![]() ![]() Tungsten, while not incredibly expensive is incredibly hard, so fabricating anything out of tungsten can cost upwards of $60,000. The list possible elements started with well-known dense metals like gold, platinum, and tungsten, but Andersen knew these would be too pricey. The liner needs to be as dense as possible so it can dig deep into rock. The material used for the metal liner is just as important as its design. Usually, shaped-charge liners are not much bigger than DVDs.this liner was about the size of a manhole cover. So the team chose a well-proven cone shape instead. More elaborate designs, Andersen says, would improve penetration, but there was no time to develop and validate these advanced techniques. Meanwhile, Andersen turned his attention to the metal liner, another element that would also require compromise. Only three sites in the country were able to precision-cast the huge six-hundred-pound charge, and only one of these, American Ordnance in Middletown, Iowa, was willing to attempt the job on such a strict deadline. Instead the team settled on Octol, an explosive which is shaped by casting rather than machining. But the cost to make such a dense charge was too expensive. Because a denser explosive makes for a better shaped charge, warhead designer Manny Vigil's wanted to use HMX, an advanced explosive which can be pressed to achieve maximum density. But the Sandia project had to supersize that hole to nine inches across and fifteen-feet deep, and it needed to pierce volcanic rock called tuff, which Andersen compares to high-strength concrete.Ī shaped charge has two main elements, the explosive and a thin metal liner, which blasts into a high-speed drill when it detonates. The M1A1 Bazooka, for example, could make a hole the size of a pencil through three inches of steel. Anti-tank weapons all the way back to World War II have used similar designs on a much smaller scale. The shaped charge, the main ingredient behind any bunker buster, is not a new idea. "The rush was part of the excitement." How to Make a Bunker Buster "We took the fast, higher risk path because no development work could be conducted," Andersen says. Normally, projects like these could take several years to get through all the design, testing, and approval phases of making a 21st-century weapon. ![]() Normally, projects like these could take several years to complete-Andersen and his team had six months. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |