• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you bust a bunker?

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,687
Reaction score
32,429
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is an interesting question, given the latest ME flap over Syria and its ally Iran. Some of the discussion has focus on possible strikes against Iranian nuke facilities. How would you crack the bunker of these site with modern technology?

Kinetic Energy=(mass * velocity sq)/2

What we need is velocity with the right balance of mass. The penetrator will have to be extremely dense. Then there's a warhead to cause damage to the interior structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

Thoughts?
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
26,333
Reaction score
18,044
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A mallet.

Technology is for chumps.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is an interesting question, given the latest ME flap over Syria and its ally Iran. Some of the discussion has focus on possible strikes against Iranian nuke facilities. How would you crack the bunker of these site with modern technology?

Kinetic Energy=(mass * velocity sq)/2

What we need is velocity with the right balance of mass. The penetrator will have to be extremely dense. Then there's a warhead to cause damage to the interior structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

Thoughts?

I don't know, but I believe the US military has been working on it for a long time. I would assume, even if you can't reach the facility with a direct hit, you could destroy all access to it and cut off anyone down there from the surface and surface to them for a long time.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If you want something better than we have, you need to go heavier, faster, and more narrow, or some combination thereof.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,361
Reaction score
52,248
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you can put enough bunker busters into one hole successively it should do the trick.

Of course if you can manage to get a good sized chunk of Tungsten and Depleted Uranium moving at Mach 5 or so that should also squish most spiders.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is an interesting question, given the latest ME flap over Syria and its ally Iran. Some of the discussion has focus on possible strikes against Iranian nuke facilities. How would you crack the bunker of these site with modern technology?

Kinetic Energy=(mass * velocity sq)/2

What we need is velocity with the right balance of mass. The penetrator will have to be extremely dense. Then there's a warhead to cause damage to the interior structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

Thoughts?
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If you can put enough bunker busters into one hole successively it should do the trick.

Of course if you can manage to get a good sized chunk of Tungsten and Depleted Uranium moving at Mach 5 or so that should also squish most spiders.

Well I think you would probably want to use some more old school bombs ahead of it to do that softening up work and then put the GBU or whatever they are called in the hole. I read somewhere that that can penetrate 100 feet of dirt or 20 feet of concrete before they detonate, so it will take some hole digging unless you can get a luck shot on a ventilation/elevator shaft I would guess.

It would probably be cheaper just to have the CIA payoff somebody to put a bomb in the place.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,361
Reaction score
52,248
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well I think you would probably want to use some more old school bombs ahead of it to do that softening up work and then put the GBU or whatever they are called in the hole. I read somewhere that that can penetrate 100 feet of dirt or 20 feet of concrete before they detonate, so it will take some hole digging unless you can get a luck shot on a ventilation/elevator shaft I would guess.

It would probably be cheaper just to have the CIA payoff somebody to put a bomb in the place.

Obviously there's more that goes into it. What you'd need would depend on the depth of the bunker, what's on top of it, whether it was built with a reactive shell, etc.

The one big weakness it's going to definitely have is an entrance so if you can locate that your job is halfway done. It's also going to need ventilation so if you can take that out you're also ahead of the game. You don't necessarily need to blow it up if you can simply make it uninhabitable.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is an interesting question, given the latest ME flap over Syria and its ally Iran. Some of the discussion has focus on possible strikes against Iranian nuke facilities. How would you crack the bunker of these site with modern technology?

Kinetic Energy=(mass * velocity sq)/2

What we need is velocity with the right balance of mass. The penetrator will have to be extremely dense. Then there's a warhead to cause damage to the interior structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

Thoughts?

GBU-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,687
Reaction score
32,429
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
11,835
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I say just go the way we did with the USSR.

Make them bankrupt themselves, their government fall, then ask us to come and buy them from them.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

After WWII many of the navy's 8" gun cruisers and 14" and 16" gun battleships were decommissioned, the gun barrels were stored at the Hawthorne NWD in Nevada. When President Bush was considering bombing the Iranian underground nuclear weapons facilities, it was discovered that we had no weapons capable of penetrating the deep multiple layered concrete Iranian bunkers. The solution was to take these massive navy battleship 16 inch gun barrels, fill them with high explosives, fit them with a depleted uranium nosecone and a global positioning system for precision guidance, and drop them on the bunkers from modified B-2 bombers. This improvised bomb was called the super bunker buster. In order to do this, selected B-2's would have their rotary bomb racks were removed and replaced with a special bomb rack capable of carrying the immense weight of these bombs.
The current bunker buster bomb is made from an 8 inch artillery gun barrel, augmented with a rocket engine to drive it deep underground before exploding.

There's more to the story dealing with the super bunker busters. When they went out too Hawthorne, Nv. they discovered than most of the battle ship gun barrels had disappeared. It ends up that President Clinton while over downsizing our military wanted to turn all of the Iowa class battleships and turn them into museums. Like most liberals, scary looking things like scary looking assault rifles or scary looking Iowa class battleships disturbed them. The Iowa's were suppose by an act of Congress to be kept in a ready state in the reserve fleet to be activated during a national emergency until the U.S. Navy could come up with a large gun ship that could be used for providing naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps. Clinton figured if he ordered the 16" gun barrels to be cut up and sold for scrap metal he could violate the law that Congress passed and turn all of the iowa's into museums. No spare 16" gun barrels, why keep the Iowa's sitting in the reserve fleet waiting for war ?
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
11,835
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The solution was to take these massive navy battleship 16 inch gun barrels, fill them with high explosives, fit them with a depleted uranium nosecone and a global positioning system for precision guidance, and drop them on the bunkers from modified B-2 bombers.

Sorry, the gun to an Iowa class battleship weighs in at something like 200 tons. So pardon me if I call BS on this one.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Sorry, the gun to an Iowa class battleship weighs in at something like 200 tons. So pardon me if I call BS on this one.

They don't use the entire barrel. They cut it.

The 16"/50 cal. naval gun is over 66 feet long.

I seriously doubt they would use the entire length of the gun barrel.

The U.S. Navy built it's large naval guns differently than say the British. It's not all forged and milled steel. If you were to cut a barrel in half you'll notice what looks like piano wire wrapped around the barrel sleeve.

The British Admiralty use to claim that American battleship barrels drooped.
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I bust a Bunker by making Archie the Best Man at a mixed race Jewish wedding conducted in Polish.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Sorry, the gun to an Iowa class battleship weighs in at something like 200 tons. So pardon me if I call BS on this one.

It's not BS.

Came across this thread on the AR-15.com forum. The topic of the thread was about the Iowa class BB's 16" guns but drifterd off here and there to M-14 recievers, gun barrels being cut up and sold for scrap to bunker busters.

Posted: 10/16/2011 11:26:13 PM
I think I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in more recent years obsolete Naval gun barrels were being utilized to make "bunker-buster" deep penetrator bombs. Don't recall the size ranges they selected ....... anyone have any knowledge of this ? The descriptions were kinda fascinating at the time.

Posted: 10/16/2011 11:29:32 PM
Those were 203MM howitzer barrels from Army and Marine artillery pieces.

Posted: 10/16/2011 11:31:18 PM
I want to see a bomber drop a penetrator based off a BB main gun.

Posted: 10/16/2011 11:47:39 PM Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Those were 203MM howitzer barrels from Army and Marine artillery pieces.


I got to see those being made at watervliet.


Posted: 10/17/2011 11:39:55 AM

Yes, as a young cadet studying to do great things in life.
I went in 92 right after desert storm and bunker busters were all the rage.
Got to see the 16" sleeves that were still there beause we still had battleships (settle down rick)
Saw them machining 8" into bunker busters.
Saw brand new 140mm tank gun barrels they were testing.

Very cool tour.
The cadillac of the artillery world. They were proud of what they did, justifiably so

Naval guns were big. - Page 1 - AR15.COM
 
Top Bottom