Taiwanese Dam Strike Old News...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
...


snip more of Arndt's unsupported fantasies


The reason for the 'bouncing bomb' was surely that it was the ony way
that a large charge could be placed accurately.

There are at least half a dozen different guidence methods in service
in various types of missile that can achieve 1 meter accuracy.
Maverick, Martel, the old Condor, Raptor, SLAMER differential GPS, TV
with or without man in the loop etc. All that is needed is to 'super
size' them. An extraction of a MOAB sized weapon from a C130 being
one option.

A C-130 penetrating 1400 miles of PRC airspace and delivering a MOAB, huh?
Get a grip. And doesn't "differential GPS" require both quite a bit of time
and some post-processing?

The MOAB launch vehicle and system is what is interesting. Taiwan I
expect does have C130s and this suggests that extracting a 10 ton
missile by parachute from a cargo plane is possible. Perhaps 20 tons
is possible from a C130?

MOAB is a freefall device. I would envisage a missile more akin to
either skybolt or blue steel to give the necessary standoff
capabillity.


And doesn't "differential GPS" require both quite a bit of time
and some post-processing

It only needs to update and calibrate an inertial platform.






One advanced version of SCUD has a TV guidence system to reduce the
accruacy to well below 50 meters. (Using a trident missile for this
sort of business with a penetrating warhead is another option)

Taiwan has neither Scuds not Tridents. Scud lacks enough of a warhead, too.


In WW2 apart from the fact that the carrier aircraft were impossibly
vulnerable

And a C-130 lumbering through PLA and PLAAF defended territory would not
be?!

Yes, well rather a lot of standoff capability would be needed.



Brooks

the Germans could have carried out such attacks with
Fritz-X from around 1943 onwards and the Americans with AZON/RAZON.
The Kehl-Strassbourg guidence system was compromised after the capture
of some missiles in Italy but variations of the guidence system to
restore immunity were also possible and plans existed to use the
missile on the 2 seat 4 engined version of the Arado 234C jet bomber
and thus the Germans would have had a delivery vehicle for such a
weapon.. The Fritz-X was a little small: being half the mass of
highball.

AZON's main use seems to have been attacks against railway lines in
the far east in a role it was highly effective. (23% hit rate).
This CLOS type of guidence could have placed a bomb behined a damwall.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
...


snip more of Arndt's unsupported fantasies


The reason for the 'bouncing bomb' was surely that it was the ony way
that a large charge could be placed accurately.

There are at least half a dozen different guidence methods in service
in various types of missile that can achieve 1 meter accuracy.
Maverick, Martel, the old Condor, Raptor, SLAMER differential GPS, TV
with or without man in the loop etc. All that is needed is to 'super
size' them. An extraction of a MOAB sized weapon from a C130 being
one option.

A C-130 penetrating 1400 miles of PRC airspace and delivering a MOAB,
huh?
Get a grip. And doesn't "differential GPS" require both quite a bit of
time
and some post-processing?

The MOAB launch vehicle and system is what is interesting. Taiwan I
expect does have C130s and this suggests that extracting a 10 ton
missile by parachute from a cargo plane is possible. Perhaps 20 tons
is possible from a C130?

Neither "missile" would be capable of breaching TG. For gosh sakes, people,
TG is a friggin' GRAVITY dam--its a large concrete monolith! Folks keep
comparing this to the Ruhr dams--but weren't they *arch* dams? One hell of a
difference between the cross sectional depth of an arch structure and that
of a gravity structure. Again, get a grip on reality.


MOAB is a freefall device. I would envisage a missile more akin to
either skybolt or blue steel to give the necessary standoff
capabillity.

Great, now you have a standoff capability with a puny warhead that can't do
anymore than scab the concrete.



And doesn't "differential GPS" require both quite a bit of time
and some post-processing

It only needs to update and calibrate an inertial platform.

No, I believe you are talking about two different things. Differential GPS
is the process used by surveyors to acheive sub-meter (centimeter?) level
accuracy, and it requires positioning of ground transponders and some degree
of post processing support.



One advanced version of SCUD has a TV guidence system to reduce the
accruacy to well below 50 meters. (Using a trident missile for this
sort of business with a penetrating warhead is another option)

Taiwan has neither Scuds not Tridents. Scud lacks enough of a warhead,
too.


In WW2 apart from the fact that the carrier aircraft were impossibly
vulnerable

And a C-130 lumbering through PLA and PLAAF defended territory would not
be?!

Yes, well rather a lot of standoff capability would be needed.

Again, you trade standoff for warhead load; acheiveing standoff means you
are not going to have enough whumpf! to do the job against a monolithic
concrete gravity dam of the size of TG.

Brooks

snip

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Neither "missile" would be capable of breaching TG. For gosh sakes, people,
TG is a friggin' GRAVITY dam--its a large concrete monolith! Folks keep
comparing this to the Ruhr dams--but weren't they *arch* dams?

Nope. They were arch-*shaped*, but the Moehne and Eder were gravity
dams.

Oddly enough, the RAF officers who thought the mission wouldn't work in
1943 were saying pretty much the same things you're saying now. "The
bombs aren't big enough, you can't put them in place, the risk isn't
worth it..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Neither "missile" would be capable of breaching TG. For gosh sakes,
people,
TG is a friggin' GRAVITY dam--its a large concrete monolith! Folks keep
comparing this to the Ruhr dams--but weren't they *arch* dams?

Nope. They were arch-*shaped*, but the Moehne and Eder were gravity
dams.

Your inability to understand the basics of civil engineering continues to be
in evidence. Why do you think they included the arch design in those dams?
To reduce the required volume of material in their construction! Think load
paths... Note that TG is a pure gravity design, on the other hand.

Oh, and BTW, you keep using these Ruhr dams an example, but I believe they
have another distinct difference exhibited in comparison to TG--they are
*masonry* (or lesser) structures (Mohne listed as masonry only, Eder as
masonry-rubble, and Sohne as *earthen* with a simple concrete core wall),
not reinforced concrete structures like TG is.

And... I found some references to the cross sectional depth of TG, and it
appears my seat-of-the-pants estimate is a hell of a lot closer than you
claimed (I believe you were indicating I was off by a factor of about
100%)--my estimate was 122 meters, and there are quite a few sources out
there in Googleland that indicate it is indeed "over 100 meters". The Mohne
had a base "thickness" (masonry) of some 34 meters, versus the "over 100
meters" (of rf concrete) of the TG. It looks like TG is about three times as
massive as

taiwansecurity.org/Reu/2004/Reuters-160604.htm

Now, what exactly again is the basis for your comparison of the Ruhr dams
and TG? None that I can see...


Oddly enough, the RAF officers who thought the mission wouldn't work in
1943 were saying pretty much the same things you're saying now. "The
bombs aren't big enough, you can't put them in place, the risk isn't
worth it..."

Since, as has been shown, you are talking about *much* smaller dams, of
*much* smaller thickness, made of materials which exhibit *less* structural
integrity than the RC used in TG, your point would be...?

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com