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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Kemp wrote:
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 Perhaps a credible threat to the dam could be an argument AGAINST war,for the chinese.If both sides risk losing to much,war is a less attractive alternative to diplomacy and peaceful co-existance.It has worked before. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... 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? The above is about what one would expect from the guy who earlier postulated that maybe a *really* big shaped charge would do the trick, before meandering off into the world of Supercommando underwater demolition attacks 1400 miles up the Yangtze with a few *tons* of explosives toted along for the purpose...or were you going to just have these Rambos mix their own demo on site? (Gawd, you'll probably argue they should submerge a few tons of ammonium nitrate... LOL!) No, the idea of Taiwan sacrificing a goodly portion of its best fighters, when faced with a growing PLAAF threat themselves, does not make much sense. Face it, *if* Taiwan were to embark on this strange Three Gorges strategy (strange because there are a heck of a lot of other high-value targets located a whale of a lot closer than TG, and a lot easier to neutralize), and even that has not been conclusively demonstrated yet, then they would be looking at ways of removing TG's value without gunning for a full breach of the dam itself. Cruise missiles can take down the supported power grid and generating stations, and it is even conceivable that the Taiwanese could develop some capability to knock the associated locks out of operation; anything beyond that is fantasy, short of them using a nuclear wepon of their own (a generally *bad* idea). Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote: 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? No, but who says that's what's needed? A handful of very accurate weapons that could damage the 3GD enough so it would fall apart on its own, versus sitting on the ground and getting pounded by missiles for a few weeks? Having a big, high-value mission like a 3GD takeout would be a *great* deterrent for the folks in the area of the PRC, since the only other option seems to be nukes. The PRC is starting to look more like a threat to the little guys in the area, due to their recent arms expansions. And incidentally, ensuring that your own island would be attacked by every means possible. ....as if Taiwan would be untouched if the PRC decided to remove them from the area, right? If the 3 gorges goes, I'm fairly sure the PRC would be less hesitant about turning Formosa into a floating heap of ash. If Formosa is in the situation where they feel the need to do such damage to the mainland, you can pretty much bet that the worst would already be on the way. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... 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? The above is about what one would expect ....from the United States. In WWII. Like when the US "threw away' a handful of medium bombers in a *symbolic* attack on the Japanese home islands. No, the idea of Taiwan sacrificing a goodly portion of its best fighters, when faced with a growing PLAAF threat themselves, does not make much sense. ....to someone who thinks the attack would never work, since he doesn't have any idea of the size of the target, the effects and accuracy of modern weapons, or what people will do when pushed by a big threat. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message ... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... 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? The above is about what one would expect ...from the United States. In WWII. Like when the US "threw away' a handful of medium bombers in a *symbolic* attack on the Japanese home islands. No, you must have mistakenly snipped ('cause you sure as hell did not note the snippage) the little bit about your predilection for proposing outlandish and unworkable "options"; here it is again for you: ....from the guy who earlier postulated that maybe a *really* big shaped charge would do the trick, before meandering off into the world of Supercommando underwater demolition attacks 1400 miles up the Yangtze with a few *tons* of explosives toted along for the purpose...or were you going to just have these Rambos mix their own demo on site? (Gawd, you'll probably argue they should submerge a few tons of ammonium nitrate... LOL!) No, the idea of Taiwan sacrificing a goodly portion of its best fighters, when faced with a growing PLAAF threat themselves, does not make much sense. ...to someone who thinks the attack would never work, since he doesn't have any idea of the size of the target, the effects and accuracy of modern weapons, or what people will do when pushed by a big threat. The burden of proof lies with you--thus far you have claimed it could be done with one honking BIG commando raid toting a few tons of explosives in and placing it upstream of the dam, which is located as we have seen *well* within the confines of the PRC, or maybe bombs that can't be hauled by anything in Taiwanese service (and only by MC-130's in *US* service), or perhaps with a truly gargantuan shaped charge (ignoring that whole water-screws-up-shaped-charges bit). Excuse me for recognizing that none of these are workable military solutions, and one of them (that Mongo Shaped Charge theory of your's) is even a physical impossibility (congrats--you have now joined the ranks of Henry in the "clueless yet limitlessly hardheaded" category). And BTW, where are those precise dam measurements you keep alluding to but never produce when repeatedly asked for them, huh? Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: snip Basically, everything you've said so far has been "it's not possible to do with a bigger dam because, well, technology hasn't advanced enough over the last *60 years*, and nobody would do a one-way mission even though it would be a really major hit on the Chinese, and enough of a deterrent to keep them from attacking Taiwan." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: snip Basically, everything you've said so far has been "it's not possible to do with a bigger dam because, well, technology hasn't advanced enough over the last *60 years*, and nobody would do a one-way mission even though it would be a really major hit on the Chinese, and enough of a deterrent to keep them from attacking Taiwan." One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the only rough estimates so far concocted)? Keep on designing that nifty shaped charge warhead of your's, Chad... you have proven to be about as full of hot air, and afraid to present your supposed 'real' data, as the Tarvernaut. Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the only rough estimates so far concocted)? I gave up on trying to argue anything like numbers with you when you went off into the insults, using your "estimates" that were pretty much just guesswork tailored to your point of view. The only thing you're interested in is in proving that *nobody* can blow up a big stationary concrete thing with bombs or explosives. But since you're interested in numbers, the *maximum* thickness of the base of the 3GD is under a hundred meters (less than your *average* base guess), and the slope, as I've described, does not continue all the way to the top, but is about a hundred feet thick about halfway up (from the photos that are all over the Web, but which you don't seem to be interested in looking at, relying on your guesswork on how you think the dam *should* be constructed). Your criticisms of some of the scenarios I've suggested mostly rely on "nobody could or would do that," while not noticing that people *have* done similar unusual attacks over the course of the last hundred years. Or the last *year*, for that matter. Even doing without the "exotic" scenarios, a flight of F-16s could make a one-way run into China carrying up to two 2,000 pound bombs each, and even the standard-issue JDAMs would crack the 3GD if you hit in about the same spot a dozen times with one ton bombs. The loss of a half-dozen F-16s would inconvenience the Taiwanese, while hitting the 3GD with even a moderately effective attack would *cripple* China. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the only rough estimates so far concocted)? I gave up on trying to argue anything like numbers with you when you went off into the insults, using your "estimates" that were pretty much just guesswork tailored to your point of view. The only thing you're interested in is in proving that *nobody* can blow up a big stationary concrete thing with bombs or explosives. But since you're interested in numbers, the *maximum* thickness of the base of the 3GD is under a hundred meters (less than your *average* base guess), and the slope, as I've described, does not continue all the way to the top, but is about a hundred feet thick about halfway up (from the photos that are all over the Web, but which you don't seem to be interested in looking at, relying on your guesswork on how you think the dam *should* be constructed). Source please? That does not compute with the photos I have seen of the structure under construction, which show a typical gravity dam structure with a footprint that appears to excced the one-half height value by some degree. Your criticisms of some of the scenarios I've suggested mostly rely on "nobody could or would do that," while not noticing that people *have* done similar unusual attacks over the course of the last hundred years. Or the last *year*, for that matter. My criticism of your scenarios is based upon the utter stupidity they exhibit--a freaking *shaped charge* that can penetrate TG??! You have got to be smoking some wild weed... And those similar attacks you refer to seem to have been directed against arch dam structures--do you know the difference between that design and a gravity structure? What is the difference in the lao9d paths between the two? And BTW, where did you get *your* civil engineering degree? Even doing without the "exotic" scenarios, a flight of F-16s could make a one-way run into China carrying up to two 2,000 pound bombs each, and even the standard-issue JDAMs would crack the 3GD if you hit in about the same spot a dozen times with one ton bombs. The loss of a half-dozen F-16s would inconvenience the Taiwanese, while hitting the 3GD with even a moderately effective attack would *cripple* China. Being as you can't seem to grasp the difference between an arch and gravity structure, have postulated that maybe a *really* big shaped charge could do the trick (howl!), and *still* have not provided any reputable exact figures for the dam's dimensions, despite repeated pleas for you to do so, I can conclude that you are utterly and completely clueless as to what is involved here; that you now think that the ROCAF would be willing to decimate its fighter force (12 delivery aircraft plus how many support aircraft to ensure they get there?) in a wild attempt to place twelve successive hits against the same precise aimpoint, just provides further evidence that you have lost all touch with reality in terms of this scenario. And what happened to those other theories of your's--the uberCommandos toting a twelve or more odd tons of demo in and placing it 1400 miles upstream, or the massive shaped charge (snort!)