Latest news with #bunkerbusters
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
US bunker buster bombs vulnerable to anti-aircraft shells, claim China's scientists
Chinese military scientists have proposed a way to counter the US Air Force's famed GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) or bunker busters by revealing an alleged flaw with their design. In a study published in China's Journal of Gun Launch and Control, researchers led by Cui Xingyi from the country's Northwest Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, found a potential weakness in the GBU-57. The study noted that while the MOP's nose is heavily reinforced, its steel sides are just a few centimeters thick, making the weapon vulnerable to anti-aircraft shells. Using computer simulations, the team tested Swiss Oerlikon GDF guns, widely used in the Middle East, including Iran. These guns can fire 36 shells in two seconds, with a 42% kill probability at 1,200 meters. However, the researchers cautioned that this countermeasure requires precise radar tracking, effective electronic warfare strategy, and defense against any incoming attacks. Vulnerable to side strikes On June 22, when the US B-2 stealth bombers launched the GBU-57 bunker busters against Iran's nuclear sites, reports suggested that the strikes faced minimal resistance. These powerful bombs, designed to penetrate deep underground bunkers, successfully hit their targets without encountering significant air defenses or interception attempts. However, Chinese researchers explain that while the GBU-57's egg-shaped nose deflects direct frontal hits, its sides betray a vulnerable area which could be shattered by a couple of anti-aircraft projectiles. For a shell to penetrate, it must strike at an angle under 68 degrees; otherwise, it will simply glance off. Tests show that penetration fails beyond 4,900 feet; but within 3,900 feet, heat and shrapnel can ignite the bomb's inert explosives, the South China Morning Post reported. The method relies on basic World War II armor-piercing calculations. But, there is a tactical challenge: the interceptors must be pre-aimed at a specific point along the MOP's flight path. The closer this aim point is, the more stable the barrels remain, a strategy researchers call 'sniper fire control' tactic. Strategy comes with caveats Cui's team noted that this sniper-style interception method offers several key advantages. Pre-aiming the guns at a specific point along the bomb's path reduces the demands on the servo systems and removes the need for repeated calculations, cutting the response time down to just 1 millisecond. The researchers also emphasized that this approach is feasible with existing technology, making it a practical option for quickly targeting and neutralizing incoming bunker buster bombs. However, while these sniper-style interception tactics sound promising in theory, the realities of combat are far harsher. Air forces can launch mass raids to destroy anti-aircraft interceptors before bomber missions begin, eliminating any potential defense. Additionally, smart bombs often perform final manoeuvres just before impact, making their flight path unpredictable and limiting the opportunity to target within the narrow 3,900-foot effective range, which only lasts for a split second. Furthermore, study experts also cautioned that strategies developed for China's defense systems may not be effective in other regions due to differences in terrain, threat environments, and available technologies.
