What was the intended use of these again? Was it just a technical exercise to see how big of a bomb the US could create and still be practical or is it one of those weapons that has an extremely specific use-case and is worthless for anything else?
I was in middle school in Niceville when they were doing the first tests of the MOAB. Every window in the school rattled like crazy and a few of them busted. Had some power flickering too, was pretty neat.
BLU-82 daisy cutters ran out so some whackjob decided another 'shock and awe' weapon was needed. The end result is this 1 million $ giga-JDAM that can only be deployed from a C-130
Ultimately, it's just a large blast bomb with little utility.
>can only be deployed from a C-130
Could it be possible to slap it on a B-52 pylon? I thought that was its big selling point to keep it in service; massive wing-mounted ordnance you could never fit in a weapons bay.
>Could it be possible to slap it on a B-52 pylon
yes: >moab: >21,600 lbs (9,800 kg) >6x alcm: >18,900 lbs (8,600 kg)
The reasons they won't is: >because a new pylon would have to be designed, though designing it is easy, this causes dev time and is a budget item. >the days of mogging on muslim cavement are over, b-52 will not be able to mog on chink targets by direct moab overflight. only distant cruise missile launches are safe.
If Mariupol is anything to go by, if they bypass an area and gain control of an airspace of a pocket after creating said pocket they can probably use it there.
Yes, but even thridies like Russia can shoot down a slow, big, non stealthy plane that flies almost straight above them.
B-52s are getting cruise missiles for a reason.
We could have just built more M-121 bombs instead (the bomb the BLU-82 replaced) as Tritonal isn't hard to manufacture compared with the later bombs and you would have a similar effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-121_(bomb)
Mostly was a psychological weapon for shock and awe type demonstrations. Pretty useless tactically since it literally has to be slid out the ass of a C130
It was made as cope because tactical nukes are a big no-no, which we only came to realize after we put so much work into making them. A W54 does its job better and can be fired on a missile from an F-22.
> 170,000 bucks to say frick you and the grid square you rode in on.
I mean.... it is not the most expensive endeavor but it definitely is for special occasions and assassination aren't even worth it with that creepy hellfire that shoots damned swords at a two by two foot area.
1) Destroy soft/medium targets over a wide area
2) Collapse cave and tunnel systems
3) Shatter a heavily reinforced target
It almost seems a waste that ordnance can never be used and then just expire.
says, the only real combat use of the MOAB has been to drop a fricking mountain on top of tunnel rats. Mostly it's just a method of expressing EXTREME DISPLEASURE without having to go nuclear.
can some one link the video of it being used in afghanistan? iirc it was used against a village that was located on a mountain, and the bomb straight up annihilated the entire side of the mountain
What would be the buoyancy of the thing? You might be able to build a semi-submersible around it and sneak it under a Russian ship. As much as I would like to see a frigate fly, it would probably get torn apart.
So why did Trump used it that one time anyway? Just to be that guy who pushed the red button first maybe? I suppose it's there, might as well use it. Worked pretty well on those Daesh gays too.
If you need to collapse a tunnel system it's probably the best tool for the job.
says the very specific situation in which it was used (underground tunnel complex, low risk of civilian casualties) made it a good option for the first and so far only time in its 20 years in service. It wasn’t the case that he demanded it to be used, rather a group of probably very giddy officers found a situation where it could be used and passed it up the chain of command with the knowledge that there was no way Trump would refuse.
I don't think you fully comprehend the scale of these frickers. If you dropped one on a farmer's field that had been mined, you would remove the entire field to a depth from "a couple meters" to "a dozen or 20 meters" near the center. It would fill in with groundwater and become a lake about a kilometer or more across. All villages & structures within ten kilometers would be flattened.
Unironically, this is one of the few bombs that would have been capable of removing the Nova Kakhovka dam in one strike. Short of nukes, everything else would take several strikes to bust a dam like that.
because having multiple mothers leads to serious mental illnesses
what if i have a mom but want a mommy gf too?
Use it on what?
Black folk
Israel
cool down
hard to get a 25 killstreak
They only use when they’re trying to be funny. It’s not for tactical things
What was the intended use of these again? Was it just a technical exercise to see how big of a bomb the US could create and still be practical or is it one of those weapons that has an extremely specific use-case and is worthless for anything else?
>What was the intended use of these again?
To set off all the car alarms in Okaloosa county and expend them GWOTbux
I was in middle school in Niceville when they were doing the first tests of the MOAB. Every window in the school rattled like crazy and a few of them busted. Had some power flickering too, was pretty neat.
1) Destroy soft/medium targets over a wide area
2) Collapse cave and tunnel systems
3) Shatter a heavily reinforced target
It almost seems a waste that ordnance can never be used and then just expire.
>2) Collapse cave and tunnel systems
They did blow up one some years ago, there's a nice video.
80+ towelheads were buried in that one.
BLU-82 daisy cutters ran out so some whackjob decided another 'shock and awe' weapon was needed. The end result is this 1 million $ giga-JDAM that can only be deployed from a C-130
Ultimately, it's just a large blast bomb with little utility.
If you were a C-130 pilot you'd be creaming your pants at the opportunity to one-up the B-52 bomber.
>can only be deployed from a C-130
Could it be possible to slap it on a B-52 pylon? I thought that was its big selling point to keep it in service; massive wing-mounted ordnance you could never fit in a weapons bay.
>Could it be possible to slap it on a B-52 pylon
yes:
>moab:
>21,600 lbs (9,800 kg)
>6x alcm:
>18,900 lbs (8,600 kg)
The reasons they won't is:
>because a new pylon would have to be designed, though designing it is easy, this causes dev time and is a budget item.
>the days of mogging on muslim cavement are over, b-52 will not be able to mog on chink targets by direct moab overflight. only distant cruise missile launches are safe.
>the days of mogging on muslim cavement are over
Frick, dude. You didn't have to put it so bluntly.
I’m sorry anon, we all have to accept it, don’t be sad it’s gone, just be happy it lasted for 20 years
If Mariupol is anything to go by, if they bypass an area and gain control of an airspace of a pocket after creating said pocket they can probably use it there.
>the days of mogging on muslim cavemen are over
For now. But I have high hopes of Iran fricking around and needing to find out.
Biden is too weak for that. Besides, his handlers wouldn't allow him anyway.
Yes, but even thridies like Russia can shoot down a slow, big, non stealthy plane that flies almost straight above them.
B-52s are getting cruise missiles for a reason.
We could have just built more M-121 bombs instead (the bomb the BLU-82 replaced) as Tritonal isn't hard to manufacture compared with the later bombs and you would have a similar effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-121_(bomb)
Mostly was a psychological weapon for shock and awe type demonstrations. Pretty useless tactically since it literally has to be slid out the ass of a C130
It was made as cope because tactical nukes are a big no-no, which we only came to realize after we put so much work into making them. A W54 does its job better and can be fired on a missile from an F-22.
it was for scaring toweleheads, nothing more
>What was the intended use of these again?
Removing Kremlin, but not before 8k 120hz cameras are set up to capture the event.
So that when the US captures a FOAB we can have them frick and produce the mighty SOAB and DOAB bombs.
> 170,000 bucks to say frick you and the grid square you rode in on.
I mean.... it is not the most expensive endeavor but it definitely is for special occasions and assassination aren't even worth it with that creepy hellfire that shoots damned swords at a two by two foot area.
2x2 meter, but yeah. Like
says, the only real combat use of the MOAB has been to drop a fricking mountain on top of tunnel rats. Mostly it's just a method of expressing EXTREME DISPLEASURE without having to go nuclear.
>that creepy hellfire
The R9X isn’t creepy, she’s beautiful and my wife!
Blade
Honestly, getting assassinated by the US with a fricking MOAB is pretty damn metal. Even moreso than with a ninjahellfire.
>170,000 bucks
...is peanuts in military spending terms. A single AIM-120 costs a million.
Because it's a shitty propaganda weapon where other weapons can do a better job, same as the Tzar Bomba or Castle Bravo.
can some one link the video of it being used in afghanistan? iirc it was used against a village that was located on a mountain, and the bomb straight up annihilated the entire side of the mountain
Trump did it and now it isn't cool anymore.
They didn't make that many of them vs the literal landfills full of 500lb bomb and 1000lb bombs
Why doesn't Ukraine use 10 MOABs to blast a path thru Russian lines
Ukraine doesn't have a delivery mechanism. Suggest that you browse the thread? It's explained pretty clearly.
What would be the buoyancy of the thing? You might be able to build a semi-submersible around it and sneak it under a Russian ship. As much as I would like to see a frigate fly, it would probably get torn apart.
probably many fizzles.
MOAB for Ukraine when?
It's not like they'd be able to use it. It's a bomb, not a missile.
>can only be deployed from a C-130
thats why
>cant be dropped effectively in a conventional war
>making it a missile would defeat the point
>nothing to bomb at the bottom of the sea anymore
Why not strap it to a remote-controlled truck and go full ISIS
So why did Trump used it that one time anyway? Just to be that guy who pushed the red button first maybe? I suppose it's there, might as well use it. Worked pretty well on those Daesh gays too.
If you need to collapse a tunnel system it's probably the best tool for the job.
Essentially, but as
says the very specific situation in which it was used (underground tunnel complex, low risk of civilian casualties) made it a good option for the first and so far only time in its 20 years in service. It wasn’t the case that he demanded it to be used, rather a group of probably very giddy officers found a situation where it could be used and passed it up the chain of command with the knowledge that there was no way Trump would refuse.
I always wondered if these kinds of bombs would be useful for mine clearance
I don't think you fully comprehend the scale of these frickers. If you dropped one on a farmer's field that had been mined, you would remove the entire field to a depth from "a couple meters" to "a dozen or 20 meters" near the center. It would fill in with groundwater and become a lake about a kilometer or more across. All villages & structures within ten kilometers would be flattened.
Unironically, this is one of the few bombs that would have been capable of removing the Nova Kakhovka dam in one strike. Short of nukes, everything else would take several strikes to bust a dam like that.
>All villages & structures within ten kilometers would be flattened.
Lolno
>would fill in with groundwater and become a lake
Assuming.