On 15Apr2017 1125, Bruce  Johnson wrote:

> one of the rational design reasons for the bomb was doing things like
> clearing minefields; this kind of explosive would do that pretty well.

Fuel-air/thermobaric weapons do a better job of that.

>>
>> If the target is on top of the ground, a number of smaller bombs would
>> do the job.
>
> True, but the number of smaller conventional bombs required to cover a
> ‘mile in diameter’ is rather large.

The MOAB masses about ten tonnes, so we're talking a similar mass
(probably less for smaller bombs if they can be dispersed correctly).
However, the MOAB can be dropped from cargo planes while a large
conventional bombing job with normal sized bombs needs a large dedicated
bomber.

> But all in all I think the point to this was, in the words of my
> brother-in-law (career USAF MSgt) “The boys gotta play with their toys” .

That's my read on this weapon too.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief