SVC:

Under normal circumstances, I have no doubt that you are correct.

China is not, and has not been able to demonstrate a true blue water naval deployment capacity.

With multiple Submarines sinking at the docks or within 100 nautical miles of the China coast, there are open questions of just how effective the PLA Navy could really be.

I think the line about a game change referred to the Philippines navy's ability to actually resist China in the first place.

Six destroyers are not much, but it is a massive reinforcement to what the Philippines started with.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, July 24, 2025 - 10:21 pm: Edit

The Chinese will have a blue water navy when they can operate in the Gulf of Mexico like we operate in the South China Sea.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, July 25, 2025 - 08:35 am: Edit

The PLAN conducts anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden on a continuing basis, and has since 2008. The Todd-Lindberg approximate Naval Strength classification system put China as a rank-4 naval power ten years ago in 2015, which is the bottom end of the scale considered to be a "blue-water navy"; they moved up to rank-3 on that scale in 2019.

By Burt Quaid (Burt) on Saturday, July 26, 2025 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

We underestimate them at our own peril.

burt

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 26, 2025 - 10:18 pm: Edit

War is a bloody mess with surprises. (The Russian carrier-killer wake-homing torpedoes come to mind.) We probably have a few surprises of our own.

If China pushed us too far, we might crack the Three Gorges Dam, which would cause more human fatalities than anything since the supervolcano 70,000 years ago reduced the human population to three digits.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, July 26, 2025 - 10:49 pm: Edit

The Three Gorges Dam is not entirely safe.

Aside from reported cracks (some apparently severe enough to warrant immediate repair since 2009) the decision to place the Dam where it is located just coincides with not one but TWO major fault lines. Once the dam was first filled to capacity, 830 tremors (small earth quakes) were recorded in the first year.

China also has a poor history with dam construction since 1949, having a higher number of dam failures than what was expected. Many causes but poor designs, botched surveys, bureaucratic blunders (side effects from central planing and Communist Rule,), and fraud (substandard materials used instead of good quality materials specified by skilled or credible architects and Engineers.

IT is not impossible that one morning, we might awaken to news that the Three Gorges Dam had a problem…

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, July 27, 2025 - 01:09 am: Edit

I don't think the U.S. would MOP Three Gorges.

For a long time, now, the U.S. has claimed that it only goes for military targets and tries to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties as much as possible.

86ing Three Gorges would be nothing more than an attack by a weapon of mass destruction, primarily against civilians.

That's why I think no U.S. Administration would seriously consider doing so.

Make sense?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 27, 2025 - 06:54 am: Edit

No.

Dams have been regularly targeted in both the twentieth and twenty first centuries.

From the Ruhr river Dams during World War 2 (see Dam busters, in PBS documentaries for details) to the Dams in North Korea during the Korean War (1950-4), as well as several Dams attacked during the Iran-Iraq War, and again in both Gulf War1 and2.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, July 27, 2025 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Like I said, if China pushes us too hard …

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, July 27, 2025 - 09:02 pm: Edit

I do remember reading about the one torpedo attack during the Korean War. If I remember correctly, it targeted sluice gates on a dam which, when blasted, triggered enough of a flood downstream to block Chinese troops who were about to overrun a U.S. Marine force.

There's a HUGE difference between that and an attack that could cause a hundred million civilian casualties downstream.

In the name of "Contingency Plans," yes, I suspect there probably is an attack plan for destroying Three Gorges. Then again, I think the Navy may have contingency plans on how to protect my Mother-in-Law from Japanese whalers.

The question is whether the U.S. military would be given the green light to execute that plan. I just can't see any administration doing so. Maybe I'm wrong, but like I said, the political consequences nowadays are far different from World War II.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 27, 2025 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Sigh.

“Those who do not learn from the mistakes in the past, are doomed to repeat them.

Again, No.

There were a number of attacks undertaken during the Korean War that targeted a number of dams. Not just the one dam targeted by torpedos.

Attacking Dams - Part II: The 1977 Additional Protocols ...Yes, several dams were attacked and/or destroyed during the Korean War. The most notable instances include the Hwachon Dam, Sui-ho Dam, and several irrigation dams. These attacks were part of a broader strategy to target North Korean infrastructure and disrupt their war effort.
Here's a more detailed look:
Hwachon Dam:
In May 1951, the US Navy conducted a torpedo attack on the Hwachon Dam, resulting in the destruction of one floodgate and damage to another, according to the U.S. Navy. This was the only instance of torpedoes being used in the Korean War.
Sui-ho Dam:
A series of air attacks targeted the Sui-ho Dam's hydroelectric generating facilities, starting in June 1952. These attacks were intended to pressure the stalled truce negotiations.
Irrigation Dams:
In May 1953, several North Korean irrigation dams were bombed, including the Toksan Dam, Chasan Dam, Kuwonga Dam, Namsi Dam, and Taechon Dam. The bombing of these dams led to flooding and significant damage to infrastructure and farmland.
General Impact:
The destruction of these dams, particularly the irrigation dams, caused widespread flooding and threatened millions of North Koreans with starvation. However, emergency assistance from China and the Soviet Union helped avert widespread famine.

In short, the U.S. military did in fact undertake military assaults clearly with the motive of starving the inhabitants of North Korea to put pressure on the government to force an end of the war.

So, yes, you are wrong.

