jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Jeff Berkowitz) (01/14/91)
From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> I recently recieved some secondhand information that the US now has Fuel Air weapons in the kiloton range, that is, equivalent to small (tactical) nuclear weapons. Supposedly, the detonation is capable of producing an EMP pulse (an effect traditionally associated only with nuclear weapons). Also supposedly, this weapon can be delivered by cruise missile. I was somewhat incredulous, except that (1) I have a high degree of trust in the source, and (2) he quoted a nonclassified source that I don't have easy access to: the Naval Institute Proceedings (I don't know the issue). I don't want to say why I trust the source person, or who he is. But it's not naive trust. I know we just talked about FAEs in this group, but I don't remember reading anything like this. Does anyone have any real information to add? -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb | Bugs are God's way of saying Sequent Computer Systems jjb@sequent.com | you have too much free time.
daemon@UCSD.EDU (01/15/91)
From: celit!daemon@UCSD.EDU In article <1991Jan14.011347.6684@cbnews.att.com> jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Jeff Berkowitz) writes: > > >From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> > >I recently recieved some secondhand information that the US now has >Fuel Air weapons in the kiloton range, that is, equivalent to small >(tactical) nuclear weapons. Supposedly, the detonation is capable >of producing an EMP pulse (an effect traditionally associated only >with nuclear weapons). Also supposedly, this weapon can be delivered >by cruise missile. This would seem to break down just on the physics of the situation. "Kiloton" range refers to something with the explosive effect of 1000 tons of TNT. With a FAM you can decrease the mass of the warhead because the oxidizer is in the atmosphere. Even a factor of 10 reduction in weigh of the warhead would leave you with a 100 ton warhead which is a lot more than any cruise missile is going to carry. The EMP is credible. Conventional explosives are used to simulate nuclear EMP for testing. -- David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celit!dave or dave@fps.com "You can"t build a national and international network using TCP/IP" --Laurie Bride, Boeing Computer Services
finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) (01/15/91)
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) >From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> >I recently recieved some secondhand information that the US now has >Fuel Air weapons in the kiloton range, that is, equivalent to small >(tactical) nuclear weapons. ... >I was somewhat incredulous, except that (1) I have a high degree of >trust in the source, ... I am not a military weapons analyst. However, fuel air munitions are chemical in nature. A kiloton charge is 1000 tons of TNT equivalent explosive. Bomb and shell sizes are practically limited to several tons. For your hypothetical bomb to exist, a fuel would need an energy to mass ratio at least 100 times larger than that for TNT. So, I doubt it.
finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) (01/16/91)
From: Greg Finn <finn@isi.edu> >From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> >I recently recieved some secondhand information that the US now has >Fuel Air weapons in the kiloton range, that is, equivalent to small >(tactical) nuclear weapons. ... >I was somewhat incredulous, except that (1) I have a high degree of >trust in the source, ... I am not a military weapons analyst. However, fuel air munitions are chemical in nature. A kiloton charge is 1000 tons of TNT equivalent explosive. Bomb and shell sizes are practically limited to several tons. For your hypothetical bomb to exist, a fuel would need an energy to mass ratio at least 100 times larger than that for TNT. So, I doubt it.
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (01/18/91)
From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) In article <1991Jan15.021714.23645@cbnews.att.com>, finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes: >>From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> > >>I recently recieved some secondhand information that the US now has >>Fuel Air weapons in the kiloton range, that is, equivalent to small >>(tactical) nuclear weapons. ... > I am not a military weapons analyst. However, fuel air munitions > are chemical in nature. A kiloton charge is 1000 tons of TNT equivalent > explosive. Bomb and shell sizes are practically limited to several tons. > For your hypothetical bomb to exist, a fuel would need an energy to mass > ratio at least 100 times larger than that for TNT. So, I doubt it. Well, not really... Since nuclear weapons have to deal with the inverse cube law for increases in destructive effect, a multi-kiloton weapon is not as effective as it might sound. A Fuel Air Munition, by its very nature, spreads the explosive effect over a large area. A properly designed and detonated FAM should do a *lot* of damage over a wide area. 1000 kilograms of liquid propane will make a huge cloud of explosive vapor, which (when detonated) creates overpressures and fires over a very wide area. Some of the books I've read on BLEVEs (Boiling Liquid/Expanding Vapor Explosions) scare the *hell* out of me. A FAM probably won't use a cryogenic liquid, but the effects can be very similar... -- *C Irby Bitnet: cirby@untvax * "Admiration is for poets and for *Internet: cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu * dairy cows, Bobby!" ************************************
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (01/18/91)
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) >I know we just talked about FAEs in this group, but I don't remember >reading anything like this. Does anyone have any real information to >add? This is some info I found in rec.pyrotechnics last fall. The following text is excerpted from "Arsenal of Democracy-III: AMERICA'S WAR MACHINE (The Pursuit of Global Dominance)" by Tom Gervasi (Global Press, 1984 - ISBN 0-394-54102-2) page 253: FUEL AIR MUNITIONS - Developed toward the end of the war in Vietnam, this new type of air munition uses highly volatile fuels, including ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, meththylacetlyene, propadiene, propane and butane, to produce an explosive rather than an incendiary effect. Released into the air, they form a highly combustible cloud that, on detonation, produces more than five times the energy of its equivalent weight in TNT. This is more than sufficient to detonate magnetic, electro-magnetic, hydraulic, seismic and infrared antitank and anti-personnel mines, whether of long impulse of double-impulse fusing. Fuel air munitions are also a formidable anti- personnel weapon, producing blast overpressures that casue lethal concussion. These are the major types in service or in development: CBU-55/B 500-lb. FUEL AIR MUNITION: Three 100-lb. canisters, each with 72 lbs. of fuel, which separate on release from the launching aircraft and disperse a cloud of fuel 56 feet across and 9 feet thick, that is detonated by delayed-action fuses 3 inches above the ground, producing a blast overpressure of 300 pounds per square inch, sufficient to incapacitate or kill men in bunkers, foxholes and tunnels. Total weight: 460 lbs. CBU-72/B 500-lb. FUEL AIR MUNITION: The CBU-55/B fitted with drogue parachutes to retard descent, for delivery by high-speed aircraft such as the A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair II. PAVE PAT II 2,500 lb. FUEL AIR MUNITION: A sheet steel container filled with 2,245 lbs. of pressurized propane. The Pave Pat Blue 72 version is for delivery by the A-1 Skyraider, and the Pave Pat Blue 76 version is a reinforced container for delivery by high- speed aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom. MAD FAE (MASS AIR DELIVERY, FUEL AIR EXPLOSIVE): Twelve containers, each of 136 lbs of ethylene oxide or propylene oxide, attached on a line in single file to the freight hook of the CH-46, CH-53, or UH-1 helicopter, with stabilizing panels to keep the line from twisting, and releasing simultaneously or in sequence, dispersing a volatile cloud over an area of more that 1,000 feet in length. In development for the Marine Corps, and first tested at China Lake, California in 1960. FAESHED (FUEL AIR EXPLOSIVE, HELICOPTER DELIVERED): The CBU-44/B modified for use by the U.S. Army in mine clearance operations. SLUFAE (SURFACE LAUNCHED UNIT, FUEL AIR EXPLOSIVE): A mobile ground unit based on the chassis for the M-113A1 armoured personnel carrier, mounting a series of 30 launch tubes for the 5" (121.8 mm) Zuni rocket. Each rocket is equipped with the Pave Pat Blue 73 Fuel Air Munition warhead, and has a range of 750 yards (2,250 feet). Used for mine clearance, the system has a kill radius of 33 feet for