Footage of the Daddy of all Bombs

[Matt Roberts]

Yeah...yeah... I know there is a thread up in general discussion on this but it has been seriously derailed muthaf***er!

I was watching the footage last night and wonder if anyone noticed this.

The bomb is supposed to be the Russian equal to MOAB GPS guided etc, and dropped from a Blackjack.

They showed a Blackjack with the bomb bays open but then showed the bomb dropping and it looks like a good old Daisy Cutter (BLU-82?) dropped out the BACK END of a transport on a pallete complete with drogue chute. It definately did not look like the MOAB or any other scaled up grandchild of a Grand Slam.

As for the damage to the buildings...after watching footage of earthquake damage in the region over the years does it really surprise you this bomb could flatten these apartment blocks.

Anyone else have any Non-Mace Windu tainted info to add to the discussion?

Matt

[Zmey Smirnoff]

Not sure what you mean, bud.

here is the footage

here is the daisy cutter

and here is the 3d graphics of the Russian bomb

I dont see the daisy cutter in the footage....

[Trigger]

I think he's referring to the video at 00:21, which resembles a Daisy Cutter going out the back of a C-130, with the drogue chute pulling it out and away from the carrier aircraft instead of gravity pulling it down out of a bomb bay.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Trigger

[Matt Roberts]

The footage on the news (Fox..) showed the bomb being released, much like a Daisy Cutter being rolled out the back of a C-130 type transport plane. The camera angle looked to be that of a loadmaster watching it go out of the back, with a pallet and a drogue chute being deployed. It really didn't look like it was dropped as a bomber would do.

Admittably I don't have the option to view it on my computer so it was just the 10 second glimpses of the bomb in the news reports. Something just didn't seem 'right' when I saw the footage used.

Matt

[Trigger]

It was probably stock footage being used as filler. Later on in the segment, actual footage of a Herk was shown, but that was to compare this new bomb to the MOAB and Daisy Cutter.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Trigger

[Zmey Smirnoff]

I think he's referring to the video at 00:21, which resembles a Daisy Cutter going out the back of a C-130, with the drogue chute pulling it out and away from the carrier aircraft instead of gravity pulling it down out of a bomb bay.

at 00:21 its def. the new bomb. The drogue chute is deployed after the bomb is in the air and clear of the carrier plane.

[Trigger]

That looks like footage that was shot during a prior drop test out of the back of a cargo plane as opposed to out of the Blackjack's bomb bay.

[PBoilermaker]

That looks like footage that was shot during a prior drop test out of the back of a cargo plane as opposed to out of the Blackjack's bomb bay.

Yes, it does. Very fishy.

[Zmey Smirnoff]

00:21

00:22

00:22

Are you watching the same footage? Where is the cargo plane?

[hazmatt]

I think what he's saying is it is clearly "sliding" for a very short half second before it starts to drop.

Another point- I don't think they would deploy the parachute while the bomb is still in the Blackjack bomb bay. That wouldn't be safe. And in the first little Youtube screenshot thing it's still clearly in the bomb bay or cargo hold or whatever.

Matt

[PBoilermaker]

Yeah, we're watching the same footage, are you? We see the Blackjack taking off from an airstrip, we then see it in flight while its bomb bay doors open. Then we see it jump to a shot where the motion of the bomb and the support feet make it look as if it was pushed out the back of a less sexy transport than the Blackjack.

Curious that we don't see it being loaded in a Blackjack or that they didn't release footage showing it leaving the Blackjack. Hell, they had the camera there to show the bomb bay doors opening, right?

Very strange.

I have no doubt Russia has been putting their energy into developing this bomb and the yield -may- be as advertised. However, I am starting to think the Blackjack footage was just a sabre-rattling ploy. This bomb may not be configured for release from a Blackjack, but some not-so-smooth video editing is meant to convince people otherwise. After all, this entire news story was a press event and they want to get as much mileage out of it as possible. It wouldn't be as "scary" if the delivery platform was an Il-76 type of transport.

-Mike

[Zmey Smirnoff]

^ pure conjecture based on 2 seconds of footage, vivid imagination and desperate desire to find an evil ploy. Very strange indeed. Without knowing the exact position of the bomb and the camera inside the bomb bay and the position of the aircraft it impossible to distinguish between "sliding" and "falling".

Tu-160 carries 22500-40000 kg, the bomb in question is no more than 5-7 by 2, maybe 3 meters and 8-9 tons. Why bother with a cargo plane?

I'm very sorry they didnt provide the footage of the bomb being designed, assembled, loaded and dropped in 1080i High Definition with Dolby surround sound.

[Matt Roberts]

All I was trying to put originally was based upon our TV networks (and documentary producers) ability to completely botch all military footage they use, was that for a GPS guided bomb to have a drogue chute deployed while the bomb appears to be in the aircraft, not after it had been dropped, just seemed strange. I would have thought footage also would have been shot from a chase plane where the bomb and the Blackjack would have been in the same frame, as similar footage was shot with the MOAB tests down at Elgin back in '02.

I missed the comparison footage that shows a MOAB going off in Florida without being properly credited as another thread shows.

[Grey Ghost 531]

^ pure conjecture based on 2 seconds of footage, vivid imagination and desperate desire to find an evil ploy.

For the footage to have been taken from the Blackjack, the camera would have to have been suspended about 12 feet below the fuselage, pointed aft. How else can you explain the camera angle? Where are the bomb bay doors?

I'm not saying the bomb doesn't exist. I'm not saying the bomb cannot be dropped from a Blackjack. I am saying I don't think the footage showing the bomb in this particular video clip was taken of this bomb being dropped from a Blackjack. It's being dropped from off the ramp of a cargo plane just as the BLU-32 82 and the MOAB would be. You can't see the cargo plane because the camera is facing out the back of the cargo bay over the ramp.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Grey Ghost 531

[Trigger]

Without knowing the exact position of the bomb and the camera inside the bomb bay and the position of the aircraft it impossible to distinguish between "sliding" and "falling".

Actually, it's pretty easy for most people to tell the difference between "sliding" and "falling." Having watched that clip several times now, it's obvious the bomb was being pulled back from the camera before dropping away from the carrier aircraft.

[PBoilermaker]

^ pure conjecture based on 2 seconds of footage, vivid imagination and desperate desire to find an evil ploy. Very strange indeed. Without knowing the exact position of the bomb and the camera inside the bomb bay and the position of the aircraft it impossible to distinguish between "sliding" and "falling".

Tu-160 carries 22500-40000 kg, the bomb in question is no more than 5-7 by 2, maybe 3 meters and 8-9 tons. Why bother with a cargo plane?

I'm very sorry they didnt provide the footage of the bomb being designed, assembled, loaded and dropped in 1080i High Definition with Dolby surround sound.

"Desperate desire to find an evil ploy"? If you're done with the dime store psychoanalysis, how about you stow your ego, save the unnecessary drama and rebut the simple questions raised about the footage? Are you so myopic as to think the footage in this -media release- couldn't possibly be from anything other than a Blackjack? Careful, your naivete is showing.

As for your sarcasm over the lack of decent footage, I don't need to see anything you mentioned to be convinced. No, I'd settle for them having held the existing, supposedly authentic in-flight shot of the FOAB Blackjack drop long enough to see something, ANYTHING, leave the bomb bay. Of course, for some odd reason, they didn't feel the need to do that after showing irrelevant footage of the Blackjack taking off from an airfield and opening its bomb bays in flight. Perhaps it is because the actual FOAB footage was taken out the back of a slow-moving, not-so-sexy transport and it wouldn't have made good, scary TV.

I don't doubt that the Russians can configure this device for air delivery from a Blackjack. I'm sure they could configure many things for release from that airframe. As far as the footage goes, however, that doesn't appear to be what we are seeing.

[Waco]

Have to agree, there's NO WAY that footage used came from a bomb bay release. The drogue shoot is at its tether length WELL before the bomb starts any kind of a descent. Also note that the camera angle is not "fixed" but rather actually starts to depress its angle as the weapon falls away.

Most likely stock footage from a previous test....certainly not a release from a Blackjack.

Looks like news networks the world over can use stock footage and splicing to make it look like anything they wanted happened.

Probably stock footage of the Tu-160 as well.

Interesting.

[ChernayaAkula]

Curious that we don't see it being loaded in a Blackjack or that they didn't release footage showing it leaving the Blackjack. Hell, they had the camera there to show the bomb bay doors opening, right?

Very strange.

While I also don't think the actual bomb-release footage is from the Blackjack (Dave and Waco make some good points!), I don't find that strange at all. I think it's down to security considerations. After all, this is a project associated to the defence ministry and therefore a concern of national security. Would you want to have the world and his dog know how your new bomb is working? It suffices to have them know what the effects are.