? Chad, you need to sit back and take a few deep breaths and try to regain contact with reality--you have lost the bubble here. Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: One last time, where are those specific dimensions you keep claiming to have, but can never produce (while going out of your way to attack the only rough estimates so far concocted)? I gave up on trying to argue anything like numbers with you when you went off into the insults, using your "estimates" that were pretty much just guesswork tailored to your point of view. The only thing you're interested in is in proving that *nobody* can blow up a big stationary concrete thing with bombs or explosives. But since you're interested in numbers, the *maximum* thickness of the base of the 3GD is under a hundred meters (less than your *average* base guess), and the slope, as I've described, does not continue all the way to the top, but is about a hundred feet thick about halfway up (from the photos that are all over the Web, but which you don't seem to be interested in looking at, relying on your guesswork on how you think the dam *should* be constructed). Source please? That does not compute with the photos I have seen of the structure under construction, which show a typical gravity dam structure with a footprint that appears to excced the one-half height value by some degree. Your criticisms of some of the scenarios I've suggested mostly rely on "nobody could or would do that," while not noticing that people *have* done similar unusual attacks over the course of the last hundred years. Or the last *year*, for that matter. My criticism of your scenarios is based upon the utter stupidity they exhibit--a freaking *shaped charge* that can penetrate TG??! You have got to be smoking some wild weed... And those similar attacks you refer to seem to have been directed against arch dam structures--do you know the difference between that design and a gravity structure? What is the difference in the lao9d paths between the two? And BTW, where did you get *your* civil engineering degree? Even doing without the "exotic" scenarios, a flight of F-16s could make a one-way run into China carrying up to two 2,000 pound bombs each, and even the standard-issue JDAMs would crack the 3GD if you hit in about the same spot a dozen times with one ton bombs. The loss of a half-dozen F-16s would inconvenience the Taiwanese, while hitting the 3GD with even a moderately effective attack would *cripple* China. Man, I just reread what you wrote, and noticed that I missed the bit about limiting it to six aircraft with two weapons each...sorry. Gee, I guess that means you intend to have them each make two attack runs on the target (after they have just transited some 1400-1500 miles of PLAAF airspace, that is) so that they can get those successive strikes against the same aimpoint, right? I don't know...that sounds a bit overly optimistic to me. Of course, I am sure you have each aircraft moving off into a holding pattern to allow the dust/smoke from the previous strike to clear sufficiently for the next aircraft to acheive the necessary laser lock on the aimpoint, too, and have included a number of spare airframes in your plan to accomodate the inevitable losses to PLAAF air defense fighters and ADA/SAM's, right?...yeah, this is sounding more and more like a REALLY great plan you have here! Why, you might even discard that whole WBSC (Whomping Big Shaped Charge) proposal, not to mention the ROCA Commando Group (RHT) (REALLY Heavy Transport) with its sneak-in-and-do-the-dirty-deed idea, you put forth earlier and concentrate solely upon this ROCAF Special Strike Squadron (Kamikaze) idea exclusively... Brooks Being as you can't seem to grasp the difference between an arch and gravity structure, have postulated that maybe a *really* big shaped charge could do the trick (howl!), and *still* have not provided any reputable exact figures for the dam's dimensions, despite repeated pleas for you to do so, I can conclude that you are utterly and completely clueless as to what is involved here; that you now think that the ROCAF would be willing to decimate its fighter force (12 delivery aircraft plus how many support aircraft to ensure they get there?) in a wild attempt to place twelve successive hits against the same precise aimpoint, just provides further evidence that you have lost all touch with reality in terms of this scenario. And what happened to those other theories of your's--the uberCommandos toting a twelve or more odd tons of demo in and placing it 1400 miles upstream, or the massive shaped charge (snort!)? Chad, you need to sit back and take a few deep breaths and try to regain contact with reality--you have lost the bubble here. Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
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 |