Rather Ignorant Military Question

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-17 08:38pm

Got into an inane debate over IM.

When someone refers to a '5,000 pound bomb' or a '5,000 ton bomb' are they referring to weight, or yield?

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-03-17 08:40pm

Weight of the explosives. Not for nukes however, they are rated in yield.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-17 08:40pm

Weight. Mostly.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-17 08:40pm

And there's no 5,000 ton bomb by the way

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-17 08:43pm

Weight in the former, a 5000 ton bomb is too big so thats yield.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-17 08:44pm

I'm very certain it's the overall weight of the warhead.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-17 08:53pm

No, the weight of the entire unit. The Mk-84 2000lb bomb does not have 2000lbs of explosives inside.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-03-17 08:57pm

Howedar wrote:No, the weight of the entire unit. The Mk-84 2000lb bomb does not have 2000lbs of explosives inside.

It's actually only about half explosive. The other half is the case, which makes a lot of shrapnel.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-17 08:58pm

how much damage will that 22k lb bomb do?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-17 09:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:And there's no 5,000 ton bomb by the way

5kt tactical nuke?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-17 09:08pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Got into an inane debate over IM.

When someone refers to a '5,000 pound bomb' or a '5,000 ton bomb' are they referring to weight, or yield?

Conventional bombs are rated by weight, in pounds. Nuclear bombs are measured by yield, usually in kilotons. This is true even if the yield is below 1kt--it would be a .5kt nuke, not a 500 ton nuke.

EDIT: Nukes are rated in kilotons of TNT, so even if you converted their yeilds to pounds, you couldn't compare them to conventional bombs, which use much more powerful explosives than TNT.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-17 10:59pm

It's by total weight. Mk84 bombs are 2000 pound bombs, but contain only 945 pounds of an 80/20 mixture of TNT and an aluminum inhibitor. It's less powerful but more stable than "pure" TNT. The Mk82 is a 531 pound bomb (570 for Snakeye variant) with 275 pounds of the same explosive compund, called H-6.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-17 11:01pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Got into an inane debate over IM.

When someone refers to a '5,000 pound bomb' or a '5,000 ton bomb' are they referring to weight, or yield?

The former refers to the weight of the entire bomb, the latter refers to the yield of a nuclear bomb.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-17 11:03pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:how much damage will that 22k lb bomb do?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-17 11:20pm

Beowulf wrote:
Howedar wrote:No, the weight of the entire unit. The Mk-84 2000lb bomb does not have 2000lbs of explosives inside.
It's actually only about half explosive. The other half is the case, which makes a lot of shrapnel.

That depends on what type of bomb it is. A general purpose design like the whole Mk80 series is about 60/40 in favor of steel
Mk.81 250lbs/ 100lbs HE
Mk.82 500lbs/192lbs HE
Mk.83 1000lbs/ 385lbs HE
Mk.84 2000lbs/ 945lbs HE

However the 2000 pound BLU-109 penatraitor is 75% steel, with only 25% of the weight explosives. Light case or "Demolition" bombs, which where more common in WW2 when targets where buildings and machine tools can have morel like 75% explosives. The only one f those that the US has left is the 750 pound Mk117.

But most light case bombs are also very fat, and create fuckloads of drag. Fine for internal carriage on a B-17, bad for external on your F-16. That's why you generally only find them on heavy bombers or dedicated strike aircraft like the Tornado.

Things get more complex if you factor in fillers. Mk80's use Tritonal, some other bomb use straight TNT, BLU-109 uses AFX 708, PBX is also used for some designs.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-17 11:30pm

I would give ANYTHING if the media would quit calling the friggen Massive Ordnanace Air Burst the 'Mother of all Bombs'. It just sounds stupid!

Tragic · Post by **Tragic** » 2003-03-18 02:06am

Nathan F wrote:I would give ANYTHING if the media would quit calling the friggen Massive Ordnanace Air Burst the 'Mother of all Bombs'. It just sounds stupid!

In was the people in the pentagon that said it was the mother of all bomb. then the media started using it.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-18 02:13am

That's one hell of a name. Though I am intrigued by one characteristic. It's mentioned that it caused no unusual seismic activity, and even a waitress 20 miles from the test site claims to have heard it, but it didn't cause any vibrations. I figured if it was detonated and was really strong (like they claim) then it would cause suffecient ground quakes. Especially with the fact they claim it's to be as pyschological as it is millitary effective. Personally, I'dve designed the son of a bitch to drop pictures from the wall over 30 miles away. Now THAT would be the mother of all bombs.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-18 02:52am

It's an air-burst device.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-18 08:12am

Nathan F wrote:I would give ANYTHING if the media would quit calling the friggen Massive Ordnanace Air Burst the 'Mother of all Bombs'. It just sounds stupid!

That's what the USAF calls it, get used to it, it fits anyway.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rather Ignorant Military Question

Rather Ignorant Military Question

Re: Rather Ignorant Military Question

Re: Rather Ignorant Military Question