Talk:GBU-43/B MOAB/Archive 1

Archive 1

insidious vandalism here?

check the history, some content was removed I think. I am trying to piece it all back together but may have missed some pieces... walk the diff starting about here: [1] to see what I mean. Several anons probably need warning too. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

well, just one I think. I warned that one. The next two anon edits tried to remove the vandalism but didn't realise they were omitting previously deleted materials, I think. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Article rename?

Should this article be renamed to GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb? That would fit the existing pattern better. --SebastianP 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and moved the article, and fixed the double redirects in order to get it listed correctly in the various category listings. --SebastianP 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Weapons Effects

I see there is now a section called weapons effects, which claims that the MOAB is a thermobaric weapon that uses a slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum.

It is neither such a slurry nor a thermobaric weapon. (And thermobaric weapons are completely different than bombs that use a slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum.)

I'm not sure if the section needs to be rewritten or deleted, but it certainly needs to be fixed. Oralloy 15:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• People may be finding stats for the slurry fill. There are both. PETN 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reports of a slurry MOAB are likely to be erroneous, from reporters who just assumed that the MOAB used the same explosive as the Daisy Cutter. Is there a military source that says it comes in slurry form? Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Read above, I don't want too respond to all of these. PETN 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

dispute tag

I've moved this to the talk page. We're disputing the mechanism of the weapon -- for which there are at least two versions -- which is generally classified. We can talk about it here, but finding authoritative sources will be almost impossible. We can discuss here. ... aa:talk 05:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

H6 Explosive

Links verifying that the MOAB uses the explosive "H-6":

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/CLAMO-Public.nsf/0/85256a1c006ac77385256cf30062f470/Body/M2/MOAB%20Weapon%20Review.doc?OpenElement

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/moab.pdf Oralloy 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Links that show H-6 as being 1.35 times as powerful as TNT:

Page 26 of this PDF about older military "blast effects" spreadsheets lists TNT equivalencies:

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Weapons/files/Old%20BEC%20papers.pdf

It shows H-6 as being 1.35 times as powerful as TNT on average.

Version 4 (dated 2000) of the spreadsheet is available here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military//library/report/2000/BECV4.xls

It still lists the same TNT equivalencies as in the PDF document.

The military is using version 6 of the spreadsheet now. But so far as I know, 5 and 6 haven't been released to civilians. They may be classified. Oralloy 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• • You need to note that this is a Thermobaric Varient of H6. There is also a slurry version that is classified. H6 is a bastard child of RDX (Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine), 14 nanogram aluminum and TNT (trinotoluene). The TNT is a booster charge that spreads the aluminum talc airborn, mixing it with air (which happens to be about 1/3 oxygen). When the 14 nano AL particles spread out, they start to rust and release hydrogen as the water binds to the particles. This starts the increase of heat in the area. The second charge then goes off that starts the aluminum talc burning in what is known as a pressure wave. This pressure wave is discribed here: Thermobaric_weapons#Weapon_effects and here Nuclear_explosion#Blast_damage

The Slurry version is just like the BLU-82, only obviously bigger. 70.125.43.99 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also look here: Talk:Shoulder-Launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon

Peace out! 70.125.43.99 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

H-6 is a specific composition. If it were altered to be a thermobaric explosive, it would no longer be H-6.

• right you are, that is why I called it a bastard of H-6. It is a polymer-bonded explosive developed by Picatinny Arsenal, caled PAX. I think it is either PAX-28 or PAX-40. More info is here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-im.htm

Also, here is Pic's homepage: http://www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/index.asp

...Cheers

PETN 01:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The PAX explosives are based on DNAN (dinitroanisole), which makes them melt-pour explosives instead of polymer-bonded explosives.

These explosives are described a bit in this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6648998.html

I wouldn't be surprised if we switched over to something like PAX-28 once the TNT ran out, but I haven't heard that this has happened yet. Oralloy 08:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply having aluminum in the explosive does not make it count as a thermobaric explosive. Many explosives contain about 20% aluminum because it reacts with the large molecular fragments left just after the explosive detonation, adding to the energy of the bomb.

A thermobaric explosive contains much larger quantities of aluminum (or other fuel) that continues to react with oxygen in the air where it is detonated.

Note this page on thermobarics: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/thermobaric.htm

At the bottom they list three timescales for the explosion. #1 is the actual detonation of the primary explosive. #2 is the burning of the molecular fragments from the detonated explosive. This is where the aluminum in explosives like H-6 come in. And #3 is the timescale of the burning of the excess fuel in a thermobaric explosive. Oralloy 08:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the aluminum in H-6 is not separate, but mixed in with the TNT and RDX.

I am not sure what the advantage would be to filling the MOAB with a thermobaric explosive, since it was designed to be exploded aboveground. Thermobarics work best in enclosed spaces.

The reports of a slurry filled weapon originated when the bomb was first made, when reporters assumed it contained the same kind of explosive as the Daisy Cutter. Using a slurry had an advantage with a fat bomb like the daisy cutter, since normal high explosive would form voids in it if it was cast in such a bomb. I don't see how a slurry would be an advantage in a narrow bomb like the MOAB. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot argue what I cannot touch. Shotguns are illegal by the Geneva Convention, and heavens knows, I have never carried one... = ) PETN 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the wiki link for H-6 in this section refers to RDX, implying that it is a synonym. As noted here and elsewhere, H-6 is a mixture that includes RDX. --Morkilus 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Biggest Conventional Weapon Ever?

I think that the description of this as the biggest (most powerful) conventional weapon may actually be correct. The body of the article states that it contains 18,700 pounds of high explosive. The link given on the T12 page says that (at the very bottom, in section 10) that the T12 contains 17,600 pounds of high explosive. Therefore, reference to the T12 as more powerful should be changed, which I shall now do. Supersheep 17:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Still a little troublesome -- the T12 did half of its work (penetrating a hardened target) through sheer kinetic energy, at supersonic speeds. I can't come up with a reasonable way to compare the two.--Parous 06:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Maybe a qualification, mentioning the penetration speed of the T-12? I'll have a look and try work it in. Nonetheless, explosive power is the qualification for most powerful weapon - we don't say that a Peacekeeper warhead is the most powerful nuke, even though it has the best penetration (that is, it's the best for silo-killing). Supersheep 08:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can cite a source that states it is the "most massive" conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

Discovery Channel Website --68.44.106.218 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Under wars

Under wars it says Operation Iraqi Freedom. However the M.O.A.B. has NEVER been used in active combat. Can someone care to explain this for me? --68.44.106.218 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it was not used, MOAB was intended for use in OIF and weapons were in-theatre waiting for orders, close enough for me. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Limited Military Application?

In the article it is stated, without a source, that there is little military application to this weapon other than to lower enemy morale. I highly doubt this. I am by no means an authority on the subject however I do recall hearing many times it is effective as a way of clearing out enemy positions entrenched in highly rugged/mountainous terrains (as well as being on par with the applications of FAE [fuel and air bomb, very devestating...]). Again I'm not an authority on the matter but perhaps if someone out there is knowledgeable in this could ascertain as to whether there is more to the application of this weapon other than simply damaging enemy morale; Perhaps know reliable sources to research and cite. I personlly believe this weapon is capable of, and has a mission profile pertaining to, more than a simple morale weapon. John 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Until (if?) it gets used in combat, its primary mission may just be to secure bragging rights. A Tsar Bomba, as it were. Time will tell.--Father Goose 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a very good point you make there, Father Goose. You're exactly right too, nothing is certain until it's actually used in combat. John 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

T12

Shouldn't the T12 get a mention? I say this because it is a bomb vastly more powerful than the MOAB and developed by the same nation. BioTube 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put a {{fact}} after the "most powerful" bit in the opening section because it doesn't mention the T12.--ospalh (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

When I first heard of MOAB It was supposed to be short for "Mother of All Bombs"

Is this a semi offical nickname, or are there any actual nicknames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therubicon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Throughout the entire program, from almost the very first day, the name of the system was "Mother Of All Bombs". When it entered the inventory, the acronym was kept but the official name was changed to "Massive Ordnance Air Blast". Aseidave (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Evaluations section

In the Evaluations section there are two statements that appear to be in conflict.

In paragraph 1, "....the MOAB is primarily intended for employment against deep and hardened targets."

In paragraph 3, "The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily intended for soft to medium surface targets....."

I have no clue about either assertion, but it is unclear that both can be correct.

64.252.179.125 (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MOAB use

This article says the MOAB wasn't used in Iraq, what on earth caused those huge nuclearesque mushroom clouds over baghdad we all saw on the news during 'operation shock and awe'? Everyone thought it was a nuke, then another went off, and another, all the size of small TNW's yet the media swiftly started calling them MOAB's. Jachin 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Those were perfectly ordinary everyday bombs, almost certainly 2,000 lbs or smaller. Almost any large explosion will cause a "nuclearesque mushroom cloud". As for the media, I wouldn't trust them to be accurate on military matters. My all time favourite quote was from a news crew on a helicopter in Gulf War 1... an F-15 came to have a look at them and was described as "an F-111 from a nearby carrier". BobThePirate 11:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes they were used in Iraq. Also, if you open Google Earth and look at MOTSU in Eastern North Carolina, you can see 3 of them about to be loaded on ship. Here is the exact: 34° 0'38.95"N 77°58'1.37"W Also, sligtly east there are 2 emtpy sleds.

Look at this article here: http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1761039.html or here http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.moab.gulf/

Cheers... 70.125.43.99 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your links show that some were SHIPPED to Iraq. That isn't the same as saying they were used in Iraq.

They may well have been used in Iraq, but I don't think it has been reported if they were. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

i belive they used some left over daisy cutter bombs in iraq, for the whole shock an awe thing. though, it was kind of a passing mentione in a (well reashearched) fictional spy book. though it wouldn't surprise me, had to do somthing with the left over bombs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RTS Game

I am surprised it was not mentioned before , the game is old but it was the most popular for the demonstration of the bomb's use in virtual world i think , so i added it in popular culture. Xowets (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

couple problems with the article

1. This munition is not particularly similar to the BLU-82 at all. It bears a passing resemblance, in that it is dropped from a cargo plane, and makes a big flash-bang-etc. However, the "daisy cutter" (and I think that term should be removed, as well) is a slurry, rather than a standard HE charge. Additionally, the BLU-82 is designed to drop nose-first, and detonate a few inches off the ground, thus clearing vegetation. The MOAB glides. That's why it has control surfaces. If this is an antipersonnel weapon, the "air blast" name makes sense, as it would be extremely effective as an overpressure weapon (see thermobaric weapon, above).
2. The "pound for pound" line is idiotic. Pound for pound, I'd go with the 5.56 NATO. The article is biased in tone, and explicitly in several places.

Avriette 22:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed an odd [Here, Here] and two cites for it from the preceding paragraph. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good comments! I happened to stumble across this article thanks to someone advocating a deletion be MOABed, and spotted vandalism, so I certainly am not an expert, but why not consider trying to rewrite the article to improve it and remove WP:POV? ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking of linking it into the replacement for Nuclear bunker buster and RNEP (see here). At any rate, I will change it around a little. It's kind of strikingly POV. Avriette 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how the MOAB would be related to the nuclear bunker buster. It is not designed to penetrate the ground.

You might be interested in the Massive Ordnance Penetrator though. Oralloy 15:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• A MOAB will kill anything sealed underground as long as it has the space for air to exit. It would send a blast of overpressure into the void, which would either make yout ears pop, or rupture your intestine. If the overpressure did not kill you, you would wish it had, because now all the oxygen is gone because of the burning AL powder. Sorry for being graphic, but I am sure it prooved my point. PETN 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A MOAB would have to penetrate the ground first. It is designed to explode aboveground. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Read above, I don't want to respond to all of these. It is Thermobaric. There is a slurry version. The one that bombed Florida was H-6. Thermobarics will suck the air out of mine shafts that are miles deep... PETN 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

PETN is correct--you need to read his comments more carefully, Oralloy. It might not "penetrate," but it is amazingly effective against deep underground emplacements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.61.83 (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of the Daisy Cutter nickname

I fear that the Wiki is helping to continue a misconception about the term "Daisy Cutter". The BLU-82 is NOT the Daisy Cutter - this refers only to the 38" pole M904 extended fuse used to ignite the weapon for above ground bursts. This term has been used widely in the press that apparently doesn't understand the nomenclature of the weapon. Mark Sublette (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you'd need some cites to change it. See this for counterpoint: http://www.nd.edu/~techrev/Archive/Spring2002/a8.html

173.164.86.190 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I don't think the sources for the pronunciation are legitimate. Funny, but not true. --DM 794 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

General Remarks By People Not Inclined To Use Their Own Heading

The article lists the Royal Air Force as operators but also says that there were only 15 known to be produced and are all presumed to be in USAF the arsenal/storage. My cursory search couldn't find any connection to the RAF, could someone confirm the status of this and edit accordingly? The RAF does have the Hercules aircraft to deploy the weapon but that's about the only link I can find with the RAF and MOAB and that's tenuous at best as it's certainly nothing like what the RAF normally uses its c-130s for. If it is accurate it is probably worth a mention in the article proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.190.234 (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Could we get a picture of the bomb with a size reference? Like a person standing next to it? I mean, the Grand Slam bomb was 22,000 pounds and actually hung out of the belly of the largest Allied bomber aircraft. This is 5 tons more than that. Just how big is this waste of taxpayer money/exercise in penis compensation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 01:15, March 9, 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sketch that compares a human to the MOAB, Grand Slam, and Daisy Cutter, but I think copyright issues would preclude using it on this site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-comp.gif Oralloy 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the point of this page? The US DoD stuffs a bunch of ammonium nitrate in a big can, puts it on television, and it becomes worthy of an encyclopedia article? Wji

Wji: I suppose the entries on monchhichis and John Stevens (singer) (A 6th place finisher on the 3rd season of American Idol) have more legitimacy as entries than a multi-ton weapon developed by the military? Sounds like your argument is based on some sort of uber-left wing anti-war reasoning, rather than an actual, intelligent and objective reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.61.83 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is not ammonium nitrate, it is AL powder that is around 14 nanometers is in size, a booster charge of TNT and a secondary charge of RDX. PETN 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Composition H-6 has the aluminum, TNT, and RDX mixed together evenly. Oralloy 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

m.o.a.Blast or m.o.a.Burst? Both seem pretty popular. Graft

Blast. [2] Hephaestos

Wji, I seem to recall this article got created because its acronym is the same as the Biblical term Moab -- which arouses interest: curiosity, disbelief, outrage, whatever. Also, America used the MOAB in the 2003 Iraq war. Otherwise, ordnance isn't that interesting to most readers. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I suppose someone should tell the people at Daisy cutter, Thermobaric weapon, Wire-guided missile, Scud, MIM-104 Patriot, Full metal jacket bullet, Hollow point bullet, or any other similar article that we're not interested.

Guys! This is the MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS! The largest bomb in history that's not a nuke! It deserves an article.Philwelch 07:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's the largest bomb in the current US arsenal that is not a nuke. The T-12 that the US produced during the 1950s had about twice as much explosive power, I believe. [3] But anyway, MOAB still ought to have an article, if only because it is occasionally in the news and is a notable arm for its use in Iraq and largeness, etc. --Fastfission 03:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grand Slam bomb is the largest combat tested as the arms salesmen like to point out when selling weapons.

Well I got rid of the second paragraph about the contrived acronym. Three things: a) I don't think it had anything to do with the issue at hand. b) I'm pretty sure the fact that Moab is also a region in (I think) Israel doesn't mean it was named because of that, I think everyone is pretty much sure the acronym means both 'Massive ordinance...' and/or 'Mother of...' but is not a reference to the region. c)We don't need an entire paragraph explaining something that is already stated in the first paragraph.

I hope OPSEC [4] is being considered here. This is an open source.

Popular Culture

The MOAB can be deployed by the American faction in the popular PC game(s) Command and Conquer Generals and Command and Conquer Generals Zero Hour. In the game it appears as an upgraded version on the Fuel-air bomb.

Should we add this? Dfrg.msc 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Preferably not, popular culture references are almost never helpful and merely clog up articles.Leushenko 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears in Mercenaries 2, as well, but I agree with Leushenko--popular culture references to weapons can be a slippery slope, unless it's something rather significat (ie: a movie about the wepon).

I for one like having separate sections on popular culture references to weapons (and on much else). They quite clearly are useful to people interested in popular culture (not my main interest, but a secondary interest). Moreover, I'm convinced that popular culture gets far more people to consult entries like this one than does high culture. Burressd (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Update section "Usage history", MOAB used for the first time in the battlefield. possible source: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html StijnStevens (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - The information is already in the article.- MrX 17:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Bill Roggio reference problematic

Quoting this individual's opinion on the use of the weapon is not fact based, and not helpful info. Furthermore it may create additional ethical questions about justification of use. Suggest removing the quote entirely. Wikipedia is not an editorial, and it is not an agenda based for profit news outlet. Rsilverst (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He is a fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, it isn't like he is some talk show host. Bill Roggio is noteworthy enough for his own page - I would say his statements warrant inclusion in the article - Deathsythe (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Add the Joule energy in the table on the top right, next to the existing 11 Tons (46GJ) for easy comparison to other ordinance energy yields. 104.232.88.78 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that? I wouldn't know where to check. ---- Mysterious Gopher (talk, contribs), 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I checked the conversion, found it to be accurate, and added it to the article. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

MOAB Power

It should be mentioned that a MOAB is IN NO WAY comparable to a nuclear weapon because: a)It is a conventional weapon, b)It has nowhere near as much power as a nuclear weapon (0.08 kilotons I believe, as opposed to the 10-12 kilotons of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs), c)It does not have the same radioactive aftereffects. Feel free to debate this, but I think that the number of confusing references to nuclear effects should be cleaned up. Any thoughts? --The1exile 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant kilotons, not megatons.

With 9 tons of explosive that is 1.35 times as powerful as TNT, the MOAB should have a blast similar to 12 tons of TNT, or 0.012 kilotons. Some of the smallest nuclear weapons (like the W54 warhead) could be set as low as 10 tons, or 0.01 kilotons. Oralloy 14:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Although, your rational seems plausible, think about it this way. Take away the EMP, the radiation and the thermal wave, and what you have left is a MOAB (PRESSURE). 70.125.43.99 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro says "At the time of development, it was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed" but the globalsecurity.org reference doesn't say that as far as I can tell. Also, that article contains several different numbers for the total weight of the bomb (21,000, 21,600, 21,700 lbs) all of which are lighter than the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam. May be more explosive weight or energy in the GBU but better to be specific and cite a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspw (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Date format

Per MOS:DATETIES and seeing that this is a device created, built, and used by the United States, shouldn't the article use the date format commonly used by the United States? —Farix (t | c) 10:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It does follow those guidelines. Per the third bullet point in that section:

"In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage."

As the subject of this article is a bomb used by the US military, it uses DMY dates. - BilCat (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Dropped by United States

User:BilCat undid my revision. See the difference here.

He wrote: "did that include Alaska and Hawaii, or was it just the Lower 48 that flew over there? Which state di [sic] the bomb drop from?"

I disagree with this revision - it's extremely common practice to refer to the country the United States of America as the United States. The government of the United States, through its military, dropped this bomb. This form is also used, for example, in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, I'm confused, what's the problem? ---- Mysterious Gopher (talk, contribs), 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's only one confusing sovereign state/common noun on Earth. Turkey is either a strange bird who sees no need for approval from neighbours but badly needs a long term plan for pilgrims or a controversial country with interventionist policies that displease and displace disgruntled workers and panicked speculation after apparent ramming attacks.

In short, I disagree, too. The United States is weird. "The United States" is not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

My comment was sarcasm, meant to invoke the image of a United States map flying over the target. The article has already mentioned that the bomb was developed and deployed by the US, so mentioning it here is redundant. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

BilCat: When I made that edit, the article said the bomb is in use by the RAF as well as the USAF. That seems to have been removed now, so never mind. I did chuckle at the joke, thanks. ---- Mysterious Gopher (talk, contribs), 19:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I remember seeing that, but didn't put the two together. My apologies for missing that connection. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's simply redundant, no objections here. Sometimes it's hard to tell a joke from a reason in an edit summary. It invoked an actual flying landmass in my mind, like an airship with roots (Florida brought the hammer down, as I recall). If I'd have pictured a map, my reaction might have been more sensical. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Change:

At the time of development, it was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed.

To:

At the time of development, it was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear, satellite-guided, air-delivered weapon ever designed. 71.230.11.134 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

I found this page unclear on how this bomb works, where I can find information on how it works and what sets it apart from other bombs.

Also, is the MOAB a thermobaric bomb like the one Russian one mentioned? Sircier (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's just a really big bomb. So big that they have to push it out of a cargo plane rather than a regular bomber. I think that's about all there is to it. ---- Mysterious Gopher (talk, contribs), 19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

The MOAB has been used once in aggression, in a 13 April 2017 strike against ISIS forces in Afghanistan. Several news organizations called it the largest conventional bomb ever used in combat, but the 22,000-pound Grand Slam earthquake bombs dropped during World War II may have been even heavier.

Remove "but the 22,000-pound Grand Slam earthquake bombs dropped during World War II may have been even heavier." Because the Grand Slam bombs used Torpex D1 a obsolete explosive, they also only used 9,136 pounds of it. While the GBU-43 is filled with H-6 which replaced Torpex and they used 18,700 pounds of it. Dilldog43 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to say "The 22,000-pound Grand Slam earthquake bombs dropped during World War II were about the same weight, but were designed for penetration and carried less explosive."--agr (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

Change the length of the bomb of (30 ft. 1.75 in) to (358.2 in), to prevent confusions. --200.89.248.75 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Those quantities are not equivalent. 30 ft. 1.75 in. = 361.75 in. 358.2 in. = 29 ft 10.2 in. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 13:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Source for cost

The source given for the anonymous claim that the cost per unit is $170,000 is a link to an article with blatant typos in it at the "The Blaze".

I am removing the claim until a reasonable source is found for a number.

Here is what I cut, with "ref" tags and curly brackets removed:

The cost per unit is $170,000, according to an unnamed source in the US Air Force.

Cite news|url=http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/14/the-moab-that-was-dropped-on-afghanistan-costs-far-less-than-you-think/%7Ctitle=The MOAB that was dropped on Afghanistan costs far less than you think|work=TheBlaze|access-date=2017-04-15|language=en|author=Brandon Morse

If it is true I am sure we can find a stronger citation. Huw Powell (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to however nailed down a much better reference for this. Huw Powell (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would we favor is Business Insider and The Blaze over The New York Times and The Guardian for this information?- MrX 11:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the cost of $314 million refers to the cost of developing and producing twenty of a different bomb, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/16/business/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117 The cost of $16 million may have come from dividing $314 million by 20. Paranoid schizoid android (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably. I'm not sure which we should use, but if we use $170,000, I would like to see better sources.- MrX 12:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the original source for the cost estimate is http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/GBU-43B_a000978001.aspx, explicitly mentioned by some articles. Most likely, the 314 M$ figure includes R&D costs, and I think it would be wrong to get the unit cost just dividing the total by the number built. There are various measures of costs (see Flyaway cost), so it could be that 170 k$ is the production or the weapons system cost, while 16 M$ is the average total cost (that will decrease if more are produced). To be honest, 170 k$ seems to be the reasonable one, and 16 M$ is definitely too much: it's the cost of an F16! Hopefully there will be a more reliable source, such as the Air Force website. Marcello Pas (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable or unheard of to include R & D expenses when discussing unit cost. I think we need to look to high-quality sources that we trust for fact checking.- MrX 12:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We can still keep the content until better sources discuss the matter. We can put such thing in a new "Cost" section, and wikilink to the section in the infobox. The section's content may be as follows:

The total programm cost was $314m, according to The Gaurdian[5] in which total of 20 have been produced. The cost of an individual Moab is reported to be $170,000, according to Bussiness Insider.

--Z 12:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Something like that would be fine for the article body, but we should leave cost information out of the infobox until there is a source that has reported it accurately.- MrX 12:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

Guardian one is very likely confusion with a different program, MOP aka GBU-57A/B. See http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/16/business/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117. Produced by Boeing, the cost is the same, the number is the same, but totally different weapon. The name has the same two initial words though :) --Laboramus (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Similar weapons" section

The section 'Similar weapons' is misnamed so as to be misleading. Grand Slam was a complete different type of bomb, as is the Cloud Maker. They are penetrators, while the MOAD design completely disregards that capability; FOAB is ostensibly similar but a lack of real information prevents a meaningful comparison. It should be renamed to something that conveys the section contrasts the device with other large bombs. e.g. Comparative weapons or Contrasting weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Military effectiveness of large munitions?

My initial reaction is that one particular type of bomb does not justify a Wikipedia article. It should be a section within a more general article on extremely large bombs, perhaps restricted to aircraft-delivered bombs. Having said that, I also think that military effectiveness should be one of the topics covered in that article. That's what I was looking for, but have yet to find here. The obvious reason was to assess whether or not the recent first-actual-military-usage of the GBU-43 might have military justification based upon prior uses of such weapons. Obviously I have my doubts... Seems more likely that a certain noisy person just wanted to play with his new toys. I guess cost would also be relevant in that context, though I'm guessing these are pretty low-tech and inexpensive. Shanen (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In case you're still interested, there are individual articles on the BLU-82 and M-121 as well. Those fall in pretty much the same category, and indeed they are the evolution of each other (M-121 → BLU-82 → GBU-43). The effectiveness is debatable, and very much dependent on the scenario: they can be effective in tasks from shock and awe to destroying tunnel systems, they can be successfully employed against large ground forces or against a specific target (since the GBU-43 is guided). They are however ineffective against hard target such as a bunker, for which there are other dedicated weapons (which also have their individual wiki page as well as a generic description, e.g. Bunker buster and Earthquake bomb). The use of large munitions is well documented, while their effectiveness depends on how they're used.

I think that they do deserve their own wiki page, and indeed that seems the practice (apparently every bomb, missile or munition has its own page). Maybe there could be a more general article on "large non-nuclear non-penetrating ordnance". Marcello Pas (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Surely the decisive factor as to having their own page should be a degree of noteworthiness. I'd suggest that 40 pages of news results when searching justifies notability. 83.100.188.53 (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Design and development" section

The section 'Design and development' doesn't actually talk about design or development so much. It discusses the deployment methods and targets much more. I would expect the design section to discuss details of the design such as the fact that it is a thermobaric type of weapon which is nowhere mentioned. What is the fuel? How is it ignited? Perhaps a new section should be created with this content called 'Targets and Methods of Use' and the 'Design and development' section given a do-over? Gnuarm (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that describes the bomb as a thermobaric weapon? From the discussions in the talk archives, it's not. BilCat (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)