How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam?

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain
cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project*
is
the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam
structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera.

I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip
in
terms of actual numbers.

I did mention that the dam didn't have as big a cross-section as you
think, with approximate thicknesses. You chose to ignore that, so it's
your problem, not mine.

You have not provided any specific numbers, period. You carped that it was,
"...being about twice..." the cross sectional depth of the Rhine dams--OK,
where did you get that from? I told you that I thought you were a bit shy in
that estimate, and gave you the reasoning behind why I thought so. You did
not respond with any actual measurement--you just carped again.What are the
exact measurements at that point, since you seem to be so offended by the
use of the rough calcs I gave you? In other words, where is the beef, Chad?

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Let's see. Since the max ordinate for the dam in terms of upstream fill is
supposed to be only about 175 meters, from what I have read, you halfway
dimension would apparently be, based upon that 122 meter estimate above,
something like 57 meters--let's be generous and assume a more favorable
number for you, of maybe 40 meters (reflecting a more realistic actual
cross
section). Which last I knew was quite a bit more than 100 feet--more like
125 feet?

125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of GBU-28s
should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out that
big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I expect
that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could well
be an issue.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

SNIP

dam, and sink it with a depth sensor for detonation...

OK, now we are getting into true fantasy land. This discussion started out
about military strike operations, not John Wayne/Errol Flynn/Rambo
Supercommando operations. The psited case is for Taiwan to do this in
order
to retaliate against a PRC invasion--and you see commandos, and boats,
etc.,
running willy nilly about all over and around the dam, on land and water?
Come on, now...

Brooks

Then there are two options which come to mind.

The first requires more in the way of aircraft and weapons, number wise, and
if Taiwan is being threatened by superior forces or heavily bombarded would
be much more difficult to pull off. It would involve those carbon filament
"grid buster" bombs or missile warheads shot all over the dam's power lines,
as well as damage to whatever generators or transformers could be hit with
conventional bombs. Plus ships or other things in the area.

The second requires a nuclear bomb, perhaps encased in a penetrator case. I
suppose this one would be right out, however.

If it were go for broke and it were me, I would encase a small but powerful
implosion device, maybe with a depleted uranium casing and tip in front of
the guidance unit, in an old cannon barrel. Smash it through five to ten
meters if possible then blow the crap out of it. The U-238 will add
significant radiation to the site, though fallout would be limited by
detonation in concrete and under water, depending on how much is ejected
upwards, of course.

Of course, at this point the PRC nukes Taiwan, so the second method is
rather pointless to consider, no?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:42:35 -0700,
Henry J Cobb attempted to say .....

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


Instant Sunshine

Yep.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Let's see. Since the max ordinate for the dam in terms of upstream fill
is
supposed to be only about 175 meters, from what I have read, you halfway
dimension would apparently be, based upon that 122 meter estimate above,
something like 57 meters--let's be generous and assume a more favorable
number for you, of maybe 40 meters (reflecting a more realistic actual
cross
section). Which last I knew was quite a bit more than 100 feet--more
like
125 feet?

125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of GBU-28s
should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out that
big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I expect
that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could well
be an issue.

First, Taiwan has no -28 delivery capability; the USAF limits such weapons
to deployment on B-2's and F-15E's, IIRC. Secondly, GBU-28 penetration in
concrete is about 20 feet from what I have read (the over 100 feet number is
an earthen penetration. So don't be expectin' to punch many neat little
holes with it in such a structure.

Brooks

Think 100 tons of C4 would do it? I know how to get it there. As for
LZs, I made a bunch of them but never wanted to land there.
Walt BJ

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message

125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of GBU-28s
should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out
that
big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I
expect
that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could well
be an issue.

First, Taiwan has no -28 delivery capability; the USAF limits such weapons
to deployment on B-2's and F-15E's, IIRC. Secondly, GBU-28 penetration in
concrete is about 20 feet from what I have read (the over 100 feet number
is
an earthen penetration. So don't be expectin' to punch many neat little
holes with it in such a structure.

I was thinking along the lines of multiple hits in the same location.
If the first bomb penetrates 20 feet it will also crater x more feet
and fracture y more feet softening the remaining concrete. I
would be kind of surprised if three well placed GBU-28s couldn't
penetrate a hundred feet of reinforced concrete damn, four I would
think a near certainty.
I doubt we've provided GBU-28s to too many folks around the world
but it's not exactly a design concept cloaked in secrecy and mystery.
Taiwan should be able produce a comparable design scaled for their
delivery capability; assuming of course they HAVE a system capable
of making it that far inland. Uh, how far exactly would that be?

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message

125 feet? Heck, if you can deliver them accurately a handful of
GBU-28s
should take care of the problem. Granted, the hole wouldn't start out
that
big between the water pressure and the fracturing around the hole I
expect
that problem would get bigger quickly enough.
Now, could Taiwan deliver them (or a local equivalent), that could
well
be an issue.

First, Taiwan has no -28 delivery capability; the USAF limits such
weapons
to deployment on B-2's and F-15E's, IIRC. Secondly, GBU-28 penetration
in
concrete is about 20 feet from what I have read (the over 100 feet
number
is
an earthen penetration. So don't be expectin' to punch many neat little
holes with it in such a structure.

I was thinking along the lines of multiple hits in the same location.
If the first bomb penetrates 20 feet it will also crater x more feet
and fracture y more feet softening the remaining concrete. I
would be kind of surprised if three well placed GBU-28s couldn't
penetrate a hundred feet of reinforced concrete damn, four I would
think a near certainty.
I doubt we've provided GBU-28s to too many folks around the world
but it's not exactly a design concept cloaked in secrecy and mystery.
Taiwan should be able produce a comparable design scaled for their
delivery capability; assuming of course they HAVE a system capable
of making it that far inland. Uh, how far exactly would that be?

Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles from
Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent potential
ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging weapons heavier than
anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000 mile round trip, with aerial
refueling being a bit of a problem (both because the Taiwanese have no
current refueling capability, and because setting up a tanker track over the
PRC proper might not be the most advisable course of action...). Requiring
successive, multiple hits against the same exact point of impact...yeah,
that's a real doable option! :-)

Are you beginning to see why the idea of actually breaching the dam is sort
of a non-starter in terms of realistic options?

Brooks

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
mile round trip,

....because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
infrastructure, right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:32 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Oh, a mere 1200 to 1400 miles up the Yangtze River, maybe 1500 miles
from Taiwan; piece of cake, right? Let's see, F-16's (the most potent
potential ground attack platform the Chinese possess), lugging
weapons heavier than anything the F-16 has ever lugged, on a 3000
mile round trip,

...because nobody would ever send a number of planes on a one-way
mission to destroy something that's a major part of the enemy's
infrastructure, right?

Would you send a large number of your best planes on a one way
mission, knowng that teh air disparity would be even worse? And
incidentally, ensuring that your own island would be attacked by every
means possible. If the 3 gorges goes, I'm fairly sure the PRC would be
less hesitant about turning Formosa into a floating heap of ash.

Peter Kemp