pressure- fuse mines and 112 feet for pull-fused trip-wired mines. BLU-82/B 15,000-lb. GENERAL PURPOSE BOMB: ALso known as the Daisy Cutter or Big Blue 82, thsi is a cast steel case filled with 12,600 lbs. of DBA-22M, an aqueous mixture of ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene soap as a binder. It produces an explosion of a size and intensity that observers have described as "the closest thing to a nuclear bomb" and is used not only for mine clearance but to create landing pads for helicopters and STOL aircraft. Producing blast overpressures in excess of 1,000 pounds per square inch, it literally shears off trees and other obstructions at ground level. The only way to understand the force of concussion it brings to bear on the human body is to picture a man being hit by a baseball bat at full strength, and then to imagine him hit by that kind of force at every exposed portion of his body simultaneously. Whew! Kind of makes you want to run right off, rip the propane tank off of your travel-trailer, and pitch it into a bonfire, doesn't it? :-) ---------------- Notice the weights of the more powerful weapons. They are MANY times the warhead capacity of a cruise missile. (At least the AGM-86 and -109) ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
nelson@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Ken Nelson) (01/18/91)
From: nelson@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Ken Nelson) I read similar things (tactical nuke performance and EMP effect) in last week's NewsWeek magazine. I also recall that Fuel Air Muntions were used to good effect in one of the boat/hostage crisis (either the Pueblo or the Mayeguez, I can't remember which). I am not a weapons scientist and I don't play one on TV, but I sure do hope the FAM's are that good. I would rather see a lot of dead Iraqi's with nose bleeds than loose a lot of US soldiers rooting Iraqis out of bunkers using LAW rockets and bravery. Ken Nelson
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (01/18/91)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <1991Jan16.013146.9945@cbnews.att.com> elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner) writes: >Anyway, since Fuel Air weapons release their energy in an *already* large >volume, they may well be far more destructive per unit energy than >conventional explosives. To be more specific, they might well produce >a given blast wave over-pressure over a much larger volume than the same >energy released in a conventional explosion. In this sense, they might >indeed be "equivalent" to a small tactical nuclear weapon; in other words, >they might be equally destructive. In a book on explosives I flipped through a couple of years ago, there was a statement that one pint of gasoline, vaporized and ignited, had the same blast effect as (I'm unsure of the exact number) something on the close order of twenty _pounds_ of TNT. Note that this is blast effect, _not_ energy yield; FAEs are much more effective in generating a blast wave, because the shockwave is continually being augmented by the detonation of the vaporized fuel at the surface of the combustion front, whereas a conventional explosive starts losing blast energy immediately upon expansion after detonation. Sean Malloy | Democracy is four wolves and a Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | lamb voting on what to have for San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lunch. malloy@nprdc.navy.mil |
tom@bears.ucsb.edu (Tom Weinstein) (01/18/91)
From: tom@bears.ucsb.edu (Tom Weinstein) In article <1991Jan16.012657.9091@cbnews.att.com>, finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes: > I am not a military weapons analyst. However, fuel air munitions > are chemical in nature. A kiloton charge is 1000 tons of TNT equivalent > explosive. Bomb and shell sizes are practically limited to several tons. > For your hypothetical bomb to exist, a fuel would need an energy to mass > ratio at least 100 times larger than that for TNT. So, I doubt it. True, but isn't it also true that nuclear weapons don't scale well because the explosion is centralized? Coulddn't you get the same destructive power out of an FAE that you could out of a kiloton nuke? -- He is Bob...eager for fun. | Tom Weinstein tom@bears.ucsb.edu He wears a smile... Everybody run! | tweinst@polyslo.calpoly.edu
wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) (01/24/91)
From: wrf@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) In article <1991Jan18.003342.8441@cbnews.att.com> malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) writes: > >In a book on explosives I flipped through a couple of years ago, there >was a statement that one pint of gasoline, vaporized and ignited, had >the same blast effect as (I'm unsure of the exact number) something on >the close order of twenty _pounds_ of TNT. Well, a pint of gas plus the O2 to burn it weigh about 3 lb, so the discrepancy is smaller than it looks. -- Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180