In a First, America Dropped 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters—But Iran’s Concrete May Be Unbreakable, Scientists Say
Technology
113
Beiträge
71
Kommentatoren
514
Aufrufe
-
Sorry bud, you're straight up wrong. Aerospace and defense in the US very much still uses the inch-pound-second system of units.
I'm not a concrete guy, but I know that metals and composites have material properties certified for use in civil and commercial aviation are given in psi in MMPDS and CMH-17. I would be willing to bet that concrete specifications in the US are no different.
I could keep going. Our bolts are specified in ultimate tensile strength by psi. Structural steel standards use minimum yield strengths in psi. There is literally a type of steel called A36 because its minimum required yield strength is 36,000 psi.
Yeah psi is a pretty common unit and trivial to swap between if SI is needed.
Arguments like above often show a lack of real world experience.
-
I never really got why tactical and strategic nukes are so wildly different. Aren't those words more or less synonyms?
It is like a rifle vs. a cannon.
Yes it is functionally the same, but the "bullet" is much much larger.
-
Go Iran? Really? Such a privileged life you live.
Nobody more privileged than the supporters of western imperialism.
-
That concrete really isn't new and really isn't that special. There's a reason they built it under a mountain - because the mountain does what concrete can't.
It is not that it can do what concrete cannot. It is just that digging a tunnel under a mountain is much easier than making a mountain out of concrete.
-
There's also the fact that the majority of Iran's nuclear facilities were built before UHPC, the concrete discussed in the article, was available!
In the late 2000s, for instance, rumors circulated about a bunker in Iran struck by a bunker-buster bomb. The bomb had failed to penetrate—and remained embedded in—the surface of the bunker, presumably until the occupants called in a bomb-disposal team. Rather than smashing through the concrete, the bomb had been unexpectedly stopped dead. The reason was not hard to guess: Iran was a leader in the new technology of Ultra High Performance Concrete, or UHPC, and its latest concrete advancements were evidently too much for standard bunker busters.
Construction on the facility started in 2006, but the existence of the enrichment plant was only disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by Iran on 21 September 2009,[6][7] after the site became known to Western intelligence services. Western officials strongly condemned Iran for not disclosing the site earlier;
Seems to fall into the same timeframe.
-
I can't speak to that aspect. But I firmly believe that if our military planned and carried out this strike, then we had very good evidence that their bunkers were at a depth these ordinance could reach.
The US intelligence community kept asserting that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon as late as Spring 2025.
Nothing of this was based on consistent intelligence.
-
I doubt it's a recent thought, knowing civil engineers, they're absolute perverts when it comes to concrete.
IIRC this type of thing isn't new - there was research into the possibility of making ships out of ice mixed with sawdust in WWII.
-
Basically they used pyramid age tech to outplay billions of dollars worth of weapons tech.
Arguably letting a big weight fall down after being brought into the air somehow is also pyramid age tech.
-
But the information still seems valid.
It's confirming your bias so you like it...
-
Arguably letting a big weight fall down after being brought into the air somehow is also pyramid age tech.
These bombs are not just dead weights. These bunker busters are equipped with precision guidance and fly to and hit a person on the head if they desired. It's also designed to deliver a huge explosion AFTER it penetrates with the kinetic impact.
It can also be set to explode right before impact, like Israel really likes to do when attaching residential high-rises, to deliver maximum destruction and death.
-
That's why we need the Orbital Ion Cannon.
Sorry no tiberian. This is generals timeline. Need partical cannon.
-
They mean mixing in steel dust or nylon hair?
Hard to believe this is a recent enough thought.
It's been done in mining for decades
-
Strategic = Hiroshima getting obliterated
Tactical = The Imperial Palace is obliterated, but rest of Tokyo is mostly intact.
rest of Tokio is mostly intact
and housing becomes much more accessible too when buildings are intact but their inhabitants have much shorter lives because of radiation
-
It's been done in mining for decades
I asked because I've heard such advice for bloody countryside home floors. Not even something requiring it.
-
IIRC this type of thing isn't new - there was research into the possibility of making ships out of ice mixed with sawdust in WWII.
How is the fleet holding up?
We almost made it this time!
Oh well, let's freeze another fleet, wait for January and try again
-
I asked because I've heard such advice for bloody countryside home floors. Not even something requiring it.
Turns out that anti-cracking tech is widely applicable, if a bit expensive.
-
I never really got why tactical and strategic nukes are so wildly different. Aren't those words more or less synonyms?
The reality is that "tactical" and "strategic" are functionally meaningless adjectives when applied to weapons or systems.
Theoretically, "tactical" refers to how a military unit engages another military unit. It is how a commander wins a battle against an enemy unit.
"Strategic" refers to how a nation engages another nation. It is how a government wins a war.
The term "tactical nuke" referred to something that a lower level commander could have been authorized to use under his own judgment. If Soviet tanks were rolling across Europe during the cold war, commanders may have been granted the discretion to use small nuclear weapons to halt their advance.
Since the the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was established, there has been no such thing as a "tactical" nuke. Any wartime use of a nuclear weapon of any kind demands an escalation to total annihilation. I used the term "tactical" ironically, to refer to a pre-"MAD" doctrine that can no longer exist.
In declaring that conventional bombs cannot penetrate this fixed bunker, it seems that someone is pushing for unconventional warfare. The reality is that this bunker is not impenetrable. It shares the same weakness as any bunker: getting into and out of it. Bomb the entrances to the bunker, and it will take months or years to tunnel back in. Whatever they are doing inside it, they won't be doing until they manage to dig it up again.
-
I suspect the world would be safer if everyone just let Trump think he won.
I wonder if Hasbara accounts are pressing this narrative?
-
My first thought is actually getting the corrosive substance onto enough of the concrete would be difficult
Yeah, if the concrete is 40' thick and they're only getting 10' of penetration with the explosives, then this isn't going to do much. But if it's 20' thick and they got through the first 12 with HE, the remaining 8 are going to have a lot of cracks to admit slow liquid death.
I have zero information on what the reinforcers are in the concrete, so shot in the dark is about right. Glass might be tough - unless you could deliver hydrofluoric acid effectively. Metals - we're not going to want to wait for iron to oxidize, looks like hydrogen embrittlement with HF again - so maybe that's the magic sauce. Nasty stuff, but that's what weapons manufacturers are good at handling and packaging: nasty stuff.
2000 lbs of HF poured on the surface isn't going to do much to the buried chamber, but 2000 lbs of HF delivered into the freshly stressed and heavily cracked concrete layer under all the dirt - that could be a problem for future use of the facility.
Unfortunately (?) HF is a gas.
inste-edit: I know I'm being pedantic and a reasonable concentration of hydroflouric acid is what you were talking about.
There was an article somewhere about a 1 tonne spill on chlorine triflouride -
IIRC this type of thing isn't new - there was research into the possibility of making ships out of ice mixed with sawdust in WWII.
It also wasn’t and isn’t that crazy of an idea.
It’s strong AF, buoyant, and you can repair it at sea using the ocean around you.
You just need a reliable way to keep it cool.
