Rex Alexander CC: Johnny Doo, NASA Working group #4 [email protected] [email protected] 260 494 0891

Again, I must say, I am jealous of what you have done, and will do, over the next 20 years.

BUT… to help YOUR career, I offer the following for your consideration and benefit:

1) Regarding anything and everything VTOL… the highest, top-level issue is the bottom line COST of: development, acquisition, MAINTENANCE, guaranteed operation, piloting, insurance to cover failures, and PUBLIC OPINION.

2) The KEY point of this new tech, in this world run by President Trump (especially in his re-election… no matter what YOUR political orientation is) is: The key point is that anything (EVERYTHING) we must do has to be to generate massive, game changing, blue-collar/unionized-labor population employment increases (defining the world overpopulation), building stuff for EXPORT, going to places where “Global Warming” climate change will happen, but where they will not have the funds, or talents, to deal with all the problems it will certainly bring…

E-VTOL is NOT for Billionaire executives in San Jose to move their bodies faster in their aero-taxicabs, jumping over all those who must drive to work… THAT is the worst form of “first mission” application of radical new tech and will guarantee the doom of the URBAN Mobility focus of all this stuff…

THERE IS NO MARKET for the dreams of a few billionaires, who are funding this stuff to cover the first $100 billion needed to make that URBAN taxi stuff mentality (UAM) work… RATHER, there will be a trillion dollar/year market for the EXPORT of lots of CHEAP VTOL “vehicles” (not “commercial aircraft” for human mobility) to deal with: wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, jungles, floods, swamps, droughts, desert-sand- dune movements, mountain (land slide) avalanches, riots, famine, mass starvations, pandemics, massive unmanaged migrations of the poorest-of-the-poor, most of whom think dying in any war gets them to heaven faster. Global CLIMATE CHANGE is GOOD (for future of E-VTOLs). We, (VTOLers) are the solution to that unstoppable problem, not by replacing jet-fuel with battery packs, but by redirecting “AVIATION” to “hover”.

Climate change will certainly happen; (it certainly did to get the monkeys out of the trees and learn to run on their hind legs between African grass land wild fires 3 million years ago and eat burnt bison), and always has, and will always massively affect life on this planet. There is NO way to prevent, or reverse, the warming of our air/ocean/land masses. So, therefore, VTOLs are to deal with REAL emergencies and tragedies, and not make this crowded, over-populated, mega-urbanized, global economy run faster and faster and farther and farther…

If we get the right VTOLs developed, the world will DE-URBANIZE… and people will live in entirely new ways.

We no longer need to travel from A to B faster since we have optical fiber, 5G communications, super resolution massive displays to digitally simulate classrooms, retail stores, business offices and MOST of what the world’s government offices do with rather useless people.. (Pushing bits around from one terminal to another). So… when YOU are on the positive side of this stuff, please rant loud and clear that we are building a new industry that is labor intensive, for making products that are cheap (due to obvious, radical technologies) to be exported, or even assembled anywhere in the world. THAT is the killer POSITIVE BOTTOM LINE Economics and Politics!!!!

3) GOD (Generators Of Diversity) gave us VTOL technology, not to go farther, faster from A to B… and also: NOT just to TAKE OFF… from some Vertiport…(yet to operate under standards that you know better than most) … The key, mind-blowing human benefit of going VERTICAL is the HOVER function… and especially for the few minutes in prep to LAND… ANYWHERE, (assuming it can be nearly silent with no Jet-turbine based E-power generator).

ANY landing is a good landing… especially if you really don’t need all that “infrastructure” that was created for winged vehicles that crash to the ground when they stop going forward… AGAIN, it is NOT about TAKING OFF quickly, it is all about LANDING in a small space, when/ where needed… It is NOT about LANDING at an FAA/City- Gov. approved Vertiport at some hospital… It is about landing within 100 feet of a disaster event area (people drowning, generating pandemic body counts, just after the bullets stop in a Hong Kong riot of college students)… I live about a mile from a major hospital with a certified chopper landing “pad” and almost never hear a chopper flying over my place which is in a direct flight line to the big city. Seldom does a chopper bring in hurting people; mostly it is for some richer guy going from THIS hospital to some better hospital for extra-special treatments.

