This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The section 'Design and development' doesn't actually talk about design or development so much. It discusses the deployment methods and targets much more. I would expect the design section to discuss details of the design such as the fact that it is a thermobaric type of weapon which is nowhere mentioned. What is the fuel? How is it ignited? Perhaps a new section should be created with this content called 'Targets and Methods of Use' and the 'Design and development' section given a do-over? Gnuarm (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source that describes the bomb as a thermobaric weapon? From the discussions in the talk archives, it's not. BilCat (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the GBU-43/B is not being properly listed in Wikipedia as being an example of a thermoberic weapon. I've provided three articles listing it as such, including two by CNN (one dated 2017 & another dated 2001).[1][2][3]
I'm not sure of the rationale behind the choice to not specify that the US GBU-43/B is a thermoberic bomb/weapon despite its listing being otherwise in news reports, but feel that it is imperative for accuracy and impartiality under Wikipedia community guidelines that this omission must be corrected immediately.
I presume the ordinance specifics (e.g. What kind of explosive agent is contained inside of the thin aluminum housing?) are likely classified, but it might be useful if such information is also included (if known and can be documented by reliable sources).
I do not have any primary source links naming it as such by internal US military documents obtained via FOIA request, but felt that the 3 news sources, should at minimum, provide adequate secondary source reference. The author of (4), Brian Hudson, is a retired US Airforce technician whose final role was at Global Strike Command HQ as the B-1B avionics manager (according to the article's profile). I offer that 30-years (retirement age) in the US Airforce in a technical and managerial position with special focus on strategic bombers and C-130 transports [what carries the GBU-43/B], would make the person a relative "expert" in US Bomb classifications (at least, when compared with the average layperson)—which was my rationale for inclusion.
Obviously, editors may have varying opinions on the matter, but I felt it pertinent that the GBU-43/B article should properly list the what type of weapon it is in keeping with other munitions articles, in keeping with Wikipedia site wise article editorial guidelines for keeping articles of a similar nature with similar information/topics to similar formatting/data inclusion standards. I figured this was at minimum, reasonable. Dragoon91786 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thermobaric bombs do use conventional explosives, but also rely heavily on atmospheric oxygen, to release more energy and (typically) to reach deeper into enclosed spaces. MOAB has aluminium in its explosive mixture and in its casing, and it seems this will increase the interaction with atmospheric oxygen, even if it is not the main component of the blast. Elias (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the sources are correct referenced in this article regarding MOAB being thermobaric.
The design of this weapon uses a TNT/aluminium blend in a thin aluminium casing to maximise the blast radius. You can see from video clips that this weapon clearly isn't thermobaric by the behaviour of the explosion. 2A02:C7E:4640:BA00:9AA:B8F2:10E1:3821 (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the very tabloid source 7 som expert is quoted that MOAB "sucks" oxygen from the surrounding air for it's combustion, which is exactly what a thermobaric bomb does. Even if it is not the main source of the blast, this shows that the distinction is not clear-cut. Check out this paper, where the oxygen-sucking effect is attributed to the addition of aluminium, as in tritonal (TNT+aluminium). I think MOAB's aluminium casing could also contribute to the atmospheric afterburn. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/post-detonation-afterburning-of-high-explosivesElias (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it notable to include the number of deaths caused by the operational use of this weapon? @63.152.90.128: has removed these, but the sources seem notable so I don't know why they wouldn't be included. Alpha2 5232 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
