Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: tom@bears.ucsb.edu (Tom Weinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Size of Fuel Air Munitions
Message-ID: <1991Jan18.004107.8948@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Jan 91 00:41:07 GMT
References: <1991Jan14.011347.6684@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



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