So… the focus must be on the REASON for flying in the first place, and THAT is to HOVER over something with guaranteed certainty of available flight time, aero-stability in bad weather, very high traffic locations and times… AGAIN, the “V” is for LANDING, not taking off… that should massively affect the definition of everything you can say about “INFRASTRUCTURE”… Excuse me for thinking in terms that you are an expert, (also I hate “vertiports”)

4) Now for the real reason I write this: Sitting on my bathroom porcelain throne this AM, I found the answer to your question about getting HYDROGEN into the “infrastructure” (especially if done in a big city context)… and my ANSWER is based on the design of the craft. In all planes I have flown in: Cessna 172, DC-3, Piper Cherokee, and even an unmaxed 737, the issue of defining everything is based on how much FUEL (over-riding the cargo/payload stuff) you have, how fast it burns away, and how far you can go, and ESPECIALLY how long you can stay in the air near your destination….

SO… the key solution to the Hydrogen fuel delivery issue is the design of a craft that was based from the git-go on a MASSIVE amount of FUEL, (and not how many bodies can be crammed into those uncomfortable seats). Re VTOL, the crafts should not be based on brain-dead battery power, that when it goes OUT… it’s game over. They should be based on VERY LARGE tanks of fuel (really CHEAP fuel eventually), that are NOT designed with the problem of their volumetric space demands that can screw with drag and lift and airspeed, and CG changes, and availability of refueling (in flight or at some ground port). The killer of all that you know about UAM is that FAST recharging of expensive batteries that have very limited life times (re flights before replacement) is a BAD idea (since the VERTIPORTS are NOT filled with hangars like most of the general aviation airports I have flown from).

Translating this into the solution… if Hydrogen is the idea fuel (mostly for its energy content per KILO) then there is no reason not to design a craft from scratch that carries 100 times more H2 than needed for a single mission objective. NOT just 5-10 gallons of liquid H2 (good for many Public Service mission statements), but up to 1,000 gallon equivalents of liquid H2 for the NEXT concept of a VTOL… That is: the refueling is done like my car, once a week, and NOT per flight… since the craft could/should be in the air for 12 hours continuously, far from some H2 liquid gas station… So, when H2-based , fuel cell power feeds a smaller pack of batteries, and ultra-capacitors and Cryogenically cold electrical energy storage techniques using super-conducting magnets. And rather than having some emergency parachute strong enough to help a VTOL that is in trouble, the damn craft could have an inflatable bladder that could provide a small H2 buoyancy+ (lift) that keeps the craft in air and off the ground.

BUT, I assume you were also thinking that liquid H2 is very expensive, and has to be trucked around to the Vertiport filling stations (not at all VERTIPORTS IMHO)… H2 has to be made from electrocution of water, with the electricity coming from environmental energy (wind/solar)… being generated continuously, and in volumes way beyond the need for several weeks of flight capabilities… HENCE the key NEW tech has to be about how the VTOL vehicle stores hundreds of gallons of H2… hence the importance of CRYOGENIC FLUX CAPACITOR thinking.

5) The BIG DEAL for me about H2, is that in any of those climate change caused mission requirements, referred to above, the first thing to go down is the grid based power line, hence no plug-in Epower to run pumps to transfer petroleum based fuels to feed old tech trucks to haul loads, (or recharge all those electric car/aircraft batteries).

My most important experience was in 1968, flying around the Amazon jungle (as a fake co-pilot) in a DC-3 that was more a cargo vehicle, bringing petroleum fuel in 55-gal drums, to power motor cycles deep in the jungle. That was in 1968, GOT IT??? YET, even then I knew that for lots of flights in the jungle, a NEW fuel concept has to be the source of energy to fly from one river over to another in some VTOL like craft. Do-it-yourself FUEL.

The gigantic Amazon River Basin has LOTS (too much) of water, and LOTS of strong winds nearly every day, during the rainy season, for a few hours, from the millions of storms per year. A radically new designed Wind mill can be dropped into any nowheres-ville, spinning not to make electricity, but to use the winds mechanical input power to run Water/H2 electrolyzers, gas compressors, cryo-coolers, etc., all to store a fuel made on site… And in the dry season, the sun burns down 12 hrs a day, perfect for a windmill having solar cell skinned blades.

THAT WAS MY THINKING, nearly 50 years ago… It was even more impressive on my thinking, since my flight instructor who ran a flight school out at Chicago’s MIDWAY (when it quit being a commercial airport), and he was making extra money flying DC-4s in and out of the Amazon Jungle to pick up tons of cocaine and bring it back north to Chicago… Refueling a DC-4, in the middle of a jungle is NOT possible unless roads and trucks and river barges can bring thousands of tons of Aircraft fuel out there that is appropriate for a WW-2 radial engine aircraft… And most important to me, he lost his license to run a pilot training school, because he put 5 business men and their fishing gear into a typical “twin” with a full fuel load, to fly to some lake in Canada. YES, he got there, but only a few miles short of the deserted airport… NEVER overload a twin with people, fuel, baggage to fly toooo far, in one stop (need time to fish not to get refueled in Oshkosh Wisconsin). I love telling that story.

THE MOST IMPORTANT DEAL WITH HYDROGEN is NOT its light weight (excellent for powerful VTOLs), but the ability to make it anywhere there is sufficient water and wind… (using the right way to refrigerate it down to 77K degrees COLD temp via liquid Nitrogen)… THAT IS, the cryo-coolant to keep a mass of H2 in storage is simply the use of liquid NITROGEN that can be made even faster and cheaper than anything now that the art of cryogenics has come to the top of the Quantum Physics thinking event, paid for by the USA government research money.

So brother in “VTOL-infra-structure” the key Hydrogen fuel is stuff you can make anywhere, using an aerodynamically designed structure (called a radically designed wind mill to make cold H2)… and the storage “tank” could be part of its physical structure. AND THE BEST (actually the only IMHO) use of such H2 is to refuel VTOL aircraft… AND if we are making too much H2, then the E-VTOL heavy lift cargo type aircraft, when it is NOT flying around, could eat that locally stored home-made fuel and make on demand electricity that is needed to power emergency rehabilitation tools, and lights, and 5G cellphone signal towers built into the design that permits massive communications expected in a disaster area, with nearly line-of-sight 5G gigahertz transmission, the channels can be from 3,000ft UP in the VTOL HOVERING air (rather stationary for a few hours or days) rather than on some typical concrete/steel, 100 ft cellphone tower that got screwed by the climate change caused weather damage.

6) So…. After you read this shit… (and if you have the time); write or call… When I was somebody, I was a consultant too… (an unemployed expert on stuff that nobody cares about, just to make a buck)… I am now here to help make you the breakthrough voice of the RIGHT “infrastructure”… Also I hope you will be employed by the FAA, city governments, state governments, Fire Departments, Police Departments, Medical Institutions that are totally AGAINST having VTOL taxicabs powered by expensive and dangerous Lithium BATTERIES that will often be over-charged, run beyond their life-limits, with dangerous Lithium smoke floating off when they catch fire. (besides, there is NOT enough space on the top of the “SEARS TOWER” to deal with hundreds of billionaire business people rushing to the airport to get on their super-sonic private jets to fly off to Beijing to sell more of our bogus corporate debt IPO bonds, (YES, Sears went out of business, when will UBER?).

7) Oh… and for my suggestion that a “thermobaric” weapon could be used to clear a firebreak line in difficult terrain, it was actually used in Vietnam to clear forests in order to see the bad guys… the media called it a napalm massive ordinance… BUT MY (our) contribution is that instead of expensive and dangerous high explosives, a tube volume shape of a dispersal of liquid hydrogen gas cloud, about 50 feet off the ground, 100 feet in diameter and 1,000 feet long (gas phase of H2 and O2) and detonated with simultaneously triggered more devices dropped from lots of other UAS/heavy cargo drones flying in firebreak line ups, would create a pressure shock wave to disturb the actual fires, move/flatten the forest material fuels. All this is done with a well-planned location based on computation of results due to weather and terrain by some AI Homeland Security computer system buried in someplace in Utah… THAT would be a LOT better and cheaper and safer that dropping firefighters in parachutes, equipped with picks and shovels…

Fly 2-ton VTOL cargo U-HAUL-UP in tight computer controlled flock formation. GOT IT?????

Also a variation of using hydrogen as a blast wave energy source could be done more to instantly start a line of human induced firebreak fires to burn off the fuel of the wild fire… All appropriate for large tanks of liquid hydrogen flown in from the proposed E-Fuel-Cell/VTOL. (yes, this idea is from Johnny Doo, patents soon to come Johnny?)

The CBU-55 was a cluster Fuel Air Explosive that was developed during the Vietnam War, by the United States , and was used only infrequently in that conflict. Unlike most incendiaries, which contained napalm or phosphorus, the 750 pound CBU-55 was fueled primarily by propane. (why not CHEAP hydrogen?) Described as "the most powerful non- in the U.S. arsenal,"[1] the device was one of the more powerful conventional weapons designed for warfare.

The device had three main compartments, with propane, a blend of other gases, perhaps chlorine triphospate, or another oxidizing agent, and an explosive. The CBU-55 had two variations. The CBU-55/B consisted of 3 BLU-73A/B fuel-air explosive sub-munitions in a SUU-49/B Tactical Munitions Dispenser, and the CBU-55A/B had 3 BLU-73A/B sub-munitions in a SUU- 49A/B dispenser).[2] The SUU-49/B dispenser could be carried only by helicopters or low-speed aircraft, whereas the SUU-49A/B was redesigned with a strongback and folding tailfins, so that they could also be delivered by high-speed aircraft as well.

