Cracking open the bug nest: 13 tons bunker buster

Skybird · 03-09-12, 10:08 AM

In this German news article it is claimed the US had developed a bunker buster weighing 13 tons and being able to penetrate 65 meters of steel concrete before going off.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...ter-Beton.html

Well. This is contradicting everything I have ever read in past years about the physics of such a bomb release. If you drop a mass from a given altitude, it has this and that maximum speed to which it can accelerate, and this and that kinetic penetration power. So far I read physics set absolute limits to any multi-ton bomb that could be carried by an airplane in service today penetrating more than just 13-18 meters. Also, it was doubted so far a bomb case could be constructed that does not desintegrate completey when penetrating several dozens of meters of concrete or solid rock, making the fuse ands warhead nonfunctional.

What to amke of this news then? They say the bomb had been delivered to the US forces just last year. But the numbers they claim make me wondering, I do not trust them. Sure, it would be nice to have that beast in sufficient quantities, the limits set by physics are my argument why I do not rule out the use of mini-nukes against certain Iranian, hardened targets. If this new bomb could do the job of a mini-nuke, I would be the first to applaud this conventional option. That I demanded the use of mini-nukes does not mean I like to use them.

But it must be a functional option, capable of doing the job reliably.

So all you physicists out there: considering mass, drop altitude, maximum acceleration and top speed, and penetration depth against a hardened structure - are 13 tons versus 65m of steel concrete and solid rock a realistic statement?

03-09-12, 10:08 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,640 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Cracking open the bug nest: 13 tons bunker buster In this German news article it is claimed the US had developed a bunker buster weighing 13 tons and being able to penetrate 65 meters of steel concrete before going off. http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...ter-Beton.html Well. This is contradicting everything I have ever read in past years about the physics of such a bomb release. If you drop a mass from a given altitude, it has this and that maximum speed to which it can accelerate, and this and that kinetic penetration power. So far I read physics set absolute limits to any multi-ton bomb that could be carried by an airplane in service today penetrating more than just 13-18 meters. Also, it was doubted so far a bomb case could be constructed that does not desintegrate completey when penetrating several dozens of meters of concrete or solid rock, making the fuse ands warhead nonfunctional. What to amke of this news then? They say the bomb had been delivered to the US forces just last year. But the numbers they claim make me wondering, I do not trust them. Sure, it would be nice to have that beast in sufficient quantities, the limits set by physics are my argument why I do not rule out the use of mini-nukes against certain Iranian, hardened targets. If this new bomb could do the job of a mini-nuke, I would be the first to applaud this conventional option. That I demanded the use of mini-nukes does not mean I like to use them. But it must be a functional option, capable of doing the job reliably. So all you physicists out there: considering mass, drop altitude, maximum acceleration and top speed, and penetration depth against a hardened structure - are 13 tons versus 65m of steel concrete and solid rock a realistic statement? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.