Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Size of Fuel Air Munitions Message-ID: <1991Jan18.002824.7708@cbnews.att.com> Date: 18 Jan 91 00:28:24 GMT References: <1991Jan14.011347.6684@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan15.021714.23645@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Lines: 39 Approved: military@att.att.com 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 > >>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!" ************************************