The first generation of the CBU-55 was used during the Vietnam War, but only in a test mode by US forces. In 1971, a team from the Air Force Weapons Center at Eglin Air Force Base brought test versions of the CBU-55 to Southeast Asia for testing on two lower speed attack aircraft, the A-37 and the A-1. In late 1971, the team worked with the 604th Special Operations Squadron A-37 pilots at Bien Hoa Air Base to fly a handful of combat test missions. In December of that year, that same team came to Nahkon Phanom Royal Thai Air Base (NKP) to do the same tests with the 1st Special Operation Squadron, flying the A-1. On Dec 2nd, 5th, and 8th, three two ship A-1 sorties were flown, carrying four each of the CBU-55. The NKP test project officer and flight lead for these three missions, Capt. Randy Jayne, helped the Eglin team write up the test results, which were overall not positive. The unusual deployment sequence for the three propane canisters, and the fact that they fell under small parachutes highly susceptible to significant wind drift, made deliver accuracy and aircraft survivability (when releasing low enough to minimize that wind drift) questionable. Also, the very high drag characteristics of the CBU-55 canister, with its flat back end, severely limited the A-1's ability to carry other , rockets, and CBU, a further negative issue. In February/March 1972 US Navy Light Attack Squadron 4 (VAL-4) based at Can Tho delivered several sorties with the OV-10 Bronco, in support of US Army and ARVN joint operations north of the Mekong River. The ordnance was considered experimental, and teams of pathologists were flown to the drop sites to examine weapon effects on enemy remains. BUT WE LOST THE WAR IN VIETNAM, RIGHT… (even with helicopters)

Although the Air Force chose, based on the Bien Hoa and NKP tests, not to deploy the weapon to the two combat units in theater, an inventory of the canisters was kept. By April 21, 1975, South Vietnam had largely been conquered by the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN). Earlier in the month, a single CBU-55 had been flown to Bien Hoa. The senior US military officer in Vietnam, Major General Homer D. Smith, cleared the way for the Saigon government to use the weapon against the PAVN. An RVNAF C-130 transport plane circled Xuan Loc at 20,000 feet (6,100 m), then dropped the bomb. The contents exploded in a fireball over a 4-acre (16,000 m2) area. Experts estimated that 250 soldiers had been killed, primarily by the immediate depletion of oxygen rather than from burns. COULD WE DO THAT TO A WILDFIRE OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA???? AND THE BYPRODUCT OF A HYDROGEN DETONATION IS WATER ) The CBU-55 was never used again in the war, and South Vietnam's government surrendered on April 30.[1] YES WE REALLY DID LOSE THAT WAR, AS IN KOREA. A second generation of the CBU-55 (and CBU-72) fuel-air weapons entered the United States military arsenal after the Vietnam War, and were used by the United States in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.[3] (ANOTHER WAR THAT WE DID NOT WIN, JUST ASK THE MUSLIMS IN IRAQ and SYRIA.)

A thermobaric weapon, aerosol bomb, or vacuum bomb,[1] is a type of explosive that uses oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion, and in practice the blast wave typically produced by such a weapon is of a significantly longer duration than that produced by a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel-air explosive (FAE) is one of the best-known types of thermobaric weapons. Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (gunpowder, for example, contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer), whereas thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel, so thermobaric weapons are significantly more energetic than conventional condensed explosives of equal weight. Translating that into VTOL SPEAK, the same blast wave would weigh less and cost less if HYDROGEN was dropped from a ENERGY SERIOUS VTOL. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They are, however, considerably more destructive when used against field fortifications such as foxholes, tunnels, bunkers, and caves—partly due to the sustained blast wave and partly by consuming the oxygen inside (which wild fires need, yes?).

In contrast to a condensed explosive in which oxidation in a confined region produces a blast front emanating from a single source, a thermobaric flame front accelerates to a large volume, which produces pressure fronts both within the mixture of fuel and oxidant and then in the surrounding air.[3] Thermobaric explosives apply the principles underlying accidental unconfined vapor cloud explosions, which include those from dispersions of flammable dusts and droplets.[4] Previously, such explosions were most often encountered in flour mills and their storage containers, and later in coal mines; but, now, most commonly in partially or fully empty oil tankers and refinery tanks and vessels, including an incident at Buncefield in the UK in 2005 where the blast wave woke people 150 kilometres (93 mi) from its centre.[5]

A typical weapon consists of a container packed with a fuel substance, in the center of which is a small conventional-explosive "scatter charge". Fuels are chosen on the basis of the exothermicity of their oxidation, ranging from powdered metals, such as aluminum or magnesium, to organic materials, possibly with a self- contained partial oxidant. The most recent development involves the use of nanofuels.[6][7]

A thermobaric bomb's effective yield requires the most appropriate combination of a number of factors; among these are how well the fuel is dispersed, how rapidly it mixes with the surrounding atmosphere, and the initiation of the igniter and its position relative to the container of fuel. In some designs, strong munitions cases allow the blast pressure to be contained long enough for the fuel to be heated up well above its auto-ignition temperature, so that once the container bursts the super-heated fuel will auto-ignite progressively as it comes into contact with atmospheric oxygen.[8] Conventional upper and lower limits of flammability apply to such weapons. Close in, blast from the dispersal charge, compressing and heating the surrounding atmosphere, will have some influence on the lower limit. The upper limit has been demonstrated strongly to influence the ignition of fogs above pools of oil.[9] This weakness may be eliminated by designs where the fuel is preheated well above its ignition temperature, so that its cooling during its dispersion still results in a minimal ignition delay on mixing. The continual combustion of the outer layer of fuel molecules as they come into contact with the air, generates additional heat which maintains the temperature of the interior of the fireball, and thus sustains the detonation.[10]

In confinement, a series of reflective shock waves are generated,[11][12] which maintain the fireball and can extend its duration to between 10 and 50 ms as exothermic recombination reactions occur.[13] Further damage can result as the gases cool and pressure drops sharply, leading to a partial vacuum. This rarefaction effect has given rise to the misnomer "vacuum bomb". Piston-type afterburning is also believed to occur in such structures, as flame- fronts accelerate through it.[14]

A fuel-air explosive (FAE) device consists of a container of fuel and two separate explosive charges. After the munition is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel (also possibly ionizing it, depending on whether a fused quartz dispersal charge container was employed) in a cloud that mixes with atmospheric oxygen (the size of the cloud varies with the size of the munition). The cloud of fuel flows around objects and into structures. The second charge then detonates the cloud, creating a massive blast wave. The blast wave destroys reinforced buildings and equipment and kills and injures people. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes and tunnels, and in enclosed spaces, such as bunkers and caves. Fuel-air explosives were first developed by the United States for use in Vietnam. In response, Soviet scientists quickly developed their own FAE weapons, which were reportedly used against China in the Sino-Soviet border conflict, and against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Since then, research and development has continued and currently Russian forces field a wide array of third-generation FAE warheads.

A Human Rights Watch report of 1 February 2000[15] quotes a study made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency: The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant. ... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs. ... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents. BUT HYDROGEN IS NOT A POISON.

According to a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency study,[15] "the effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness." Another Defense Intelligence Agency document speculates that because the "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue ... it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate".[16]

First attempts had previously been undertaken during the Second World War by the German Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, their inventor being Mario Zippermayr.[17] The initial weapon – named Taifun (Typhoon) – was based on coal dust and concentrated oxygen pumped into a space and detonated. The effect was a development from observing coal mine accidents in the 1920s. It was first used against Russian bunkers at Sevastapol.[citation needed] Taifun B was a development that allowed an aerosol of kerosene, coal dust and aluminium powder to be delivered over the battlefield by bursting rocket propelled canisters launched from half tracks over a target such as a mass of tanks or troops.[citation needed] In 1944 the weapon was positioned behind Calais to aid in a counterattack in the event of a successful Allied taking of the port. Once it became clear that the Normandy landings were the real invasion, the weapon system was moved to counter the American breakout. Immediately prior to firing the weapon system was knocked out in a routine bombardment and was never actually used. Replacement of the system proved difficult due to material shortages - principally the pure powdered aluminium THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH HOMEMADE HYDROGEN. Further developments for delivery by V1 for use as a tactical weapon were not pursued.[18] The source of this citation has been under extensive scrutiny for being German war propaganda, so the existence of the Taifun B is most likely manufactured. Soviet and Russian developments[edit]

An RPO-A Shmel (Bumblebee) rocket and launcher Thermobaric weapons were developed in the 1960s in the Soviet Union and US; however, the first attempts had previously been undertaken during the Second World War by the German Luftwaffe. The Soviet armed forces extensively developed FAE weapons,[19] such as the RPO-A, and Russia used them in Chechnya.[20] The have developed thermobaric ammunition variants for several of their weapons, such as the TBG-7V thermobaric grenade with a lethality radius of 10 metres (33 ft), which can be launched from an RPG-7. The GM-94 is a 43 mm (1.7 in) pump-action grenade launcher designed mainly to fire thermobaric grenades for close quarters combat. The grenade weighed 250 grams (8.8 oz) and contained 160 grams (5.6 oz) of explosive, its lethality radius is 3 metres (9.8 ft); however, due to the deliberate "fragmentation-free" design of the grenade, 4 metres (13 ft) is considered a safe distance.[21] The RPO-A and upgraded RPO-M are infantry- portable RPGs designed to fire thermobaric rockets. The RPO-M, for instance, has a thermobaric warhead with a TNT equivalence of 5.5 kg (12 lb) and destructive capabilities similar to a 152 mm (6 in) high explosive fragmentation artillery shell.[22][23] The RShG-1 and the RShG-2 are thermobaric variants of the RPG-27 and RPG-26 respectively. The RShG-1 is the more powerful variant, with its warhead having a 10-metre (33 ft) lethality radius and producing about the same effect as 6 kg (13 lb) of TNT.[24] The RMG is a further derivative of the RPG-26 that uses a tandem-charge warhead, whereby the precursor HEAT warhead blasts an opening for the main thermobaric charge to enter and detonate inside.[25] The RMG's precursor HEAT warhead can penetrate 300 mm of reinforced concrete or over 100 mm of rolled homogeneous armour, thus allowing the 105 mm (4.1 in)-diameter thermobaric warhead to detonate inside.[26] The other examples include the SACLOS or millimeter wave radar-guided thermobaric variants of the 9M123 Khrizantema, the 9M133F-1 thermobaric warhead variant of the 9M133 Kornet, and the 9M131F thermobaric warhead variant of the 9K115-2 Metis-M, all of which are anti-tank missiles. The Kornet has since been upgraded to the Kornet-EM, and its thermobaric variant has a maximum range of 10 km (6 mi) and has a TNT equivalence of 7 kg (15 lb).[27] The 300 mm (12 in) 9M55S thermobaric cluster warhead rocket was built to be fired from the BM-30 Smerch MLRS. A dedicated carrier of thermobaric weapons is the purpose-built TOS-1, a 24-tube MLRS designed to fire 220 mm (8.7 in) thermobaric rockets. A full salvo from the TOS-1 will cover a rectangle 200 by 400 m (220 by 440 yd).[28] The Iskander-M theatre ballistic missile can also carry a 700 kg (1,540 lb) thermobaric warhead.[29] Many munitions also have thermobaric variants. The 80 mm (3.1 in) S-8 rocket has the S- 8DM and S-8DF thermobaric variants. The S-8's 122 mm (4.8 in) brother, the S-13, has the S-13D and S-13DF thermobaric variants. The S-13DF's warhead weighs only 32 kg (71 lb), but its power is equivalent to 40 kg (88 lb) of TNT. The KAB-500-OD variant of the KAB-500KR has a 250 kg (550 lb) thermobaric warhead. The ODAB-500PM and ODAB-500PMV[30] unguided bombs carry a 190 kg (420 lb) fuel-air explosive each. The KAB-1500S GLONASS/GPS guided 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) bomb also has a thermobaric variant. Its fireball will cover a 150 m (490 ft) radius and its lethal zone is a 500 m (1,600 ft) radius.[31] The 9M120 Ataka-V and the 9K114 Shturm ATGMs both have thermobaric variants. In September 2007, Russia exploded the largest thermobaric weapon ever made. Its yield was reportedly greater than the smallest dial-a-yield nuclear weapons at their lowest settings.[32][33] Russia named this particular ordnance the "Father of All Bombs" in response to the United States developed Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb whose backronym is the "Mother of All Bombs", and which previously held the title of the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.[34] The Russian bomb contains an approximate 7 ton charge of a liquid fuel, such as pressurized ethylene oxide, mixed with an energetic nanoparticle, such as aluminium, surrounding a high explosive burster[35] that when detonated created an explosion equivalent to 39.9 tonnes (39.3 long tons; 44.0 short tons) of TNT.

A BLU-72/B bomb on a USAF A-1E taking off from Nakhon Phanom, in September 1968

The XM1060 40-mm grenade is a small-arms thermobaric device, which was delivered to U.S. forces in April 2003.[36] Since the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the US Marine Corps has introduced a thermobaric 'Novel Explosive' (SMAW-NE) round for the Mk 153 SMAW rocket launcher. One team of Marines reported that they had destroyed a large one-story masonry type building with one round from 100 yards (91 m).[37] The AGM-114N Hellfire II, first used by U.S. forces in 2003 in Iraq, uses a Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) warhead that contains a thermobaric explosive fill using aluminium powder coated or mixed with PTFE layered between the charge casing and a PBXN-112 explosive mixture. When the PBXN-112 detonates, the aluminium mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against people and structures.[38] HOW ABOUT A MILE LONG LINE OF VTOL FORMATION FLYING CLUSTER BOMBS, GOING OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT… THAT WOULD SNUFF OUT A FOREST FIRE

BEAC Spanish thermobaric bomb project[edit] In 1983, a program of military research was launched with collaboration between the Spanish Ministry of Defence (Directorate General of Armament and Material, DGAM), Explosives Alaveses (EXPAL) and Explosives Rio Tinto (ERT) with the goal of developing a Spanish version of a thermobaric bomb, the BEAC (Bomba Explosiva de Aire-Combustible). A prototype was tested successfully in a foreign location out of safety and confidentiality concerns.[39] The Spanish Air Force has an undetermined number of BEACs in its inventory.[40]

US Navy BLU-118B being prepared for shipping for use in Afghanistan, 5 March 2002

The TOS-1 system was test fired in Panjshir valley during the Soviet–Afghan War in the late 1980s.[41] Unconfirmed reports suggest that Russian military forces used ground-delivered thermobaric weapons in the storming of the Russian parliament during the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis and also during the Battle for Grozny (first and second Chechen wars) to attack dug-in Chechen fighters. The use of both TOS-1 heavy MLRS and "RPO-A Shmel" shoulder-fired rocket system in the Chechen wars is reported to have occurred.[42] It is theorized that a multitude of handheld thermobaric weapons were used by the Russian Armed Forces in their efforts to retake the school during the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis. The RPO-A and either the TGB- 7V thermobaric rocket from the RPG-7 or rockets from either the RShG-1 or the RShG-2 is claimed to have been used by the Spetsnaz during the initial storming of the school.[43][44][45] At least three and as many as nine RPO-A casings were later found at the positions of the Spetsnaz.[46][47] The Russian government later admitted to the use of the RPO-A during the crisis.[48] According to the UK Ministry of Defence, British military forces have also used thermobaric weapons in their AGM-114N Hellfire missiles (carried by Apache helicopters and UAVs) against the Taliban in the War in Afghanistan.[49]

The US military also used thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan. On 3 March 2002, a single 2,000 lb (910 kg) laser guided thermobaric bomb was used by the against cave complexes in which Al- Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region of Afghanistan.[50][51] The SMAW-NE was used by the US Marines during the First Battle of Fallujah and Second Battle of Fallujah. Reports by the rebel fighters of the Free Syrian Army claim the Syrian Air Force used such weapons against residential area targets occupied by the rebel fighters, as for instance in the Battle for Aleppo[52] and also in Kafar Batna.[53] A United Nations panel of human rights investigators reported that the Syrian government used thermobaric bombs against the rebellious town of Qusayr in March 2013.[54] Russia and Syrian government are using thermobaric bombs and other thermobaric munitions during the Syrian Civil War against insurgents and insurgent held civilian areas.[55][56][57]

Thermobaric and fuel-air explosives have been used in guerrilla warfare since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in Lebanon, which used a gas-enhanced explosive mechanism, probably propane, butane or acetylene.[58] The explosive used by the bombers in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in the US incorporated the FAE principle, using three tanks of bottled hydrogen gas to enhance the blast.[59][60] Jemaah Islamiyah bombers used a shock-dispersed solid fuel charge,[61] based on the thermobaric principle,[62] to attack the Sari nightclub in the 2002 Bali bombings.[63]

8) FYI What Is the "Mother of All Bombs" That the U.S. Just Dropped on Afghanistan

to search "MOAB" redirects here. For other uses, see MOAB (disambiguation). GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)

GBU-43/B on display at the Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Note the grid fins.

Place of origin United States

Service history

In service 2003–present

Used by United States Air Force

Wars War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Production history

Designer Air Force Research Laboratory

Designed 2002

Manufacturer McAlester Army Ammunition Plant

Produced 2003

No. built 15

Specifications

Mass 9,800 kg (21,600 lb) Length 9.1885 m (30 ft 1.75 in)

Diameter 103 cm (40.5 in)

Filling H-6

Filling weight 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)

Blast yield 11 tons TNT (46 GJ)

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB /ˈmoʊæb/, commonly known as "Mother of All Bombs") is a large-yield bomb, developed for the United States military by Albert L. Weimorts, Jr. of the Air Force Research Laboratory.[1] At the time of development, it was said to be the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal.[2] The bomb is designed to be delivered by a C-130 Hercules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC-130H Combat Talon II variants.

The MOAB was first dropped in combat in the 13 April 2017 airstrike against an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province (ISIS) tunnel complex in Achin District, Afghanistan.[3]

DID WE WIN THE WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN (YET?)

