Bunker Buster video...I knew they were powerful, but...

[mcscajun]

:wow:

http://www.born2win.net/prikols/BunkerBuster.wmv

[magellan]

1. Holy CRAP!

And that's without a nuclear warhead on it!!

[mcscajun]

3. Exactly right.

It really does leave you mildly incoherent on first viewing.

[soothsayer]

2. They don't call it a MOAB for nuttin'. Nukes make people orgasm,

tho. If you set off a nuke test, they'd let you spend the night before in the bunker. They said when you set it off it was better than sex.

[magellan]

8. No thanks, I like my orgasms the old-fashioned way.

I've had nightmares about nukes going off since Bush** started jonesing for Iran. NOT pleasureable in the least.

[spoony]

12. I believe it

In a strange way I'd have loved to see one of the tests at the NTS. If one can separate the horror it was designed for, it would be a remarkable experience; like seeing the big bang or the birth of a star or something.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. I just think about all of the R&D that could have been spent ELSEWHERE n/t

[Buzz Clik]

5. Great stuff. Remember when we dropped one on a bunch of women & kids?

They were in a bunker during the bombing in Baghdad in desert storm. No survivors.

[mcscajun]

7. I wouldn't expect any survivors of that kind of blast,

Not even insects. :scared:

[madokie]

6. instant lakes by way of moabs

[FogerRox]

19. The wmv file says its a Bunker Buster

The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter”, except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances, soft-to-medium surface targets, and for anti-personnel purposes

from
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

Check out the pix/video. the OP video is not looking like a MOAB. Not at all.

[petronius]

22. That's an interesting clothing style they chose for their 'representative

human figure.' Can't imagine what the message might be...

[madokie]

28. my bad

[FogerRox]

40. LOL, I had to go search for it myself, just to be sure

[hogwyld]

43. The original purpose of the Daisy Cutter

Was to create helicopter landing zones in the middle of a jungle during Vietnam. Quite an effective weapon for what it was designed for, put it's lethal range quickly dissipates.

[FogerRox]

9. Not much to give a sense of scale. How deep is that crater?

20ft?... 25 ft?

[mcscajun]

10. A valid question, for which I have no answer. Perhaps someone

could identify the equipment at the right side of the frame; we'd know then approximately how large the structure was that was bombed.

[FogerRox]

15. I was able to stop the video. The target looks like a fuel tank

There are what appears to be light poles on the right, as well as what maybe trailers with missle launchers. I would guess about 20 ft. If thats a bunker buster, its shows the limitations of the weapon. 20ft penatration in normal/soft soil is not very effective, If a Bunker was in a rock formation/cave, that weapon would not do very much. If a bunker was Concrete, again, didley.

Is that a roar of a rocket/jet engine as the weapon is inbound? If so, its a cruise type missle, not a bunker buster. Bunker Busters are supposed to in the range of 10,000 pounds. IIRC most warplanes can't carry 10,000 pounds, IIRC the B-52, B-1 ? & B-2 can carry that pay load, certainly not a carrier based plane, such as the F-14. Which means to use a bunker buster, you need an air base, and the plane may need refueling on the way to the target. Which limits the ability to get the weapon on target in a timely fashion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Yeah, the hole is not that big

using the light poles for scale, I'd say the hole measures about 100ft max in diameter- 20 ft. deep.

[FogerRox]

24. Thats my guess too.

And just how effective would this be gainst a hardened bunker..... cave....

its NOT !

Even the MOAB, here it is hitting





I am not sure the OP video is of a Bunker buster, which IIRC is a 10,000 pound weapon. ALl it did was dig a hole in dirt.

Edit.......

More than one kind of "buster"



The finished bomb, known as the GBU-28 or the BLU-113, is 19 feet (5.8 meters) long, 14.5 inches (36.8 cm) in diameter and weighs 4,400 pounds (1,996 kg).

[rman]

33. bunker busters can be rocket-assisted, and can be cruise missile

"The Disney Rocket-Assisted Bomb was another World War II device to be used against U-boat pens and other super-hardened targets."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

In fact there even are rocket-assisted cruise missile bunker busters:


AGM-86A ALCM - U.S. Air Force
http://www.softwar.net/agm86.html

WARHEAD - NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD
CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER
BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION
RANGE - 750 MILES A VERSION
1,500 MILES B VERSION
WING SPAN - 9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION
12 FT. B VERSION
LENGTH - 14 FT. A VERSION
20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION
DIAMETER - 25 IN.
WEIGHT - 1,900 POUNDS A VERSION
2,825 POUNDS B VERSION
ENGINE - ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST
GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH
ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER
SPEED - CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION

http://www.factbites.com/topics/ALCM

[Jacobin]

13. Also, it looks like dirt, not rock

I wonder if the one pictured is too heavy to be dropped by a plane.

[FogerRox]

18. Exactly, dirt not rock. see my post # 15.

[TX-RAT]

35. Hard to tell

Allot of the debris falls back into the crater.

[lonestarnot]

11. Damn!

:wow: is right!

[michael_1166]

14. For me, the vile creatures who invent such bombs

are not a part of the human race. Just like the soldiers who set them off.

[FogerRox]

20. I try to get past that and look at it from a viewpoint of GEO-politics

If that is a bunker buster, think how effective it would be against hardened targets in Iran, it wouldnt do vey much, would it? Just as the Union of COncerned Scientists said... we could bomb the entrances, but we would not be able to do much else. Even nukes won't get far.

