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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Baker" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan either has now or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam? http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-dam.html Crap. Went to the link and found...more rambling rants from Henry himself! Finally waded through the putrifying mass of illogical "analaysis" provided by himself and found the DoD report *itself*--only to find no mention of being able to breach Three Gorges, just a reference to a some Taiwanese having expressed the *opinion* that they think Taiwan needs to develop a capability to threaten high-value targets on the mainland, with Three Gorges as an example. Let's see--taking down associated generators, substations, HV transmission lines, and/or damaging gates, etc., all constitute "threats" to Three Gorges, so this is apparently just another HJC "leaping to (wrong) conclusions and supporting them with cites taken-out-of-context" exercise... Brooks -HJC Don't you guys read the newspapers? This story, about Taiwan holding high value targets on the mainland at risk to include breaching of said dam as primary, not just the associated infrasturcture, has been an AP piece in the LA Times all week. I think there were at least a couple of stories about it including the Sino response about "...blocking out the sky..." with their retaliation. The first question is meant to be rhetorical. Don't ride the "no I don't read the crap liberal media" horse. No, my impression of the general media when it comes to things military is not too complimentary. If your numerous references in the LA Times to this come from the DoD report mentioned by Mr. Cobb, then it has been taken out of context (just as Mr. Cobb has--and has repeatedly done in the past)--read the actual verbage in the report. It does not credit Taiwan with this capability, nor does it specify that in order to target said dam, one would have to actually breach it--it only mentions that some Taiwanese have ruminated over the possibility of their being able to hit HVT's, with Three Gorges mentioned as an example, as being a good course of action for the future. In other words, it is a non-story. Brooks Well, I'd have to say you missed the whole point of the "story" Brooks. It's a political story about politics taken to extremes Then why are you bantering about it in this forum? Now, did the articles in question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario or not? If not, then we are discussing completely different topics; if they did, and as you have indicated the claim was for a breach of the dam, then they have distorted what the actual DoD report said. and what that would mean to the U.S. politically or, more problematically, militarily, vis-a-vis GWB stated intention to defend Taiwan. WRT the rest of your response, it's irrelevant to me that you have a problem with Mr. Cobb whom I don't recall seeing here before, maybe just me not noticing or you noticing too much. LOL! The guy is somewhat infamous in both this NG and in one of the naval groups (among others I suspect) for his ability to twist very strange interpretations from various sources, apply what can only be described as extremely skewed analysis to various and widespread military subjects, and then repeatedly ignore honest-to-goodness facts as they are presented to him (often from the same source he has just distorted). Either you have not been about these parts for long, or your newsgroup provider has a serious problem with message retention, because otherwise you'd have to know who he is. And BTW, I believe a Google would show that quite a few other posters have tried to disabuse Henry of some of his more outlandish claims, some rather recently; his continual insistence that he is better at making military decisions than the folks who actually wear the uniform are is a frequent sore point. I read the report and your interpretation of it not mentioning Taiwanese military capability is, IMHO, also irrelevant to the story. My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that? "Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a latent capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD report) If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles of fish. Which takes us back to hitting and destroying/disrupting ancilliary aspects of the dam infrastructure. If your vaunted LA Times piece is saying otherwise, shame on them. It's a political piece by the DoD discusing the East Asian balance of power and that regions huge influence on the world militarily and politically over the coming decades. In other words, it's the antithesis of a non-story. So then you admit that it does not posit a realistic Taiwanese threat of being able to breach Three Gorges? Brooks R/JB |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan either has now or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam? http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-dam.html -HJC I would pack a B747 or other wide bodied jet with a massive shaped charge in the nose and then use precision guidance technology to deliver it. Alternatively a 40 ton double Grand Slam sized bomb with perhaps small wings and a certainly a booster to extend speed and range slung from beneath a wide bodied jet could do it. A 20 ton hard casing bomb with an addition 20 ton propellant section should achieve 0.66 exhaust velocity: about Mach 4. With proper guidance it could be placed within a few meters, perhaps penetrating the water behind the dam wall just as the WW2 bouncing bomb did. Because of the hard casing only a direct hit with a penetrate 'hit to could kill' SAM would stop this device because the weapon would in effect be armored. Careful designee of the control surfaces, perhaps the used of jet deflection with solid external fins would minimize even the danger to control surfaces of a near miss. The use of saturation attacks and decoys and perhaps a design with a lithe extra speed should take care of the defenses. I'm not saying this is a sensible approach but surely such a weapon could be built? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... What was the weapon that the Pentagon authors think that Taiwan either has now or could develop that would breach the Three Gorges Dam? http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-dam.html Crap. Went to the link and found...more rambling rants from Henry himself! Finally waded through the putrifying mass of illogical "analaysis" provided by himself and found the DoD report *itself*--only to find no mention of being able to breach Three Gorges, just a reference to a some Taiwanese having expressed the *opinion* that they think Taiwan needs to develop a capability to threaten high-value targets on the mainland, with Three Gorges as an example. Let's see--taking down associated generators, substations, HV transmission lines, and/or damaging gates, etc., all constitute "threats" to Three Gorges, so this is apparently just another HJC "leaping to (wrong) conclusions and supporting them with cites taken-out-of-context" exercise... Brooks -HJC Don't you guys read the newspapers? This story, about Taiwan holding high value targets on the mainland at risk to include breaching of said dam as primary, not just the associated infrasturcture, has been an AP piece in the LA Times all week. I think there were at least a couple of stories about it including the Sino response about "...blocking out the sky..." with their retaliation. The first question is meant to be rhetorical. Don't ride the "no I don't read the crap liberal media" horse. No, my impression of the general media when it comes to things military is not too complimentary. If your numerous references in the LA Times to this come from the DoD report mentioned by Mr. Cobb, then it has been taken out of context (just as Mr. Cobb has--and has repeatedly done in the past)--read the actual verbage in the report. It does not credit Taiwan with this capability, nor does it specify that in order to target said dam, one would have to actually breach it--it only mentions that some Taiwanese have ruminated over the possibility of their being able to hit HVT's, with Three Gorges mentioned as an example, as being a good course of action for the future. In