Does India need it's own MOAB?

MOAB which is short form for Massive Ordnance Air Blast or Mother Of All Bombs which is the largest conventional bomb and is  believed to  be the most powerful non nuclear weapon in world.  MOAB is an American bomb which weighs  about 21000 pounds or about 10000 kgs and its length is  about 30 feets.

MOAB was used by USAF in Afghanistan  on 13 April 2017 against an alleged ISIS training camp and this was the first time this weapon has ever been used in active combat. The attack killed about 100 ISIS  militants according to Afghan Army spokesperson. The extensive tunnel network made by the terrorist organisation was damaged too.

After the USAF strike many people started asking DOES INDIA NEED A MOAB TOO?

Well as far as its the case of India  MOAB  in my opinion would be a useless weapon for India, even USAF have not used the MOAB bomb  even after having it in its inventory for about One and Half  Decade. The reasons I do not like the idea of having a MOAB like bomb for IAF are as follows

  • MOAB is a large scale destruction bomb and most operations in modern day warfare are in urban conditions and such scenario need precision guided weapons and bombs. Use of MOAB is not possible in such scenarios.
  • Some say that MOAB can be used for strikes on terror camps situated across border  like USAF used the bomb on terror camps in Afghanistan, similarly they say IAF can use the bomb against terror camps in POK.
    In my opinion this is just not possible because in case of  USAF they have unrestricted access to Afghanistan Airspace but this  is not the case with our neighbour state. IAF is  not going to be welcomed in Pakistani Airspace and use of  MOAB by India on Pakistan can be seen as AN ACT OF AGGRESSION.
  • The cost of MOAB is too much, even when USAF states that a bomb costs about 200000 US $ they do not consider the  total costs which  makes the cost of each bomb equal to 16+ million US $ as reported by multiple leading news agenciesthis is true at this cost one can easily buy multiple smart bombs and inflict much more damage to enemy.
  • Also the weight of  bomb which is 10000 kgs can not be delivered by a fighter jet. To drop such bomb one needs to take it to  location on a large transport aircraft  like C-130 etc. This is neither feasible nor safe considering the intended targets for Indian MOAB are in an enemy state and use of  big transport aircraft increase the chances of detection by enemy air defences.
  • Some even said that MOAB  could act as a deterrence against rival states as they would fear it but is it true? I mean what is better-A weapon which we need to  take to enemy airspace where we will face heavy resistance and risk the life of our soldiers and pilots or A stand-off weapon like Brahmos which we can fire safely from within our Borders and see its effect?
    In my opinion the Brahmos will not just be better but also more effective than a giant BOMB. With brahmos we can not just strike from a safe range but also we will be able to strike with  more precision and with more  accuracy.
  • Not to forget that MOAB cannot penetrate targets and can only be used against Soft targets, yes its impact will surely damage the structures but it will not be as effective as a penetrator weapon.

NOTE- Yes MOAB is GPS guided bomb but its purpose is  not precision by any means, its just to guide bomb when it is dropped from high altitude, it should  not be confused with precision bomb in such scenario as the explosion caused by the bomb is lethal for a long long range..

These are the reasons I feel that MOAB  like weapon is not a very effective system for Indian Armed forces.


  1. When your C130 pilots taxy into a lamp posts, its best not to try to do hard tactics with them.

    1. Yes but do try to land even a trainer jet on high mountains with 0 visibility, RSAF will pee in their G-suits mate.

  2. Ground taxy into a lamp post is an unforgivable crime. Apparently IAF has such poor pilots where basic skills are lacking. The bloody aircraft wasnt even flying.

    Shows the quality of the training. Mediocre.

    IAF pilots peeing while on the ground after this? I think so. Indians like you should just admit the weakness and move on. Dont slap yourself more and more... Shameless.

    1. Would love to see a RSAF pilot trying to even fly a c 130 at such altitude.

    2. Still struggling? Taxy into a LAMP POST? Poor pilot training in IAF is snowballing. Crashes every other month. SHAMEFUL.

      C130? RSAF went Nepal during the earthquake. They didnt taxy into a STATIONARY lamp post. hahahah ...Any more curry boy ?

    3. For a pint airforce with not even a fraction of IAF strength u sure talk a lot mate.

    4. I already told you before. IAF cannot sustain operations against RSAF. Too many AOG and broken jets.

      Just broken and antiquated.

      You sure talk a lot mate.. jealousy?

  3. Well, at $16M, it's because they built very few.
    @$200k per strike, if you get a hundred roaches, it ends cheaper than the usual 2-3 with a $100-110k Hellfire used to get a Toyota HiLux with a KPV.
    They aren't really cost efficient at getting terrorists. I regret not having my say into our military procurements : tax payers would love me : I have some ideas for a strike aircraft especially tailored to score a maximum fanatics for the cheapest any method could because they don't deserve spending more as they have no honour :grin:
    Now, although the form factor ain't great, Rafale has already carried a 12t satellite launcher (with half fuel onboard) so, no, a 10t one is absolutely feasible, especially with new engines.
    Now the Russian FOAB is only 7.2t while 4x more powerful than MOAB.
    Well, seen this way, it may replace small tactical-nukes without the fallouts.
    Now, US force Syrian airspace on a daily basis to bomb terrorists... Well, who knows, Rafale may sneak into Pakistan but it wouldn't be too appreciated, better avoid brand and serial number on the bomb and even not making public you have it and not get caught too...
    Nevertheless, consider you create a TER for 3 Meteors/Mica, put 4 Meteors, 6 Mica-IR, 2x1050L in conformals, it may be around 3500kg, you may conceive a 5500-6000kg gliding bomb, maybe with a rocket booster, to hang on the 3 central hard-points and if the principles of the FOAB are used, this may be about 3-3.5x more powerful than a MOAB and even draw interest from other Rafale users (some MER/TER racks too, BTW, there were drop tanks for Mirage-3 where you could also hang 4x250kg bombs and others doing a 19x68mm rocket launcher and a drop-tank at the same time. Smth with 32x70mm+droptank would rock, especially with the trend of guided rockets). If it ends with smth guided that for $200k do the job of a nuke grenade without going nuke, well. Should it be made? I don't know but such thermobaric against a terrorist camp or even an armoured column attacking your country would be pretty devastating an this is surely the most efficient against tunnels.
    - Brahmos has interest too but surely much more costly
    - Gaddafi had bought last generation of Russian radars and wasn't able to down a single Rafale, anyway, as soon as you enlist in an army, you assume you may die for your country
    - Having SVP-24 mounted on your Flankers may be much more cost effective than guided bombs
    - Stand-off weapons are not cost-effective at all. They're only to be considered to take out high value targets in a contested airspace and for SEAD purposes. In case of a near-peer conflict, a very interesting stand-off weapon would be MBDA Apache. Pretty expensive but if you have to neutralise an airbase, 5 would be enough were 59 Tomahawks have failed as the runway will be out for a moment (not without reason that I'm more and more to get rid of classic airbases : as Rafales take off in 400m and can be used from roads and even land automated and you can have thousands of potential airbases for cheap. Just leave a 1150m grass or dirt strip near and if serious cargo is needed, an A400M can operate too and if the Bréguet 941 was re-created, it may do all the transport job for these bases and all other functions).

    "Not to forget that MOAB cannot penetrate targets and can only be used against Soft targets, yes its impact will surely damage the structures but it will not be as effective as a penetrator weapon."
    => Due to the overpressure then vacuum, except if the hardened target is able to mostly withstand a nuke, even not being in the blast/heat range will just blow your lungs
    => GPS being accurate to less than 10m and if jammed, INS relays and is precise to less than 30m, I'd prefer not be around.

    1. GPS being accurate to less than 10m and if jammed, INS relays and is precise to less than 30m, I'd prefer not be around.

      I said not to call it a precision weapon as its impact left about a 300 m diameter effect which is a bit too much for precision weapon as precision weapons are considered one which can be used in areas without causing collateral damage to nearby area of things and 21000 pounds is just too ext

      Yeah the 16 million cost is too much that's why I don't like that

      Also as u know Indo-Pak relationship we don't want to strike in a way which Pak can call aggression in UN, also even if our Rafale can enter the airspace we still won't send them inside as that will be a tactical weapon for a war with pak.

      Also yeah FOAB can do 30 times more damage than MOAB but that's not a conventional weapon like MOAB and if India uses it, it means war and sanctions on India for nuclear aggression. Also with that our NSG and UNSC seat goes down the drain.

    2. Again spreading false Indian curry news. Per unit cost is 160k.

      Please fact check curry boy. I am slapping your curry laced faced every post. Mostly fake information. You have very little credibility.

      Currying ?

    3. That's why I wrote for u our illiterate Singaporean mate that even when USAF claimed it's price would be 160k dollars ( which they told could go to 200k with all rest things ) it's real cost stayed at 16 million $ because they built very few of those bombs.

      That's how they pegged the cost at 16 million per bomb. Do read Pentagon reports mate.

    4. It is 160k. Do read the news mate. Dont read too much indian propaganda. Its ruining you.

    5. Tells Ur intellect, yeah a news reporter knows more than official Pentagon figures RIGHT

    6. PigmoonK : Now, instead trolling uselessly, why don't you consider doing smth clever which may get contracts to your country thus becoming useful instead of unmercyfully hanging poor souls not even implied in blood crimes. ST-Kinetics builts a modular multicaliber PDW named CPW. Lobby them for a few mods!
      - .25Garin caliber (parent case: .30carbine): 1350J out from a 46cm barrel and rounds are really small=> energy on par with 5.45x39russian!
      - 50rounds casket magazines
      - polygonal rifling
      - optional 27, 40 and 46cm barrels
      - optional wildcat caliber made from .30carbine brasses and 220-250gr .300winchest-magnum bullets for subsonic purposes with silencer
      => If you don't get the interest of such thing for both police and military use, better totally stop talking about defence issues. Note that AK74U was phased out a good 25 years ago and H&K MP7 or FN P90 rounds are not more powerful than a 'hot loaded' .22magnum. Here it'd be a MP7 sized true assault rifle and the supressed rounds would be as powerful than .357magnum. I'd love to have 2 when I'll live in Africa and will have to fly a small plane to do my business travels. with half the continent with wildlife and/or being a war zone not counting high criminality, guess why I'd like it!

  4. "I said not to call it a precision weapon.../... is just too ext"
    =>>>> It has to be considered as a pre-strategic weapon and a way to use smth on par with nuke grenades/tac-nukes without getting into trouble with massive international sanctions, etc. Technically, it's a WMD but as you're not using anything NBC, legally, you still are in conventional weaponry.

    "Also as u know Indo-Pak relationship we don't want to strike in a way which Pak can call aggression in UN, also even if our Rafale can enter the airspace we still won't send them inside as that will be a tactical weapon for a war with pak."
    =>>>> 1st : better avoid to start a war, especially between 2 nuke powers.
    Now, there are ways to kick butts of aggressive nations in a clever way, as France did to Iran in the 80's after their Lebanese proxy launched a SVBIED with 2.5t fuel-air mixture against French blue-helmets' HQ in Beirut, thus assassinating 58 paratroopers. DGA used a Falcon-50 with full Mirage-F1 systems for integration purposes and it had also 2 hardpoints. Acting with business-jet registry, the Falcon began to fly daily over Persian-Gulf. Strangely, at the same time, Exocet missiles began to sunk Iranian oil tankers and navy-ships and 58 went underwater...
    Now, who knows, there may be ways to have MBDA build SCALP-EG without serial numbers, markings, etc. It may not be a problem to reverse engineer Harpoon or others things, maybe smth already built in NK or Iran who themselves have rev-engineered gear...
    Well, let's say that if ISI is playing dirty, India can do so too. As we always say, "in France everything is allowed, as long as you don't get caught" and : "if you don't have the right, you take the left", LOL.

    "Also yeah FOAB can do 30 times more damage than MOAB but that's not a conventional weapon like MOAB. if India uses it, it means war and sanctions on India for nuclear aggression"
    =>>>> Nope, only 4x as powerful and it's the same principle, just that spread of fuel is optimised and nanotech explosives too. This ain't a nuke.
    Nevertheless, even doing some strikes against a country, putting up a maritime blockade or sinking one of their navy-ships are casus-bellis and are likely to mean war. In some ways, even massing huge troops at the border with intention to attack can be considered a casus-belli.
    I think that militaries goal shall be protecting their country. Launching a war of aggression is not the best idea. Now if some moronic Pakis are shelling into India, you have perfect right to kick their butts in a on par with their acts too. Now, I'm not well placed to judge actions in the area, let's say that some Pak actions, especially at ISI level are very very dubious. Now, in such domain, great care shall be taken to avoid escalation.
    Now, with the kind of not really friendly neighbourhood India has, better have means that may have goons around thinking twice before messing with you. Deception can be used too : having let's say 50 ballistic missiles then having 500 sites with 450 cardboard/inflatable ones, once seen from satellites, who will know if these aren't genuine. Now, how to know that N-Korea didn't simply blew 10k tons of ANFO in some former coal mine so simulate a nuke explosion as a deterrent to Dubya's threats?

    PigmoonK : more likely $200k BUT you know, with the number built and the R&D cost and no more orders, you really end with a 16M figure! Incl. R&D, F-22 costed $412-413M/aircraft and wasn't even finished (no IRST, no lateral radars!) but yeah, flyaway cost was about $250M and had the program been completed, it'd had lowered to $150M. Doesn't changes anything, each of the 195 built ended costing +$412M, period!

  5. I just couldn't leave your site before letting you know that I genuinely delighted in the top quality data you present to your guests? Will be back again much of the time to determine the status of new posts. playmotupatlu

    1. Ty mate, new posts are into the tube, just waiting for health improvement as ATM m suffering from viral. Will be posting in few days.


Post a Comment

Liked the post or Want to share your thoughts ? Then comment and give ur precious feedback .