Saddam's bunker under allied bombing

Agence France-Presse | April 3, 2003

[TheDon]

That is the only thing I've been handwringing over. It will be interesting to see how the battle plan addresses this possibility.

[ko_kyi]

I pay attention to it, working 1/4 mile from the capital building in DC.

Nevertheless, it is a risk that doesn't go away if we left Saddam alone, either.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

First the airport, then this!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[snooker]

>>>Think it can withstand a direct assault by a SEAL Team?

Nope, especially if they drive up in a cement mixer.

[SENTINEL]

What an idiot, this whole system was designed on the faulty idea that an enemy would not have air dominance. If our biggest bunker buster can only get through 25% of the protection, we simply need to use four of them, one right after the other.

Also, we will control the ground over the bunkers very soon. We could just let the seabees clear the dirt with a couple of big bulldozers, use a rock drill to punch a 2" hole through the roof, and then the possibilities are limitless. Oxy-Acetylene and a long fuze (AKA Saddam-b-que), several thousand gallons of liquid nitrogen (AKA Saddam-cicle), several thousand diamondback rattlesnakes (AKA Saddam messed with Texas), the possibilities could make for an interesting thread.

[Smedley]

"Knock, Knock"

"Who's there?"

"Gee"

"Gee who?"

"GeeBeeU-37"

[Blueflag]

"The GBU-37, which US air force commanders have nicknamed "the crowd pleaser," is a 2.25 tonne (5,000-pound) bomb that guides itself to the target using Global Positioning Satellites and steerable fins. Its hardened nose and 13 foot (4.0 meter) length is designed to penetrate six to nine meters (20 to 30 feet) of reinforced concrete before exploding. Its fuse can be set to explode at varying depths depending on the target. It is delivered only by the B-2 stealth bomber, which can carry eight of the bombs. "

Questions from the audience?

[WorkingClassFilth]

I agree entirely - this is the necessary risk. Saddam needs to taken out and after that, many others if we are commited to the root and branch destruction of Islamic terror.

The concern I have is in the jubilant, almost festive, attitude that seems to be springing up everywhere. Even the media seems to be getting on board for the idea of the imminent collapse of Baghdad.

It is my fervent wish that this will be the case.

However, I have been a conservative and realist for too many years to discount an enemy because they are on the ropes. It seems to me that an overly confident response to things invariably leads to a hill and valley kind of emotional analysis of things.

Recall the '94 victory and celebrations.
Recall the second Krinton elections.
Recall the Lewinski scandal and the Impeachment precedings.
Recall the Senate vote and the Democratic sneers.
Recall the 2000 election.
Recall the Democratic election fraud.

Now recall Saddam's promise to "incinerate" the allies at the gates of Baghdad. We know that too many nuclear items in the Soviet inventory are unaccounted for and Saddam is one customer that has tried to do his shopping well and early. A few moments ago, I read an Iraqi release that urged the fight to continue until the 'leaders' decided on the moment and method to "cleanse" Iraq of the invaders.

This thread began by making comparisons to Hitler and I would draw the readers attention to similar fantastic claims by Goebbles in the last days of the Reich. The wonder weapons he spoke of were not forthcoming. The weapons that Saddam may have may potentially unleash far greater consequences than the destruction of Baghdad and the allied forces there.

For starters, the use of large enough nukes may obliterate much of our military offensive capacity. This, in turn, would render much of the geopolitics of the region and world instantaneously different. Fanatical Islam would get a rallying martyr and a unifying victory over the infidel. I doubt if I miss my guess when I say that a detonation that wiped out our assualt forces concentrated in Iraq would be cheered throughout Islam with more fervor than 911, in spite of millions of Iraqi innocents being lost too.

These are some terrible thoughts that I think of when I hear the jubilation and cheers going up everytime a cruise missile hits its mark. Call me a pessimist, or worse, but I am of the mind that it ain't over till its over, over there.

And that task is a long, long way off.

When the troops are doing garrison duty, I'll celebrate.

[Adder]

Can anyone explain how this bomb penetrates 9 meters of reinforced concrete...roughly 27 feet thick and laced with steel bars probably 6"-12"oc each way? Even with a steel hardened tip? How does it work?

[HenryLeeII]

If the exit is under water maybe we could hook up a huge vaccuum pump to one of the air vents.

Or how 'bout tossing in a live electrical cord? And just to add insult to injury we could toss in a couple tires...

[Blueflag]

5000 lbs times 500+ feet/sec impacting on (est.) 1.5 sqft = 2,500,000 ft-lbs/sec. roughly 13,000 foot-lbs per sec per sq inch.

mass time velocity with a penetrator tip. Think anti-tank sabot round made really large for concrete and vertical insertion.

[El Gato]

Can anyone explain how this bomb penetrates 9 meters of reinforced concrete...roughly 27 feet thick and laced with steel bars probably 6"-12"oc each way? Even with a steel hardened tip? How does it work?

It's mostly an old artillery tube. Most of the weight is the steel of that tube. It's dropped from fairly high altitude, and doesn't have much air drag, so it's moving very fast when it hits the surface. Sheer momentum, and a fairly small frontal area to apply all that force on, carries it through the concrete, bending the re-bar aside as it goes. Then it explodes the ~650 pounds of tritional it carries, which does finally blow up the tube, along with whoever or whatever might be in the general vicinity. Even if it didn't explode, it would still make a mell of a hess.

[Blueflag]

... Plus the explosive warhead as well. It's not just a penetrator (see el Gato's post). Don't want to leave the wrong impression.

I do believe these new "crowd pleasers" are engineered and built for this war's purpose, as opposed to re-purposing old artillery tubes. elGato is correct that in the first gulf war the bunker busters were indeed old gun tubes with fins, guidance, fuse and explosives.

Before the first gulf war, the US did extensive research and some developoment in "tunneling" warheads for MIRVs. We needed a means to get a nuclear warhead underground to destroy known Soviet facilities. Not sure what happened to that research. May have gone black.

[mc10]

there has to be an intake for air...although he may have a supply self contained...but it can't last forever...is the ventilation the aquilles heel of this bunker?