The green light has not been given once, but on many occasions.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, July 27, 2025 - 09:47 pm: Edit

In other news, Peking Flooded. Reported by Rueters.

Two killed (confirmed dead.) thousands ordered to evacuate. The water ministry of the government has issued flood warnings to 11 provinces and regions of China.

This is just a result of torrential rains, imagine if the largest dams in China were targeted.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Fox news posted earlier today a profile video on the U.S. Air Force F-15ex.

The meat of the story was an upgrade an existing weapons system (M-151 unguided surface to surface missiles), that introduces modified vanes and an infrared guidance system that would allow each F-15ex to target up to 42 drones. (Not all at once), but six salvos of 7 missiles at a time at separate targets.

The missiles warhead is half the size of that of a sparrow missile with an explosive sphere of 30 feet, and a potential shrapnel area of effect up to 150 feet.

The cost of each missile, including guidance package upgrade is reported at $20,000.00 each.

The narrative of the story claimed that each F-15ex would be armed with up to 4 long range anti aircraft missiles ((range 100 nautical miles) 4x sparrow anti aircraft missiles (range 20 miles), and 42 very short range anti drone missiles.

A squadron of 12 F-15ex fighters could potentially target (12*50)=600 separate airborne targets.

Drone swarm? What drone swarm?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I haven't seen the Fox News video in question but there's stuff here that doesn't make any sense unless there's some unusual context you left out.

---

Quote:

... 4x sparrow anti aircraft missiles (range 20 miles)

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Also, it should be F-15EX, not F-15ex. And the M151 is not an "unguided surface to surface missiles". It is a specific type of warhead for the Hydra 70 unguided rocket, which is usually used in an air-to-surface mode.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 07:44 pm: Edit

The F15EX is a super bird with lots of missile rails. The dang thing is a missile truck, with more rails than anything flying or in SFB for that matter.

As Saddam Hussein said "I don't need air-to-air missiles. I need air-to-plane missiles."

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 09:40 pm: Edit

SVC, I've always heard the quote as Nasser saying: "I don't need ground to air missiles, I need ground to aircraft missiles".

But I suspect a substantial number of arab leaders have had some version of that quote attributed to them.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Alan, I can’t help you. I saw the clip one time, and it wasn’t repeated.

I can tell you it was short, and the captions all had the “F-15ex” with the last two letters in lower case.

I thought it odd, but posted it as it appeared.

I do apologize, at the time, it didn’t occur to me that there were so many errors.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 10:35 pm: Edit

That is why we keep Alan around. How many times at Origins have I said "this is what it looks like when I put professional military officers in charge."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 28, 2025 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Here are some links on topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6ZjoThRY9k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nopWRt1dH6M

https://www.foxnews.com/us/u-s-air-forces-new-f-15ex-breaks-key-records-threats-against-america-grow

https://www.yahoo.com/news/f-15ex-nails-pentagon-test-223132294.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALzEgV9ZJCQ7d6m3I6bPnadtSoZ1e50n_Ec6EvIqbcG471bRPO4e9AUxQXZRi-j8h427zxOdEa1gYYglg8FyNNJQ5gskZeYNRKfX3-zyfo0eMb4yusjZukgwxEg4hs7pdYfL3ZCzC2EOv_2wwUmmwnflwhtMKMQvp30Cob2giLfM

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 10:16 am: Edit

Cost of defense: $20K * 7 missiles * 12 fighters = $1.68 million.

Cost of 600 cheap-ass weapon drones (assuming the lowest end of $2000 per drone roughly): $2K * 6000 drones = $12 million.

This system, if it works and costs what is advertised, could very well work at the economy of scale.

I'll sleep a little better tonight.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 10:52 am: Edit

Ted

You might have misread the missile 'pod' - I read it that it holds 42 missiles at $20K a pop...

...or I might have misread it and it might be 6 shots for 20K.

But Destroying a $2K drone might cost $20K - plus or minis a missile killing 2+ drones which was in close proxity - or Missiles which miss their target (or two missiles kill the same drone).

Cerytainly - if 1 F15EX could take down 30+ drones, although the cost might be high - the defensive effect might well be worth it?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 11:12 am: Edit

Yes, you did misread it.

Each F-15EX , according to the now discredited report, was supposed to carry 42 of the small $20,000 missiles, each missile has infrared guidance.

The missiles supposedly could be fired in up to 6 salvos of 7 missiles in each salvo. (Each missile capable of engaging one target.)

In theory, if every missile hit its target, and further assuming a kill, a single F15-EX could destroy 42 drones on a single mission.

Multiply that by 12 fighters on the same mission, and you have a serious challeng for any drone using nation.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 12:04 pm: Edit

The report probably isn't wrong about everything. One of my best friends from my USAF days, who still works as a civilian contractor for USAF, has mentioned the program to put IR seekers on Hydra 70 rockets, to engage drone swarms. That part is probably correct.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Ah.

"Alas. Ear wax." -- Albus Dumbledore.

Obviously trading a $20K missile to destroy a $2K drone just isn't going to work long term.

OK on the report being discredited. However, if such a system (or a similar system) were to be developed, it would have its place. After all, I'd rather spend $12M to destroy 600 drones than see a $10B+ aircraft carrier damaged or destroyed.

However, long term, the cost of *reliably* being able to destroy drones at range has to be less than the cost of the drones.