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- Science
- South China Morning Post
How to stop US bunker busters? Chinese scientists have an idea
Precision-guided bunker busters fly slowly but carry massive warheads wrapped in thick armour. Small nations without air power watch helplessly as bombs fall. Advertisement When US B-2 stealth bombers struck Iran's nuclear sites with GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) bunker busters on June 22, there was reportedly little resistance. Chinese researchers have offered a countermeasure: strike the weak flank. Although the bomb's nose armour is thick, its steel sides are thin and measure just a few centimetres, meaning one or two anti-aircraft shells could crack it open. Low-cost anti-aircraft guns can be deployed around key sites. But the guns must survive, radar must track and electronic warfare must be countered. Instead of China's own weapon, the computer simulation used Swiss Oerlikon GDF guns which are widely fielded in the Middle East , including Iran. Advertisement The GDF fires 36 shells in two seconds. At 1,200 metres (0.7 miles), the kill probability hits 42 per cent.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iran nuclear program set back 2 years after US strikes: Pentagon
The "bunker busting" bombs dropped on Iranian nuclear sites last month by U.S. forces have degraded Tehran's atomic program by up to two years, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday. "We have degraded their program by one to two years, at least intel assessments inside the Department [of Defense] assess that," Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell told reporters. "We believe that Iran's nuclear capability has been severely degraded, perhaps even their ambition to build a bomb," he added, though security experts have told Fox News Digital that Tehran is unlikely to be deterred in its ambition to build a nuclear weapon. Trump Could Arm Israel With Us B-2s And Bunker Busters If Iran Tries To Go Nuclear Under New Proposal The announcement reflects a far more positive assessment regarding the success of the June 22 strikes that targeted the Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites than previous estimates regarding the extent to which Tehran's atomic capabilities had been degraded. Rafael Grossi, head of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), over the weekend warned that Iran may be able to resume enriching uranium within a matter of months. Read On The Fox News App The comments also coincided with reports that Iran may have been able to move some of its stockpiles of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, or possibly centrifuges, after satellite images showed more than a dozen cargo trucks were spotted at the Fordow nuclear site prior to the U.S. strikes. Iran To Suspend Work With Un Nuclear Watchdog, President Says The U.S. has fervently denied that any intelligence suggests Iran was successful in moving its nuclear capabilities off site. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth became angry when asked about the possibility by reporters. Fox News Digital has confirmed that Israel is continuing to monitor the security situation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi this week acknowledged that there was severe damage to the Fordow facility, though he also insisted that "the technology and knowhow is still there." "No one exactly knows what has transpired in Fordow. That being said, what we know so far is that the facilities have been seriously and heavily damaged," Aragchi said during a CBS interview this week. Though according to Parnell on Wednesday, "All of the intelligence that we've seen (has) led us to believe that Iran's – those facilities especially, have been completely obliterated."Original article source: Iran nuclear program set back 2 years after US strikes: Pentagon
News24
23-06-2025
- Politics
- News24
What is a ‘bunker buster'? An expert explains what the US dropped on Iran
The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which the US used in its attack on Iran on the weekend is the largest known bunker buster in the world, writes James Dwyer. Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel. The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen 'bunker buster' bombs at Fordow and Natanz. The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes. The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran's nuclear ambitions? What are 'bunket busters' and why are they used? Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs. Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves in the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface. AFP Iran's nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow, for example, could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil. What is the MOP? The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known bunker buster in the world. Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total). We also don't know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal. Why does only the US possess this capability? The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it. Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America's 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation. There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is, for now, purely hypothetical. Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran? The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community. However, Israel lacks bunker-busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 'bunker buster' laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalent of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator' believed to have been used in Iran. Michael Ammons / US Air Force Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities. The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true. Iran may also have other undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country. Iran's reaction The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks. Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. READ | Embassy of Israel in SA: Why Iran's nuclear ambition could no longer be ignored It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications. Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear programme. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. The value of nuclear weapons Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran's desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter this weekend's attack. Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi's regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention. By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea. Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on what facilities and resources have survived the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons. - James Dwyer is a lecturer at the School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania.
Times
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Can Iran still build nuclear weapons after the US bombing?