other words, it is a non-story. Brooks Well, I'd have to say you missed the whole point of the "story" Brooks. It's a political story about politics taken to extremes Then why are you bantering about it in this forum? Now, did the articles in question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario or not? If not, then we are discussing completely different topics; if they did, and as you have indicated the claim was for a breach of the dam, then they have distorted what the actual DoD report said. and what that would mean to the U.S. politically or, more problematically, militarily, vis-a-vis GWB stated intention to defend Taiwan. WRT the rest of your response, it's irrelevant to me that you have a problem with Mr. Cobb whom I don't recall seeing here before, maybe just me not noticing or you noticing too much. LOL! The guy is somewhat infamous in both this NG and in one of the naval groups (among others I suspect) for his ability to twist very strange interpretations from various sources, apply what can only be described as extremely skewed analysis to various and widespread military subjects, and then repeatedly ignore honest-to-goodness facts as they are presented to him (often from the same source he has just distorted). Either you have not been about these parts for long, or your newsgroup provider has a serious problem with message retention, because otherwise you'd have to know who he is. And BTW, I believe a Google would show that quite a few other posters have tried to disabuse Henry of some of his more outlandish claims, some rather recently; his continual insistence that he is better at making military decisions than the folks who actually wear the uniform are is a frequent sore point. I read the report and your interpretation of it not mentioning Taiwanese military capability is, IMHO, also irrelevant to the story. My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that? "Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a latent capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD report) If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles of fish. Which takes us back to hitting and destroying/disrupting ancilliary aspects of the dam infrastructure. If your vaunted LA Times piece is saying otherwise, shame on them. It's a political piece by the DoD discusing the East Asian balance of power and that regions huge influence on the world militarily and politically over the coming decades. In other words, it's the antithesis of a non-story. So then you admit that it does not posit a realistic Taiwanese threat of being able to breach Three Gorges? Brooks Brooks, all I was replying to was your assertion that this wasn't a, to paraphrase, worthy story. Your question about why am I bantering about it is perhaps the most important thing you've said lol. I thought bantering was what the newsgroups were for. Perhaps I read you out of context when you were vilifying Cobb with whom you, and others I suppose, obviously have a problem. I've been visiting this site, daily, for nearly 7 years and don't recall seeing his name. His opening post didn't seem outlandish and I didn't read anything on his link other than the DoD report. If you'd take the time to try to understand my posts, you'd see that I said it was mentioned in the newpaper and on the news stations and I disputed your claims about it being a non-story, that's all. I thought it was an important story about the political climate in the far east and our, perhaps, involvement. I never mentioned anything about actually taking out the dam other than it was part of the story. Your posted replies "..then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work.", "...your vaunted LA Times piece..." and "So then you admit that it does not posit.." are boorish and confrontational and don't help in the discussion. Cobb did start out the thread by asking what weapons could breach the dam, and you go to great lengths in showing me, in your answer to my post, how this is a ridiculous notion. I agree and never brought the subject up. I was just, as I said in my opening sentence in this post, disputing your dismissal of the story which probably has more to do with you dismissing Cobb than anything else. I guess it wasn't worth the effort for me to banter with you when it's just your opinion about story/nonstory versus mine. Sorry I brought it up. R/JB |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd think." The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it. Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive, maybe with a shaped charge. Do that at one-third of the way down from the crest (deeper than the Mohne, you get a lot more boost from the water pressure), and you could flood central China with a bigger flood than any recorded in history. There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it). A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its own. The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles of fish. The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream and place with divers. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd think." The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it. Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive, maybe with a shaped charge. Do that at one-third of the way down from the crest (deeper than the Mohne, you get a lot more boost from the water pressure), and you could flood central China with a bigger flood than any recorded in history. There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it). A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its own. The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles of fish. The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream and place with divers. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. Really, you don't have to knock a whole in it. All you have to do is weaken it, the water behind it is relentless and will find it's own way through...... T3 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-dam.html Now, did the articles in question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario or not? Yes. My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that? If the DoD didn't think the treat was realistic why did they bring it up? Do they know something that you don't or are they trying to spin a non-story to the media and if so for what reason? -HJC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote: The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were lost, most before they got to the dam. ....because they had to contend with AA guns at the dams, torpedo nets, low-level flying at night, and some tough maneuvers over a couple of the reservoirs. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In message , W. D. Allen Sr.
writes The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were lost, most before they got to the dam. The Ruhr Dam? Where this? And when was the raid. Mike -- M.J.Powell |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
M. J. Powell wrote:
In message , W. D. Allen Sr. writes The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were lost, most before they got to the dam. The Ruhr Dam? Where this? And when was the raid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise -HJC |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Henry J Cobb
writes M. J. Powell wrote: In message , W. D. Allen Sr. writes The British needed special design spinning finless 7000 lb bombs to break through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were lost, most before they got to the dam. The Ruhr Dam? Where this? And when was the raid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise Oh. The singular fooled me. Mike -- M.J.Powell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PING: Gordon (was: The torpedo high jump...) | Yeff | Military Aviation | 0 | June 10th 04 08:41 AM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
realign M-750 to reduce noise in Taiwan | Dan Jacobson | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 31st 04 01:44 AM |
US wants Taiwan to bolster intelligence gathering | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 0 | January 8th 04 02:00 PM |
monitoring China air communication with a radio in Taiwan | Dan Jacobson | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | November 23rd 03 09:40 PM |