Taiwanese Dam Strike Old News...

[robert arndt]

The US had and still has contingency plans for Taiwan to covertly
attack the Three Gorges Dam in the event of a Chinese amphibious
invasion of the island.
Taiwanese F-16s flying low laden with what was called a few years back
the "Dragon's Claw" bomb would be aided by US air assets and
Intelligence on the dam. Simultaneously, covert US forces would
disrupt the air defenses around the dam while the F-16s dropped their
special depth strikers, designed to be launched near the dam and to
plow under to a certain depth before exploding causing a series of
massive shock waves that would crack the foundations of the dam. The
F-16s would fire and turn away being refuelled by US tankers for the
return trip home.
This is old news... but it was never disclosed what exactly a depth
striker was.
I don't think you need the old bouncing bombs of WW2 (of which Germany
also had a rocket version of their own- Kurt). But a missile-launched
heavyweight torpedo with modified warhead might do the job well
(similar to the WW2 German L-10 or L-11 torpedo gliders).

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 23 Jun 2004 01:27:23 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>The US had and still has contingency plans for Taiwan to covertly
>attack the Three Gorges Dam in the event of a Chinese amphibious
>invasion of the island.
>Taiwanese F-16s flying low laden with what was called a few years back
>the "Dragon's Claw" bomb would be aided by US air assets and
>Intelligence on the dam. Simultaneously, covert US forces would
>disrupt the air defenses around the dam while the F-16s dropped their
>special depth strikers, designed to be launched near the dam and to
>plow under to a certain depth before exploding causing a series of
>massive shock waves that would crack the foundations of the dam. The
>F-16s would fire and turn away being refuelled by US tankers for the
>return trip home.
>This is old news... but it was never disclosed what exactly a depth
>striker was.
>I don't think you need the old bouncing bombs of WW2 (of which Germany
>also had a rocket version of their own- Kurt). But a missile-launched
>heavyweight torpedo with modified warhead might do the job well
>(similar to the WW2 German L-10 or L-11 torpedo gliders).
>
>Rob

"What an ultra-marron", as Mr. Bugs would say.

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: Alan Minyard
>Date: 6/23/2004 10:19 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 23 Jun 2004 01:27:23 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>>The US had and still has contingency plans for Taiwan to covertly
>>attack the Three Gorges Dam in the event of a Chinese amphibious
>>invasion of the island.
>>Taiwanese F-16s flying low laden with what was called a few years back
>>the "Dragon's Claw" bomb would be aided by US air assets and
>>Intelligence on the dam. Simultaneously, covert US forces would
>>disrupt the air defenses around the dam while the F-16s dropped their
>>special depth strikers, designed to be launched near the dam and to
>>plow under to a certain depth before exploding causing a series of
>>massive shock waves that would crack the foundations of the dam. The
>>F-16s would fire and turn away being refuelled by US tankers for the
>>return trip home.
>>This is old news... but it was never disclosed what exactly a depth
>>striker was.
>>I don't think you need the old bouncing bombs of WW2 (of which Germany
>>also had a rocket version of their own- Kurt). But a missile-launched
>>heavyweight torpedo with modified warhead might do the job well
>>(similar to the WW2 German L-10 or L-11 torpedo gliders).
>>
>>Rob
>
>"What an ultra-marron", as Mr. Bugs would say.
>
>Al Minyard

How freudian :) Maron has been quiet, let's hope he stays that way. Bugs used
the term "maroon."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Eunometic]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> The US had and still has contingency plans for Taiwan to covertly
> attack the Three Gorges Dam in the event of a Chinese amphibious
> invasion of the island.
> Taiwanese F-16s flying low laden with what was called a few years
back
> the "Dragon's Claw" bomb would be aided by US air assets and
> Intelligence on the dam. Simultaneously, covert US forces would
> disrupt the air defenses around the dam while the F-16s dropped
their
> special depth strikers, designed to be launched near the dam and to
> plow under to a certain depth before exploding causing a series of
> massive shock waves that would crack the foundations of the dam. The
> F-16s would fire and turn away being refuelled by US tankers for the
> return trip home.
> This is old news... but it was never disclosed what exactly a depth
> striker was.
> I don't think you need the old bouncing bombs of WW2 (of which
Germany
> also had a rocket version of their own- Kurt). But a
missile-launched
> heavyweight torpedo with modified warhead might do the job well
> (similar to the WW2 German L-10 or L-11 torpedo gliders).
>
> Rob


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.

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)

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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?

>
> 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?!

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.
>
>

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:27:37 -0400,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

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

Shh, you will give away the secret that a C130 is an even better dogfighter
than the P-3C


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

[John Keeney]

"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?

All the DGPS processing is easily handled in a hand held unit, real time.
The problem being you need the well surveyed differential station(s) in
the area up and broadcasting the difference between where the GPS and
the survey say they are..
The latest version, WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System), has all the
user data coming from the sat. However, a precisely located ground
station has to send the correction data up. The theory being if the ground
station and the user are looking though the same atmospherics the
correction factors are the same.
I'm not *real* well read in it but it looks like in practice that the
correction factors generated in Taiwan would significantly improve
accuracy at 3GD.

[robert arndt]

Taiwan is a nuclear stand-by nation capable of producing a nuclear
weapon in one year. Since China is approx. 2-4 years away from
invading the island according to the latest 2004 Intels then Taiwan
should get the green light from the US and start making them in
preparation for the inevitable attack.
China keeps insisting on taking the island by force, even threatening
neutron weapons now... so let Taiwan produce nukes.
Doesn't make much difference though when a carrier battle group will
likely be in the Taiwan Straight, right? What are the Chinese going to
do, nuke it and face grave consequences like the DPRK? I'm willing to
bet that as invasion approaches we park two carrier battle groups
there and station B-2, F-117, and B-1 aircraft in neighboring friendly
nations like the ROK and Japan.
What a showdown that would be. It would make CNN worth watching again
:)

Rob

[Eunometic]

"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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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>

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Jarg]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Taiwan is a nuclear stand-by nation capable of producing a nuclear
> weapon in one year. Since China is approx. 2-4 years away from
> invading the island according to the latest 2004 Intels then Taiwan
> should get the green light from the US and start making them in
> preparation for the inevitable attack.
> China keeps insisting on taking the island by force, even threatening
> neutron weapons now... so let Taiwan produce nukes.
> Doesn't make much difference though when a carrier battle group will
> likely be in the Taiwan Straight, right? What are the Chinese going to
> do, nuke it and face grave consequences like the DPRK? I'm willing to
> bet that as invasion approaches we park two carrier battle groups
> there and station B-2, F-117, and B-1 aircraft in neighboring friendly
> nations like the ROK and Japan.
> What a showdown that would be. It would make CNN worth watching again
> :)
>
> Rob

I think you are right that Taiwan has the capacity, and I wonder why they
haven't gone ahead and mimicked Israel's strategy of maintaining a "hidden"
nuclear capacity just in case (I assume they have not since the nukes aren't
very useful if nobody knows about them). If Taiwan did deploy nukes, I would
think that China might stop wasting resources on creating the means to
invade Taiwan. And although I know there are many Taiwanese who have no
interest in reunification with China under any circumstances, still I wonder
why Taiwan hasn't used it's status as a democracy to try to encourage reform
in China, something along the lines of a policy stating reunification with
China can only happen once the mainland is also a democracy, which I would
think could strengthen the hand of the PRC reformers. Even if Taiwan isn't
serious in wanting to reunite, this offer makes a lot of sense to me since I
doubt a democratic PRC would been as keen on forced reunification

The US vs. China scenario would be very interesting, though of course I hope
it never comes to that. Current thinking seems to have the US eventually
winning this one, though recent events make me wonder if America still has
the will to fight wars involving significant casualties!

Jarg.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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