In a First, America Dropped 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters—But Iran’s Concrete May Be Unbreakable, Scientists Say
Technology
86
Beiträge
58
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Holy nothing burger, Batman!
First off, this article is from 2022, re-released to farm clicks from the current hype cycle.
Secondly, this is conjecture on top of conjecture. They discuss that we can't know the current damage from satellite, and Iran down plays the damage. Then they go on to say "concrete is strong and can be stronger".
Articles like this annoy me. It's all based on lots of unsubstantiated claims, and then one guy's theoretical research. We don't know the strength of the bombs. We don't know the strength of Iran's bunkers. We don't know how much damage was done. None of this has changed. I doubt we'll ever really know. But throw whatever political spin on it you want, and now you've got a click worthy news article.
I thought we do know the depth of the bunkers though. And that American bombs can’t go that deep, even multiple of them
-
What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can't just keep dissolving stuff forever.
And what would "total failure" look like? It's a mountain, it's not going to just collapse into goo.
Corrosives have limits, they can’t just keep dissolving stuff forever.
Thus, the explosive assist for initial penetration. The type would depend on the composition of the concrete, you'd probably be more successful targeting the tension strength of the fibers or metals instead of the compression strength of the cement.
And what would “total failure” look like? It’s a mountain, it’s not going to just collapse into goo.
You don't need goo, you just need enough weakening that it no longer supports the 250' of loose rubble atop it and collapses into the interior space.
-
I mean they usually only do about 30 damage anyways.
I love how unhinged random fan wikis sound without context. Here for instance: Bunker Buster, see also: Concrete Donkey and Buffalo of Lies
-
My first thought is actually getting the corrosive substance onto enough of the concrete would be difficult, assuming they aren’t able to penetrate the concrete then they have to rely on it seeping from the ground, or if they can penetrate then the substance is only really going to be in the chamber where the buster detonated.
I have zero experience with ordnance or busting bunkers though so that’s just a shot in the dark
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.
-
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!
I was suspicious of that as well, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on that subject to speak on it, so didn't include it. But I doubt any country can build that extensive of a nuclear factory in so few years.
-
I thought we do know the depth of the bunkers though. And that American bombs can’t go that deep, even multiple of them
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.
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
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.
-
Egyptians stacked blocks of stone to build the pyramids.
Roman concrete was impressively strong.
Neither of them had steel-reinforced concrete.
Neither did Gothic cathedrals, which is why they needed flying buttresses.
Reinforced concrete as we know it today is a 19th century innovation, as I understand it.
Maybe the commenter was thinking of adobe.
And this tech goes way beyond merely "reinforced".
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
Sounds to me like someone is trying to justify actually using a tactical, atomic bunker buster.
-
Coreium.
We drop an overloading nuclear reactor on top of the complex, and let the radioactive core China-Syndrome itself straight through, rendering the entire area uninhabitable for thousands of years.
-
Sounds to me like someone is trying to justify actually using a tactical, atomic bunker buster.
tactical
Lol, they're gonna do the strategic one next
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
Giving the yield strength in psi is the most pointless thing ever. Every single engineer would use metric Pa so its clearly a conversion for the average american idiot but the average American idiot has no idea what yield strength is.
-
"Hey there, you sexy bomb... I can't stay away!"
-
From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.
The article is 3 years old
-
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.
Consider who actually makes this decision, in this case. It's highly likely our intelligence assessment here is very accurate orr flat out denied by the dipshits actually making the call if it's not what they want to hear.
Like they did publicly. On this conflict. To the press.
-
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.
Why would we bother with that level of analysis just to distract people from ICE raids?
-
Giving the yield strength in psi is the most pointless thing ever. Every single engineer would use metric Pa so its clearly a conversion for the average american idiot but the average American idiot has no idea what yield strength is.
Your comment is informative but now all I can hear in my head is Green Day’s “American Idiot”.
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
Just one followup question: Who cares?
-
I love how unhinged random fan wikis sound without context. Here for instance: Bunker Buster, see also: Concrete Donkey and Buffalo of Lies
I hadn't clicked the link yet, but Concrete Donkey told me what it was immediately
-
Blood of xenomorphs from the Alien movies