The 14 GBU-57 'bunker-busters' dropped by the Pentagon's B2 stealth bombers on Iran's nuclear facilities will have done a lot of damage, with about 200 tons of heavy munitions. They may not have 'fully obliterated' all three sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow as President Trump claimed, but they probably did cause 'severe damage' in the more modest assessment of the Pentagon. That does not mean, however, that Iran's nuclear programme is dead and buried. Apart from anything else, somewhere in Iran is probably a deadly cargo of canisters in secure storage. They contain just over 400kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity — enough, with some extra enrichment, for about nine nuclear warheads. That level of enrichment means the uranium is 60 per cent made up of the U235 isotope needed to make the kind of bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. In the raw, uranium consists of 1 per cent U235 and 99 per cent U238 isotope. Weapons-grade uranium is 90 per cent U235. To get from one to the other, a machine — of the sort the Iranians have at Isfahan — converts the uranium to uranium hexafluoride gas. That gas is then taken to one of the two known Iranian enrichment facilities, at Natanz or Fordow. There it is passed through racks of centrifuges which spin at hundreds of times a second, threshing the heavier U238 to the outside and leaving behind the 'enriched' gas with its greater concentration of U235. • Who are Iran's allies — and will any help after the US strikes? The Israelis and Americans will be hoping that the bunker-busters — 12 dropped on Fordow, whose centrifuge chambers are buried 90 metres below ground, and two on the shallower Natanz — will have destroyed those centrifuges. They are sensitive and even the lesser strikes on Natanz by the Israelis at the start of their own bombing campaign may have put them out of use. Questions remain, however. Did the US mission succeed? Satellite imagery of the Fordow site in the aftermath of the bombing seems to show some holes in the mountain above it, which may be consistent with damage. One possibility is that the bombs did not manage to break into the chamber but collapsed it enough to have the required effect. At Isfahan, the unit converting uranium to uranium hexafluoride, and the separate plant that converts the enriched gas back to metal to be turned into a warhead, are both believed to have been easier targets. • 'The key thing is that the enrichment facilities and metal conversion facilities are now non-operational and potentially destroyed,' said Ian Stewart, a former Ministry of Defence specialist and now director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute in the United States. 'It will take weeks or months to reconstitute those capabilities.' Are there hidden centrifuges? Secondly, there is the question of whether the Iranians have more centrifuges hidden away elsewhere, allowing them to restart the programme fairly quickly. 'We have to assume the Iranians are competent and put aside a spare set of equipment,' Stewart said. 'They may also have set up small numbers of machines in unknown locations. So for planning purposes you have to assume it will take weeks or months for Iran to reconstitute the enrichment capability, not years.' Iran has, of course, lost key members of its nuclear 'command and control'. Back in November 2020, Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, assassinated Brigadier-General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Revolutionary Guards officer seen as the mastermind of the 'dual use' programme: one built overtly for civilian purposes, but compatible with a decision to build a bomb. He was ambushed and shot near his weekend villa outside Tehran by a robot-controlled machinegun on a pick-up truck. Since the Israeli bombing began on June 13, at least ten prominent nuclear scientists, including Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation (AEOI), and many of the leaders of the Guards have also been killed. However, the programme employs thousands of people, many of whom are experts in their fields. 'The Iranian nuclear programme is decades old and draws on extensive Iranian indigenous expertise,' Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said. 'The physical elimination of the programme's infrastructure — and even the assassination of Iranian scientists — will not be sufficient to destroy the latent knowledge that exists in the country.' Key to the future is the whereabouts of that 400kg of 60 per cent enriched uranium, which Stewart called 'the most valuable asset in Iran right now'. Iran could fashion it into a large but crude nuclear device that could be transported by lorry, or, with a few centrifuges it had saved, convert some of it into a smaller nuclear weapon. Will Iran risk all-out war? Iran may or may not choose to escalate militarily, to try to show that it still has the military teeth and, indeed, necessary level of defiance to risk an all-out confrontation with the United States. But in the medium term it has a huge question to answer that is both technical and political. Does it tell the International Atomic Energy Agency where those cylinders of enriched uranium are, as it is required to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) to which — unlike Israel — it is a signatory? If it does, it will no doubt fear that the information will make its way to Israel or the US. If it does not, and particularly if it withdraws from the NPT, that could prompt the European states — Britain, France and Germany — who are still signatories to the semi-defunct 2015 nuclear deal to trigger a 'snapback' mechanism. That would entail reintroducing more sanctions and renewing the UN ban on the nuclear programme. The 2015 deal expires in October. President Trump still says he wants a new one — on his terms. An Iran that wanted peace at all costs would probably comply. But the Iran that exists at present — the Islamic Republic — has so far refused to fold. It may, eventually, agree to more talks. But the United States and Israel will be wary that this is a play for time, until the nuclear deal expires, or just until Trump tires of the whole issue.
