Bunker Busters

Seems like the GBU-57a/b is out of competition and in a league of its own.
I'm surprised that RU/CN seem to have no equivalents. Are the US not fortifying their assets as much as the others?
Or how can this be explained?
 
Thanks Deino, but with the blunt nose and the rod for the fuze it looks more like a daisy cutter HE/FAE, than a penetrator.
 
Yeah, remember those memes about 60 meters penetration... Wonder from where exactly they took those numbers. Or was it usual misinterpretation going trough few circles until achieving such results?
 
gTg said:
I'm surprised that RU/CN seem to have no equivalents. Are the US not fortifying their assets as much as the others?
Or how can this be explained?
Click to expand...
As for that one - I think it mostly goes from both of those never really being engaged in conflicts (or planning to) where high value targets were covered by significant enough armoring that made classic penetration bombs unusable. US both was in such conflicts not once and expecting to end in them in future (as simpliest example - North Korea).
 
gTg said:
Seems like the GBU-57a/b is out of competition and in a league of its own.
I'm surprised that RU/CN seem to have no equivalents. Are the US not fortifying their assets as much as the others?
Or how can this be explained?
Click to expand...
Not sure why they would need them. Maybe for targets in europe, but the odds they could drop bombs on the lower 48 is almost 0.0%. They have no means of getting over US targets before being blown out of the sky.
 
Stalker6Recon said:
Not sure why they would need them. Maybe for targets in europe, but the odds they could drop bombs on the lower 48 is almost 0.0%. They have no means of getting over US targets before being blown out of the sky.
Click to expand...
Well, Ukraine is full of them(kindly built by Soviet Union itself), and VKS struggled to get to most properly reinforced targets even when iirc Russian troops were sometimes on top of them, esp. around capital.

Kinzhal helped somewhat, but it came only a bit later, and it still can't do anything with proper Soviet deep bunkers.

Also, normal heavy Russian bunker busters couldn't work because of SAM threat...and they're too weak for the job even from high altitude drop.

Add on top that lots of Russian and Western PGMs clearly were too optimistic on their effect on target(warheads too weak)- and the whole situation is one big miscalculation.
 
gTg said:
Seems like the GBU-57a/b is out of competition and in a league of its own.
I'm surprised that RU/CN seem to have no equivalents. Are the US not fortifying their assets as much as the others?
Or how can this be explained?
Click to expand...

Lack of a suitable delivery platform. The U.S. has the B-2 along with a vast tanker fleet and numerous foreign basing options. This gives the USAF a decent chance of penetrating opponent airspace anywhere in the world. The Russians would be far more limited using Tu-95 or Tu-160. Tu-22M and the PRC H-6s simply lack the payload over any range for a GBU-57 equivalent, and even with a 10,000-20,000 lb weapon would have issues of survivability vs most any reasonably capable air defense. There also is a relative lack of tanking capability/range as well as a near absence of foreign bases.

I would expect a relatively similar system to eventually be developed for the H-20.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom