If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: All built under clay When were they built? Were nuclear weapons or penetrating PGMs design consideration? For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons were certainly a consideration I certainly agree they are stable under normal conditions, and, for that matter, the German bombing of WWII. I'm not as convinced that 617 Squadron, using the Tallboy, couldn't have broached them, much less if more modern weapons were used. Neither am I but thats not the issue. Tunnels arent just hard to damage they're hard to find, especially in a closed society And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast weapon. It wasnt suggested it would, however a 100ft of clay or sandstone, especially if properly reinforces is rather difficult to penetrate using conventional weapons. The interim "bunker buster" rigged from old artillery barrels penetrated over 100 feet of hardened clay (caliche) in the US trials before deployment. They never did dig it out. And how many would you need to collapse 10 miles of tunnel ? Cheyenne Mountain isn't only granite, it's granite in a matrix of steel stabilizing bolts. Zhiguli is presumably comparable. I think the Syrians know about steel and concrete too. I didn't say steel and concrete, but steel and granite. Cheyenne Mountain was selected, in part, because it is a mountain, and it was possible to tunnel in from the side. Even so, there was a significant amount of construction (and excavated rock and soil) that would have been visible in overhead imagery. I find it hard to believe that Syria could have (1) found an appropriate granite mountain and (2) hidden from satellites the evidence of building a major shelter. You are the only one fixated on granite. You may recall that the only weapons able to penetrate the concrete U-Boat pens were the Tallboys and Grandslam weapons used by the RAF and the former were definitel marginal against some of the later pens What is plausible is that the Syrians might have improved some of the karst caves, which would be much more hardened than the sandstone through which the qanats are built. Improved karst, however, isn't the same as reinforced granite. The Syrians cant re-order the geology of their country but they can still hide stuff in tunnels I will grant that you can superharden something of the size of an ICBM silo with steel and concrete, although some of the techniques need research. Again, the construction is difficult to hide from overheads--it is much more distinctive than a truck of mystery materials. Difficult to be sure BUT the Serbians managed to hide a lot of stuff in Kosovo as did the Iraqi's. The UN inspectors found underground complexes hidden beneath civilian facilities on numerous occasions In the middle east the techniques for building extensive underground tunnels have been know since antiquity. The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj. Exactly. The qanats are what I'm describing in the Syrian lowlands. They don't and can't go deeply enough to withstand modern bombing. But tunnels built using modern techniques can and do. If the Syrians did build such a complex, I suspect we would know about it. We tracked their attempts to build a subway system, which were abandoned. Civilian systems are rather easier to track than military ones but we may well know about it. That doesnt mean they couldnt build em though. I suspect any such were built more with the IDF in mind than the USAF Keith |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: All built under clay When were they built? Were nuclear weapons or penetrating PGMs design consideration? For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons were certainly a consideration While I cannot get into specifics, it's no accident that US continuity of nuclear operations focuses on getting the NCA (and successors) airborne. No one makes it a secret that Cheyenne Mountain and Site R would not stand up to a fUSSR ICBM attack, given both yields and accuracy. I'd assume the same is true of Northwood. Incidentally, some studies of a superhardened shelter, intended for the DC area, have been declassified -- IIRC, they are online in the National Security Archive at George Washington University. The idea was deemed infeasible for a nuclear war environment. I certainly agree they are stable under normal conditions, and, for that matter, the German bombing of WWII. I'm not as convinced that 617 Squadron, using the Tallboy, couldn't have broached them, much less if more modern weapons were used. Neither am I but thats not the issue. Tunnels arent just hard to damage they're hard to find, especially in a closed society Agreed. Also note that large tunnel complexes become more vulnerable to advanced detection systems, such as ground-penetrating radar, thermal imaging, and probably an assortment of other MASINT methods. Silo-sized shelters -- sure. Hard to find. And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast weapon. It wasnt suggested it would, however a 100ft of clay or sandstone, especially if properly reinforces is rather difficult to penetrate using conventional weapons. The interim "bunker buster" rigged from old artillery barrels penetrated over 100 feet of hardened clay (caliche) in the US trials before deployment. They never did dig it out. And how many would you need to collapse 10 miles of tunnel ? If there's a 10-mile tunnel, it's going to be easier to find. No one bomb (other than large thermonuclear) is going to take out the system. But how many exits and ventilation shafts are there? Collapse the exits, and what's underground is useless. You may not have seen my earlier post --- substitute "hard rock" for "granite." For fairly small installations, such as ICBM silos, high-grade concrete can do -- although the silos themselves are tunneled into hard rock. The Syrians cant re-order the geology of their country but they can still hide stuff in tunnels Hide, yes. Protect if found, no. Civilian systems are rather easier to track than military ones but we may well know about it. That doesnt mean they couldnt build em though. I suspect any such were built more with the IDF in mind than the USAF Depends on size. At some point, the problem of disposing of the excavation becomes an issue. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons were certainly a consideration One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW london just to knock out Northwood. greg -- "vying with Platt for the largest gap between capability and self perception" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons were certainly a consideration One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW london just to knock out Northwood. That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought the Soviets would take us off the target list cause Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone Keith |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons were certainly a consideration One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW london just to knock out Northwood. That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought the Soviets would take us off the target list cause Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone *sigh* should they, then, have built Northwood in Slough? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Jim Yanik
wrote: Howard Berkowitz wrote in news:hcb- : While I cannot get into specifics, it's no accident that US continuity of nuclear operations focuses on getting the NCA (and successors) airborne. No one makes it a secret that Cheyenne Mountain and Site R would not stand up to a fUSSR ICBM attack, given both yields and accuracy. I'd assume the same is true of Northwood. IMO,Cheyenne Mountain would be a VERY tough nut to crack regardless of megatonnage. Shock waves may be a different matter. While I can't get into specifics, the Air Force has justified its continued existence on the basic of existing construction, plus low air conditioning costs. Again from public statements, look at the CEP and yields of a regiment of SS-18s. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Howard
Berkowitz writes In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: Depends on size. At some point, the problem of disposing of the excavation becomes an issue. Such activities could be hidden. You could tunnel out into the countryside from an urban area where there is normal building development, dig your bunker from within that tunnel, and use that tunnel to take away the spoil from your deep shelter excavations. Who counts the trucks leaving a civil development area? Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Howard
Berkowitz writes In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons were certainly a consideration One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW london just to knock out Northwood. That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought the Soviets would take us off the target list cause Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone *sigh* should they, then, have built Northwood in Slough? I assume you are thinking of: 'Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough, It isn't fit for humans now, There isn't grass to graze a cow, Swarm over, Death!' Post-war, Slough council did invite Betjeman to visit - to witness that things had been improved. He declined... Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Keith Willshaw
writes "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: SNIP rocky bits You are the only one fixated on granite. You may recall that the only weapons able to penetrate the concrete U-Boat pens were the Tallboys and Grandslam weapons used by the RAF and the former were definitel marginal against some of the later pens We had this discussion last year, I recall archiving your excellent description of pen construction. I read elsewhere that some Grandslams were observe to embed themselves up to 10-12 feet in the pen roof of one site (forget which) before going bang. The Terrell rocket-propelled bombs provably got through 20 feet of pen roof, but with a light (500 pound) charge. (Actually an advantage - the blast trashed the pens contents but left the structures intact for the mushroom growers...) Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Libya Returns Nuclear Fuel to Russia | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 3 | March 17th 04 05:29 PM |
About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal? | james_anatidae | Military Aviation | 96 | February 29th 04 03:24 PM |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |