Comments on: Pentagon Seeks Mightier Bomb vs. Iran

By: David Foster

David Foster — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:14:34 +0000

There was a project a couple of years ago — I believe it was called Prompt Global Strike — to retrofit ballistic missiles with conventional warheads (or just use the kinetic energy of the reentry speed) for destroying deeply buried targets. It seems to have been killed due in part to concerns that any ballistic missile launch might be interpreted as nuclear and bring a nuclear response from the Russians (or some other nuclear power).

By: Sconzey

Sconzey — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:14:36 +0000

From a defensive perspective, the lesson seems simple: don’t let the bad guy find out where your bunkers are, and have a lot of them.

By: Philip Ngai

Philip Ngai — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:05:31 +0000

GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb has a range of over 60 miles by gliding on small wings. I would think wings would help the range of bunker-busters also and thus help keep the launch platforms out of “contested airspace”.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:06:21 +0000

The keys to a bunker-buster's penetration are its high sectional density, its shape, and its hardness. It attains its high velocity from its aerodynamic shape and high sectional density — its terminal velocity can be supersonic — and its hard point directs its high kinetic energy into a small area. Some WWII bunker-busters even used rocket engines to increase their downward velocity before impact. The bunker-buster's ability to damage a deep facility depends on literal penetration of the bomb and explosive energy. In WWII, so-called earthquake bombs were designed to liquefy the ground around and underneath hardened bunkers, to bury them in makeshift caverns. A nuclear bunker-buster relies on its nuclear detonation in the earth to destroy bunkers hardened against near-miss air bursts.

By: Sconzey

Sconzey — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:05:40 +0000

As I understand it the problem is not one of power, but one of penetration. The bunker buster strikes through 200 ft of material before exploding, so upping the explosive power won't affect the penetrative ability of the bomb. In fact, I understand these bombs were originally developed to strike at "nuclear hardened" bunkers.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:03:34 +0000

With modern precision munitions, hitting the same bunker with multiple bombs seems doable, but sending multiple bombers into contested airspace might be an issue.

By: Philip Ngai

Philip Ngai — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:46:26 +0000

What do you think about sending half a dozen bombs in succession all aimed at the same location? Seems like each bomb should make it easier for the ones that come afterward. If we’re talking MOP size weapons, I’m sure the accuracy requirement will not be too difficult.