so even I can understand?

  3. So if the 2003 US test was of a 10 ton equivalent bomb then Russian claims would make this 40 ton equivalent. General Colonel Aleksandr Rukshin says that because it's so powerful they can make it less accurate and hence cheaper. Oh good.

    More news in Russian:
    Russian One TV

    Video clip from Russia Today
  4. Reportedly new Russian bomb was developed with extensive usage of nano-technologies. Extremely tiny pieces of special explosive are dispersed and form something like explosive cloud. Expolsion itself produce unimaginary high temperature and super-powerfull blast wave.

    Last years, billions of dollars were spent to develop nano-technologies in Russia. Mr.Putin himself supervises this project ahd supports newly founded state-run nano-technologies corporation.
  5. As tested in Grozny.
  6. Or you could just use a nuke .If these bombs have to be carried by bear
    or hercules to the target not really much use in conventional warfare.
    And hardly coin weapons so whats the point?

    Not that there is anything wrong with messing around with things that go bang . :D
  7. So it looks like all those Typhoons that 'we don't need anymore' might just... come in handy? Vlad the Mad's superbomb might go bang, but a Tu160-full of the feckers will make an even bigger one with an AMRAAM up its pipe.
  8. Hi Devil Dog: Here's an older (2000 AD :) but still active link that may add to the info already given here:

    As Passing Bells mentioned, it references Grozny.

    p.s.: top notch opinions and wit on this site! Thank you!
  9. I maybe wrong but I don't think nanotechnology really comes into it. They may have made the explosive into millions of separate micron size pieces but this isn't nanotechnology.
    But the beauty of turning explosive into millions of very tiny particles is that each particle would be surround by air thus presumably increasing its explosive energy.

    It also ensures that more of the air in the vicinity is consumed thus ensuring the creation of the vacuum that follows.

    Such a device should really be called The Oxygen Thief Bomb.
  10. Nice to hear it is good for the environment !!
  11. I wonder if the looney left will still argue defence spending is a waste of money?
  12. Oh it is. It aerates the earth and does wonders for the roses. Is that one lump or two you take in your tea vicar?
  13. 8) 8) 8) Would blow the Taliban off the Kahzi they would arrive to see Allah with scorched arses :D :D :D
  14. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Well, at least unlike nukes, one can roll in afterwards and take the ground.

    Let's see what the septics come up with in the new weapons race then. What are they going to call THEIR new bomb? The grandpappy of all bombs, or maybe 'my dad's bigger than your dad of all bombs'.

    Let's think up some suitable acronyms for even bigger, better non-nuclear bombs shall we?

    1. The bomb that time forgot? BTF
    2. The progenator of all smaller bombs? PSB
    3. The Holy Bomb of Antioch? HBA
    4. Fuel Energy Carpet Kiloton Enormous Detonation? FECKED