The Mother of All Bombs: The Story of the Most Powerful Non-Nuclear Weapon That Turned Out to Be Almost Useless

22 400 15

In April 2017, the world learned of the combat use of the GBU-43/B MOAB, the most powerful non-nuclear air bomb in the US arsenal. Dropped from a transport plane in the Afghan mountains, it destroyed a terrorist cave complex, demonstrating a destructive force comparable to a small nuclear charge.

The weapon's origins go back to World War II, when the British created the 10-ton Grand Slam bomb, which could destroy underground bunkers with a seismic shock. The Americans responded with the 19-ton T-12 Cloudmaker, a monster that was never used in combat.



The real breakthrough came in Vietnam with the BLU-82B Daisy Cutter. This 6,8-ton "powder keg," as it was called, created a kill zone with a radius of 300 meters, clearing the jungle for helicopter landing pads. Its explosions were so powerful that British special forces in Iraq later mistook them for nuclear strikes.

In turn, in 2002, the Pentagon presented an improved version - a 9,8-ton GBU-43/B MOAB with 8,5 tons of Composition H6 explosives, which are 35% more powerful than TNT. To improve accuracy, the munition was equipped with a satellite guidance system and lattice rudders. However, this is not so important, since the bomb could destroy targets within a kilometer.

However, combat use showed the weapon's limited effectiveness. The MOAB was excessive against dispersed terrorist groups, and it lacked the penetrating power to destroy fortified bunkers. As a result, the only real use in Afghanistan was more of a demonstration.

A more practical alternative was the 12,3-ton GBU-57A/B MOP (with a 2,5-ton warhead), capable of penetrating 60 feet of concrete. But it was the MOAB that went down in history as the “Mother of All Bombs” – an impressive, if not very practical, symbol of American military might.

As practice has shown, in modern conflicts, it is not brute force that is more important, but the precision and selectivity of strikes. MOAB remained in the arsenal as a weapon of psychological influence - a frightening, but rarely used tool.

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    19 June 2025 10: 45
    "A powder keg" - minus the support. Everything can be put to good use.
  2. 0
    19 June 2025 10: 54
    GBU-43/B MOAB - well, yes, and then Russia created the ODAB-9000, which is 4 times more powerful, with a 20 times larger area of ​​destruction. And by analogy with the American one, it became the "daddy" of all bombs. :о)
    1. How many "daddys" were dropped on objects during the SVO, especially during the assaults on such complex objects as in Mariupal, for example?
      Considering that in a modern conflict of armies (not semi-partisan formations), neither landing nor gravity bombs rule, this is an atavism. An advertising picture and nothing more.
      1. +1
        19 June 2025 11: 59
        Why it is not used in the SVO, this question is also hanging in the air for me... Perhaps because of the technical difficulties of delivery, dropping directly over the target is risky, and whether it is possible to attach a planning and correction module is also a question...
    2. 0
      19 June 2025 11: 46
      Well, there was also the 60-megaton "Tsar Bomba" dropped on the Novaya Zemlya test site.
  3. 0
    19 June 2025 11: 25
    A "head" like the ODAB-9000 should be mounted on a ballistic missile. It would be an excellent means of destroying dams, fortified bridges and entire underground factories.
    And everything is legal and conventional.
    The effectiveness of using three-ton glide bombs is beyond doubt.
    And this tandem will quickly justify itself.
    1. +2
      19 June 2025 11: 36
      The ODAB-9000 is hardly suitable for destroying fortified objects, it is more suitable for work on large areas, an initial detonation at a certain height, then a volumetric detonation. Well, and in any "holes" in the covered area it is definitely impossible to hide, guaranteed destruction within a radius of 300 m.
      1. -1
        19 June 2025 11: 40
        A diameter of 600 meters for any plant, port, or government district is also not bad at all.
        1. 0
          19 June 2025 11: 51
          Unfortunately, I am not an expert in these matters, I can only guess how it can be used. For example, to make a passage in the enemy's defense line 600 m wide with simultaneous demining of some area, detonation of mines from detonation due to a shock wave. It has not been used in the SVO yet. A planning and correction module would be attached to it...
          1. -1
            19 June 2025 11: 56
            ODAB-9000 is 9 tons, that's three "Kukuruzniks". You can't get away with wings here.
            For LBS such weapons are excessive. They have strategic importance.
            1. But how to deliver it there, that's the question? No, it's a perfectly good thing against the Papuans, but against those whose air defense is always alert?
    2. This will be complete nonsense for the following reasons:
      mass-size "warhead" and the method of impact on the fortifications. well, the oxygen will burn out, well, the pressure will drop. What about the platinum monolith or the bridge support with a span? Even the temperature impact will be very short compared to what is needed to destroy concrete.
      1. 0
        23 June 2025 20: 36
        It was a shame to downvote, everything is correct, I am also inclined to think that it is a very specific charge, not for mechanical impacts.
  4. 0
    27 June 2025 21: 10
    Quote: Blast
    The ODAB-9000 is hardly suitable for destroying fortified objects, it is more suitable for work on large areas, an initial detonation at a certain height, then a volumetric detonation. Well, and in any "holes" in the covered area it is definitely impossible to hide, guaranteed destruction within a radius of 300 m.

    In Chasovy Yar, this would be useful for folding high-rise buildings
    1. 0
      29 June 2025 21: 16
      Apparently they are not used against high-rise buildings in territories potentially included in Russia, but after crossing the Russian border into the territory of the Ukrainian Empire, it is quite acceptable to use them and to test their effectiveness in accelerating the offensive in depth would be justified. And if it is effective, then why not use the entire arsenal, which has been lying uselessly in warehouses since the times of the USSR? It is necessary, following the example of the USA and NATO, to clear warehouses of obsolete weapons in order to replace them with more modern and effective ones.