Al Weimorts (right), the creator[4] of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, and Joseph Fellenz, lead model maker,[4] look over the prototype before it was painted and tested.

The basic principle resembles that of the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, which was used to clear heavily wooded areas in the Vietnam War. Decades later, the BLU-82 was used in Afghanistan in November 2001[5] against the Taliban. Its success as a weapon of intimidation led to the decision to develop the MOAB. Pentagon officials suggested MOAB might be used as an anti-personnel weapon, as part of the "shock and awe" strategy integral to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[6]

GBU-43s are delivered from C-130 cargo aircraft, inside which they are carried on cradles resting on airdrop platforms. The bombs are dropped by deploying drogue parachutes, which also extract the cradle and platform from the aircraft. Shortly after launch the drogues are released and the bomb falls without the use of a retarding parachute. GPS satellite-guidance is used to guide bombs to their targets.[2]

The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily an air burst ordnance intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system. That sure sounds like the burning forests of california.[7] High altitude carpet-bombing with much smaller 230-to-910-kilogram (500 to 2,000 lb) bombs delivered via heavy bombers such as the B-52, B-2, or the B-1 is also highly effective at covering large areas.[8]

The MOAB is designed to be used against a specific target, and cannot by itself replicate the effects of a typical heavy bomber mission. During the Vietnam War's Operation Arc Light program, for example, the United States Air Force sent B-52s on well over 10,000 bombing raids, each usually carried out by two groups of three aircraft. A typical mission dropped 168 tons of ordnance, pounding an area 1.5 by 0.5 miles with an explosive force equivalent to 10 to 17 MOABs.[9][10][11]

MOAB was first tested with the explosive tritonal on 11 March 2003, on Range 70 located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. It was tested again on 21 November 2003.[2]

Since 2003, 15 MOABs have been manufactured at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma.[12][13]

The Air Force has said the MOAB has a unit price of $170,000, but this is a historical unit cost made in the mid-2000s and various factors of the bomb's atypical development process have made exact cost estimation difficult. The Air Force Research Lab generated the value based on already existing parts such as bomb casing and metals, and since the bomb was built in-house by the service they did not pay for outside research or have standard procurement costs associated with it. MOAB was a "crash project" developed for use against an adversary with uncertain tactics on unfamiliar terrain, and so was an effort to meet an urgent need not a formal program. Should more bombs be ordered to be built, manufacturing would likely be started over with higher costs due to a lack of old parts, price inflation, and new design and testing.[14]

an ISIS-Khorasan cave complex in Achin District, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. It was the first operational use of the bomb.[3][16][17] Two days later, an Afghan army spokesman said that the strike killed 94 ISIS-K militants, including four commanders, with no signs of civilian casualties.[18] However, a parliamentarian from Nangarhar province, Esmatullah Shinwari, said the explosion killed a teacher and his young son.[19][20] Former US military official Marc Garlasco, who served in the George W. Bush administration, said that the US had not previously used the MOAB because of worries that it would inadvertently hurt or kill civilians.[21]

SO DID BUSH BABY WIN THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN BY NOT HURTING “CIVILIANS”?????

During World War II, Royal Air Force Bomber Command used the Grand Slam, officially known as the "Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000 lb" 42 times. At 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) total weight, these earthquake bombs were technically larger than the MOAB. However, half their weight was due to the cast iron casing necessary for penetrating the ground (up to 40 m) before exploding. The MOAB, in contrast, has a light 2,900 lb (1,300 kg) aluminum casing surrounding 18,700 lb (8,500 kg) of explosive Composition H-6 material.[22]

The United States Air Force's T-12 Cloudmaker 44,000-pound (20,000 kg) demolition bomb (similar in design to the Grand Slam), developed after World War II, carried a heavier explosive charge than the MOAB, but was never used in combat.

In 2007, the Russian military announced that they had tested a thermobaric weapon nicknamed the "Father of All Bombs" ("FOAB").[23] The weapon is claimed to be four times as powerful as the MOAB,[24][2] but its specifications are widely disputed.[25][26]

The MOAB is the most powerful conventional bomb ever used in combat as measured by the weight of its explosive material.[27][28] The explosive yield is comparable to that of the smallest tactical nuclear weapons, such as the Cold War-era American M-388 projectile fired by the portable Davy Crockett recoilless gun. The M-388, a W54 nuclear warhead variant, weighed less than 60 pounds. At the projectile's lowest yield setting of 10 tons, roughly equivalent to a single MOAB, its explosive force was only 1/144,000th (0.0007%) that of the Air Force's 1.44-megaton W49 warhead, a nuclear weapon commonly found on American ICBMs from the early 1960s.