Paints a picture of just how limiting the US arsenal really is... and how the Bush CRime family is so full of it, with the war mongering against Iran. WE really don"t have the capability to seriously prevent Iran from getting a nuke, using our so called "MIlitary Might", but maybe there is another way......

Like putting weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq.....



.......... I meant Iran... LOL

[FogerRox]

25. Here is the GBU-28

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8110184730658784874&q=bunker+buster



The finished bomb, known as the GBU-28 or the BLU-113, is 19 feet (5.8 meters) long, 14.5 inches (36.8 cm) in diameter and weighs 4,400 pounds (1,996 kg).

From the description in the previous section, you can see that the concept behind bunker-busting bombs like the GBU-28 is nothing but basic physics. You have:

An extremely strong tube that is:
very narrow for its weight
extremely heavy
The bomb is dropped from an airplane so that this tube develops a great deal of speed, and therefore kinetic energy, as it falls.

from
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster.htm

[sakabatou]

16. Holy Shit!

[FogerRox]

17. funny web site

http://www.born2win.net/

Looks like a work in progress, M- how did you find the video? I don't see any Index on the site.

[mcscajun]

45. The video was e-mailed to me, with a completely different web address

which turned out to be, of all things, a porn site.

So, I went looking for a different host for the same video, and found this other one via Google search, which I then posted here.

Exploring at your own risk you might try this link for other videos, etc.: http://www.born2win.net/prikols.php

I do NOT know what else is on there, or who runs the site.

[leftchick]

23. don't forget the radiation cloud

you can bet when they use them it won't be just one. Imagine a radiation cloud over most of the Mid East.

[rockymountaindem]

31. It's not a nuclear weapon n/t

[leftchick]

32. a B61-11 nuclear 'bunker buster' is not nuclear?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

B61-11 Earth-Penetrating Weapon

The B61-11 is a new Mod of the B61 being converted from existing B61 Mod 7s. The basic differences in the two Mods are in the nose and tail configurations, and the elimination of the B61-7 parachute and gas generator. The similarities are that all B61-11 internal case hardware and components, including the IHE physics package and warhead electrical system, are from the B61-7. Some sources suggest that the B61-11 has a "dial-a-yield" feature, allowing its yield to range from less than a kiloton to several hundred kilotons. When configured to have a 10-kiloton yield and detonated 4 feet underground, the B61-11 can produce a shock wave sufficient to crush a bunker buried beneath 100 meters of layered rock. However, the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review noted that "This single-yield, non-precision weapon cannot survive penetration into many types of terrain in which hardened underground facilities are located."

Stockpiled since 1968, the veteran B61 has been modified many times over the years to update its performance. Its latest modification is the B61 Mod 11 "earth-penetrater." The United States deployed the B61–11 bomb in the mid-1990s for an earth penetrating mission. The B61-11 is a new Mod of the B61 being converted from existing B61 Mod 7s. The basic differences in the two Mods are in the nose and tail configurations, and the elimination of the B61-7 parachute and gas generator. The similarities are that all B61-11 internal case hardware and components, including the IHE physics package and warhead electrical system, are from the B61-7.

Designed to replace the aging B53 "laydown" weapon, the much smaller and less powerful B61 can produce the same destructive ground shock as the massive B53, but without the collateral damage associated with a surface blast. The B61-11 was designed not to penetrate rock but to attack only certain targets in hard or frozen soil in Russia.

The B61-11 can penetrate and detonate below the earth's surface, creating a massive shock wave capable of destroying underground targets. In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth, even when dropped from altitudes above 40,000 feet. But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61-11.htm

[rman]

34. Most missiles can have one of several different payloads

this one could well have been fitted with conventional high explosives, if only for testing purposes.

Which would mean it is potentially much more destructive than what the video shows.

[leftchick]

37. I assumed the one in the video was a test

and wouldn't be using nukes. When the real ones are launched you can bet what the payload will be. Rummy is itching to use them before he leaves office.

[FogerRox]

42. see post 25, there seem to be many different "Bunker busters"

starting at about 2,000 pounds.

[leftchick]

44. I realize that

The point is which one would rummy choose to use. He has expressed a lot of interest in nuke bunker busters. Why settle for less?

:nuke:

[rockymountaindem]

36. I thought you meant the one in the video

Yes, there are nuclear versions of the same weapon, but just because one would use the conventional version doesn't necessarily mean one would use the nuclear version.

[rman]

39. Why create a nuclear version and not use it?

I'd think it was created because they figure they have some use for it.

[FogerRox]

41. B61-11....Thats a nuke for DAYMN sure.

[FogerRox]

26. Vid on Nuke BB>

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. They're using bunker busters in Iraq and Afghanistan

Here's some interesting info about how they work and the results. I think we saw a lot of them in use during the Lebanon War this summer.



MARINES QUIET ABOUT BRUTAL NEW WEAPONWar is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: "SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms."


http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

[rman]

38. I don't think that's a bunker buster

In fact the article does not mention bunker busters, and it only mentions bunkers in relation to "blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker".

It rather sounds like it's a Fuel-Air bomb / Daisy Cutter -like weapon. It's very effective also against soldiers in trenches.

[951-Riverside]

29. ....Ummm the crater wasnt that deep

The subject should be

"Bunker Buster video...I thought they were powerful, but..."


:eyes:

[FogerRox]

30. Yup, the OP video looks to be a 2,000 ro 4,400 # weapon.

It should be of import that these seem to use DU as a penatrator, Tungsten is a better penatrator, used from low orbit a 15 ft long tungsten penatrator would be just as, or more efective than any of these BBs.