RAF Dambusters, could we do it now, 2014?

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi guys, I have been looking at some of the remarkable footage of the Dambusters' Raids, and also some of the memorial flights. I have also flown over the Derwent Dam several times, and realise how tight a squeeze it would have been to fit a 4 engine airplane into that narrow valley.


But the thought occurred to me is that, is it possible, if ever the need occurred, for the 2014 RAF to do the same thing now.


I don't think we have any Heavy Lift Bombers, so perhaps an Airbus A320
would need to be modified to do the job. But with its higher stalling speed (than the Lanc.) it might be a difficult problem.


.

[Wander00]

How long would it take to modify one of the Lancasters - OK, hat, coat.....................

[cornish-stormrider]

wouldn't need to.

Single GR4 - (so best launch six) with a pair of guided weapons.
Slam em into the dry side - so a penetrating type with a bit of delayed action.


then off for tea and medals.
Hmmm - how big a bomb to trigger the Cumbre Vieja (sp) ???

[Dash8driver1312]

You mean instead of using Storm Shadow?

(Go have a look at some of the photos of the hardened emplacements Saddam had in Iraq to see what happens to reinforced concrete structures even 20 years ago...)

[The B Word]

Big picture alert - the smallest I could find!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/docs/sr-tlam2.jpg

[MAINJAFAD]

Current RAF Weapon of Choice would be BLU-109 Paveway III dropped from Tornado (if we have that type of warhead for PWIII), or if the US allowed us to have one, lob a GBU-57A/B 30000lbs Massive Ordnance Penetrator out of the back of a C-17, all done from high above the target thanks to GPS and Lasers. If memory serves, my first stay in a PFB on a HAS site had a list of weapons to be used by Tornados on a board in the planning cell. For a Dam, load out of 8 x 1000lb bombs. Of Course, bombing a dam has been a war crime for a number of years (due to the fact that the release of uncontrollable forces due to military action is goes totally against avoiding targeting civilians, same rule also applies to nuclear power stations).

[phiggsbroadband]

Ok so the modern thinking is not to use a bouncing bomb from 60ft agl and the cushioning effect of the water, but to rely upon the high kinetic energy of a weapon guided onto the dry side of the dam, and hope it makes more damage than a nicely drilled 2ft diameter round hole.


Just looking at some American ordnance, they have a GBU-28, then a bigger MOAB, then the 15 ton MOP, which could create the desired effect. All of which can be dropped from several tens of thousands of feet, so no low level flying required...


.

[Buster Hyman]

Now, if you were talking RAAF, I think either erosion or poor maintenance would be our best bet...

[500N]

Buster

No need to bomb the dam, the engineers cock up how much water they can hold prior to expected rain and have to do an emergency release anyway which floods everyone downstream include Brisbane :rolleyes:

[Evalu8ter]

Largely pointless debate, dams are now very hard to get approved as a target.

According to Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, “works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dikes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even when these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.”

- See more at: Crimes of War ? Dangerous Forces: Dams, Dikes, and Nuclear Stations (http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/dangerous-forces-dams-dikes-and-nuclear-stations/#sthash.gO0MrTkC.dpuf)

[Melchett01]

As MAINJAFAD said, you wouldn't be allowed to go after the dam itself. And in any case, why waste 8x 1000lb bombs on a damn when you can simply drop the pumping station with one or 2 and achieve the same sort of effect.

It's the same principle for a nuclear power station - leave the generators and drop foil on the transmission yard. You short the circuits, lights go out everywhere, but you don't the turn all the locals into instant enemies by denying them power permanently, just for as long as it takes to clean the yard up of foil, which should hopefully be sufficient time to get your job done.

So from a technical perspective, dropping a dam now would be relatively straight forward all things being equal. But these days subtlty is everything!

[MAINJAFAD]

Melchette, Foil is very 1943, last time the spams were known to have done the 'short the grid out' tactic, it was spools of Carbon Fiber lobbed out a Tomahawk TLAM-D. Of course you don't even need something that goes bang, a laser guided 1000lb lump of concrete will very easy make a transformer at the station's grid output go bang (and those thing do go bang if they get damaged, just like the one at a former camp where lack maintenance on one of the substations on camp did result in the thing quite literally going bang and no power on half the station for a number of days till it was replaced. ((Work Services Flight forgot to write HV-LV equipment maintenance into the works services contract).

[500N]

I seem to remember the US used concrete bombs on the Iraqis in 1991
and the French used them in Libya a few years back ?

[NutLoose]

Simply commission the MOD to do an upgrade on it... It will ultimately bankrupt Germany with cost overruns and delays, then the German Government will erect screens to prevent the public watching as they are forced to demolish them themselves.. Job done

[Buster Hyman]

namely dams, dikes and nuclear electrical generating stations
Phew! Sydney's safe then!

[Robert Cooper]

When I left it the RAF could do just about anything, but that was over 30 years ago!

Bob C

[Tashengurt]

Can't think it would make us very popular at the G8?


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android