[PBoilermaker]

While I also don't think the actual bomb-release footage is from the Blackjack (Dave and Waco make some good points!), I don't find that strange at all. I think it's down to security considerations. After all, this is a project associated to the defence ministry and therefore a concern of national security. Would you want to have the world and his dog know how your new bomb is working? It suffices to have them know what the effects are.

We are talking about -this- propaganda footage being suspect. We aren't talking about national security concerns or anything else regarding the functionality of the weapon.

So, in the context of examining this footage, yes, it is strange.

[Phartycr0c]

Can i just say the weak link in all this is .....wait for it........ the press coverage!.

There is no doubt that the weapon has been developed, and that it can be deployed, but seriously, do you honestly think the press have a clue about what aircraft were involved in testing the weapon.

Indeed a Blackjack was shown (nice aircraft) and IMHO a C130, but my feeling is that these were nothing but padding clips added by the press to fill out the news item to whatever length its commentary would be.

As I have said before, why let the facts get in the way of a good story??

Edited September 13, 2007 by Phartycr0c

[Trigger]

[Trigger]

You got any of that??? Would be very helpful for me to make a informed decision not a conjecture....

Maybe he doesn't have TiVo?

[Waco]

Would be very helpful for me to make a informed decision not a conjecture....

Conjecture is okay. Its pure conjecture based on desire to find an evil ploy that's unacceptable. It's hard to tell the difference, but the latter would be: "perhaps they made the whole thing up, copied and then one-upped the US nickname for the weapon, and released it to the press as a further continuance of the current saber rattling to appear relevant in the global stage."

See, now that's conjecture attempting to find an evil ploy.

After all, this is a project associated to the defence ministry and therefore a concern of national security. Would you want to have the world and his dog know how your new bomb is working? It suffices to have them know what the effects are.

I sure wouldn't. But then again, I think its unacceptable for the world and his dog to know about my procedures for transfer/handling of nuclear weapons...so goodness knows I have no credibility. I'm far to "out there" in my thinking.

[jcunny]

^ pure conjecture based on 2 seconds of footage, vivid imagination and desperate desire to find an evil ploy. Very strange indeed. Without knowing the exact position of the bomb and the camera inside the bomb bay and the position of the aircraft it impossible to distinguish between "sliding" and "falling".

Tu-160 carries 22500-40000 kg, the bomb in question is no more than 5-7 by 2, maybe 3 meters and 8-9 tons. Why bother with a cargo plane?

I'm very sorry they didnt provide the footage of the bomb being designed, assembled, loaded and dropped in 1080i High Definition with Dolby surround sound.

Hold on there Festus... You need to have a general understanding of basic physics. That was PUSHED not droped! If aircraft A is traveling say (ok I'll be fair here) 250 KAS, at the point of release the bomb goes down (gravity at its finest), BUT also the bomb would be roughly traveling at the same speed as the aircraft dropping it. Hence, when veiwed, the bomb would be directly under the bay at point of release. This bomb clearly goes backward, showing a force shoving the mass in that direction. Sorry to annoy you, but this one was likely as stated previously droppped by something OTHER than the Blackjack in the footage. It is however an impressive display in explosives.

JC

Edited September 13, 2007 by jcunny

[Brady]

See now y'all have got it all wrong. That "thing" that was obviously sliding out the back of it's carrier aircraft was clearly a Lada with some pig iron welded onto it, painted green, and dumped out the back of an Il-76. Any half-wit would see that. As for the exterior shot of the drop, that was just stock footage of a GBU-43 being dropped out the back of an MC-130. The explosion on the ground clearly came from the impact of a single , low-yield nuclear warhead that was launched with an R-29RM ballistic missile from a Delta IV class SSBN located in the Barents Sea. The camera had to have been remotely mounted on a tripod at a distance of 3 miles from the blast. Oh, and they obviously blew-up a crumbling ex-soviet military installation in Kazakhstan that was once used as a staging area for recovering Soyuz capsules. This of course was all part of an elaborate plan to grossly inflate the capabilities and image of the Russian military on the world circuit to aid in their eventual plans to overtake Antarctica from all those blasted penguins and create a new Soviet Empire that will be ruled by Lenin himself (from the comfort of his mausoleum at Red Square in Moscow...... of course). Now that kids, is how ya cook up a yarn about hidden evil intentions.