Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These are famous German bunkers as you see must of them never finished and their building started in late phases of the war
https://www.heritagedaily.com/2017/12/10-nazi-bunkers-subterranean-bases/115561
And many of them was just some bunker not under ground facilities foe example this weingut I
Or Siracourt V-1 bunker had only a height of 10m and was 7.5m underground
Or wolf's lair was only a 2.5m concrete and steel reinforced bunker
Or Blockhaus d'Éperlecque. Was 6m underground and was protected by 7m wide concrete walls .
Or keroman submarine base was not underground at all.
Perhaps the deepest one was Fortress of Mimoyecques that was 33m underground but abandoned by Germany.
so they were not super duper
that's the spirit.Reality is if you strike the entrances and then strike the support equipment (air flow systems, oxygen systems, power systems, etc) then that underground base becomes a coffin, no different than miners getting trapped in a collapsed mine.
So wether Iran builds its bases 500 meters or 5000 meters the same basic principles hold:
A) the base will have entrances
B) the base will have shafts
C) the base will have support equipment
If these equipment are truly being kept “500 meters” below sea level and not “500 meters below the top of the mountain” then tempatures will rise as you get closer to the earth’s core and significant cooling systems will need to be put in place.
Hence why due to their conventional threat these bases are lacking as the second strike capability they provide is non nuclear.
Where as if they were nuclear, the enemy would have to worry that even if they destroyed the entrances and life support equipment. The soldiers inside would still be able to launch the retaliatory nuclear strike.
Lastly if Iran loses air superiority during the war then these bases are toast, as the US will likely drop MOABs on them to knock them out of commission for months.
So again just because something is underground, doesn’t mean it’s safe. In this case storing missiles underground then having to excavate them when the entrances collapse due to air strikes serves the same purpose for the enemy (delaying you from launching the missiles).
In the age of 24/7 satellite surveillance the entrances could constantly be attacked. And in case of silos, bunker busters can be dropped on the silo covers.
Reality is if you strike the entrances and then strike the support equipment (air flow systems, oxygen systems, power systems, etc) then that underground base becomes a coffin, no different than miners getting trapped in a collapsed mine.
So wether Iran builds its bases 500 meters or 5000 meters the same basic principles hold:
A) the base will have entrances
B) the base will have shafts
C) the base will have support equipment
If these equipment are truly being kept “500 meters” below sea level and not “500 meters below the top of the mountain” then tempatures will rise as you get closer to the earth’s core and significant cooling systems will need to be put in place.
Hence why due to their conventional threat these bases are lacking as the second strike capability they provide is non nuclear.
Where as if they were nuclear, the enemy would have to worry that even if they destroyed the entrances and life support equipment. The soldiers inside would still be able to launch the retaliatory nuclear strike.
Lastly if Iran loses air superiority during the war then these bases are toast, as the US will likely drop MOABs on them to knock them out of commission for months.
So again just because something is underground, doesn’t mean it’s safe. In this case storing missiles underground then having to excavate them when the entrances collapse due to air strikes serves the same purpose for the enemy (delaying you from launching the missiles).
In the age of 24/7 satellite surveillance the entrances could constantly be attacked. And in case of silos, bunker busters can be dropped on the silo covers.
A main feature of the concept are break-out exits. Special drilling machines and pre-drilled shafts are used to create random exits along the mountain.
He means they have drilling equipment inside the base with half drilled exit tunnels. If and when the existing exits are compromised, they quickly open the half drilled ones.I’m curious how you think an exit is going to avoid satellite detection. From what I saw of satellite images of Fordow, it has two main exits. In case of these missile bases, An exit needs to allow the removal of missile by something the size of a TEL. So it wouldn’t be a “shaft” but rather a tunnel size exit.
Furthermore, there cannot be “random” exits along the mountain because that defies logic. A TEL while having some off road capability cannot just go up and down rugged mountain edges while carrying a sensitive solid fuel missile. Thus any exits from the mountain would built near a dirt road and again visible to recon sats.
So that type of exit is not exactly going to be easy to hide especially with technologies such as SAR or even imagining technologies much more advanced than that (classified) that can pick up changes to earths foundation/dirt.
Like I said, US has been facing underground bases since 1940s through the Cold War and through rise of nuclear Communist China. It knows a thing or two about finding these types of bases. Never underestimate your enemy.
In the past, Soviet Union and China used such bases to cement second strike capability and project Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine. The enemy could not be sure that it could relabily destroy all of the other party’s nuclear weapons in a first strike salvo, thus such bases created nuclear survivability deterrence.
In Iran’s case, these bases also serve as deterrence. However, once war breaks out deterrence is lost because the enemy will attack the bases irregardless because the worst case scenario and doing nothing are the same result for the enemy.
Worst case scenario for US is the base is still operational after an concerted attack by B-2’s carrying MOABs flanked by F-22’s for air to air protection. Iran then fires BMs in retaliation from said base.
If the US does nothing and leaves these bases alone, then Iran likely fires BMs during course of war from those bases anyway.
Like I said, same result.
Some examples of Iran underground missile bases
I’m curious how you think an exit is going to avoid satellite detection. From what I saw of satellite images of Fordow, it has two main exits. In case of these missile bases, An exit needs to allow the removal of missile by something the size of a TEL. So it wouldn’t be a “shaft” but rather a tunnel size exit.
Furthermore, there cannot be “random” exits along the mountain because that defies logic. A TEL while having some off road capability cannot just go up and down rugged mountain edges while carrying a sensitive solid fuel missile. Thus any exits from the mountain would built near a dirt road and again visible to recon sats.
So that type of exit is not exactly going to be easy to hide especially with technologies such as SAR or even imagining technologies much more advanced than that (classified) that can pick up changes to earths foundation/dirt.
Like I said, US has been facing underground bases since 1940s through the Cold War and through rise of nuclear Communist China. It knows a thing or two about finding these types of bases. Never underestimate your enemy.
In the past, Soviet Union and China used such bases to cement second strike capability and project Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine. The enemy could not be sure that it could relabily destroy all of the other party’s nuclear weapons in a first strike salvo, thus such bases created nuclear survivability deterrence.
In Iran’s case, these bases also serve as deterrence. However, once war breaks out deterrence is lost because the enemy will attack the bases irregardless because the worst case scenario and doing nothing are the same result for the enemy.
Worst case scenario for US is the base is still operational after an concerted attack by B-2’s carrying MOABs flanked by F-22’s for air to air protection. Iran then fires BMs in retaliation from said base.
If the US does nothing and leaves these bases alone, then Iran likely fires BMs during course of war from those bases anyway.
Like I said, same result.
Some examples of Iran underground missile bases
New Iranian missiles:
2000-2010 Iran unveils Ashura, Sejil 1&2, Fateh-110.
2010-present Iran unveils Khorramshahr Missile. Everything else Iran has unveiled is simply a derivative of either Shahab-3 (SCUD family) or Fateh.
Iran has not built a new missile design since Sejil which was over 10 years ago!! Even Khorramshahr is an old missile that Iran finally got around to reverse engineering.
Seems Iran’s Missile program is progressing slowly in area of new development.
Reality is if you strike the entrances and then strike the support equipment (air flow systems, oxygen systems, power systems, etc) then that underground base becomes a coffin, no different than miners getting trapped in a collapsed mine.
So wether Iran builds its bases 500 meters or 5000 meters the same basic principles hold:
A) the base will have entrances
B) the base will have shafts
C) the base will have support equipment
If these equipment are truly being kept “500 meters” below sea level and not “500 meters below the top of the mountain” then tempatures will rise as you get closer to the earth’s core and significant cooling systems will need to be put in place.
Hence why due to their conventional threat these bases are lacking as the second strike capability they provide is non nuclear.
Where as if they were nuclear, the enemy would have to worry that even if they destroyed the entrances and life support equipment. The soldiers inside would still be able to launch the retaliatory nuclear strike.
Lastly if Iran loses air superiority during the war then these bases are toast, as the US will likely drop MOABs on them to knock them out of commission for months.
So again just because something is underground, doesn’t mean it’s safe. In this case storing missiles underground then having to excavate them when the entrances collapse due to air strikes serves the same purpose for the enemy (delaying you from launching the missiles).
In the age of 24/7 satellite surveillance the entrances could constantly be attacked. And in case of silos, bunker busters can be dropped on the silo covers.