LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAh ok, going by sea. I would have thought the 'immediacy' of the threat meant that they would fly it over... or is it too big for that?Originally Posted by kalniel
Ah ok, going by sea. I would have thought the 'immediacy' of the threat meant that they would fly it over... or is it too big for that?
I would imagine their THAAD system to be rather complex, their mobile truck based interceptors will be just part of the umbrella they need to deploy.
Sadly LockheadMartin don't state the operational range and effectiveness of these interceptors, but wikipedia puts it as around 200km. Guam is a lot further away than that.
It is likely these are being used to prevent smaller missile attacks on US bases, which is their stated goal, rather than defense against ICBMs. There aren't many THAADs thought to have been delivered yet, they are delicate things and can't simply be moved at a moments notice. These are after all military complexes, it isn't as if they are un-defended at present. The use of the THAAD system there is to provide protection from small skud like rockets, which few believe DPRK could fire with any real accuracy.
However the deployment of additional naval forces, which I believe are equiped with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLQ-32_..._Warfare_Suite according to public sorces, I would have thought, could impact the operational effectiveness of any mid range rocket.
The SLQ-32 is designed to be a brilliant jack of all trades for electronic warfare, from jamming to confusion.
The DPRK rocket program is considered to use primitive guidance and sensing technology, most likely lower frequency waves which curve round, allowing it to keep an adjustment on its telemetry. Trying to use gyroscopic systems or magnetic finding is considered impractical, firing the rocket blind and hoping it hits its target is too primitive even for DPRK. I would hope, and it is based on the hope that DPRK really are the bunch of technological back births they appear to be, that the US Navy wouldn't have much of a problem with their larger stuff.
Electronic warfare is a fascinating field, Americas realisation of the importance of it has directly contributed to the good stuff us geeks have today, see: http://steveblank.com/2009/03/23/if-...ilicon-valley/ for a great personal story about it!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Biscuit (04-04-2013)
People don't seem to understand that the ability to explode a nuclear device does not mean that NK has nuclear weapons or any nuclear capability. Even if NK had 5 "Little Boys", they still would have no offensive capability because you need an aircraft capable of carrying it and they don't have one. The only thing they could do would be to place the device close to the border and use it as a deterrent against invasion, but they don't even have that capability.
It's then 1000 times harder to miniaturise the weapon and integrate it on a reliable rocket system and then produce a warhead design that will survive re-entry. NK are nowhere near doing that so any talk about "nuking" anywhere outside NK is pie in the sky nonsense. Unfortunately people can only think in one dimension when the words "nuke" or "nukular" are used and that is ICBMs with multiple warheads able to hit anywhere on earth. It's a complete misnomer as is NK developing nuclear artillery shells or loading something in a 747/shipping container and destroying New York.
NK do not have nuclear weapons.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Actually I thought originally that most of the NK ballistic missiles were based on Scud technology.
It appears not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM25_Musudan
They could be mockups,but if not that that means they do have a viable launch vehicle even for conventional long range warheads or even chemical ones.
People tend to forget that NK has plenty of chemical weapons,which they could deploy using even unguided rockets. These don't need to be accurate.
well seeing as they have test fired/detonated 3 .. you need to have a closer look ..
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....
quiet easy to pop one or 2 into a cargo container and detonate in a harbour ..or even on a jet liner ..they still go boom and cause the effect they wanted ..
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....
Sorry but no, I really disagree.
The issue here is South Korea. America is safe, they don't have any realistic threat to them, nor us directly.
They have a few H-5s, the soviets converted some of theirs specialy to become short range nuclear attack bombers, I do not know what the H-5s the DPRK have, if they are as capable as the H5N, which are more than capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on a target as close as Soul. Granted you would be talking one little boy at most. They also have some Il-28s too.
Both can manage about 500 knots.
I doubt the DPRK would have difficulty in finding a pilot that would perform the mad one way trip. I can't find a non paywalled version of the airspace rules around the DMZ. But they are fairly lax, due in part, to the proximity of Seoul airport. The point is, does the south have a system which is fast enough to react, and actually works as intended? What would happen if there was some severe weather. It could take about 9 seconds for their fighter-bombers to cross over the DMZ....
What if they simply put a container ship, straight into the heart of Seoul and go for a groundburst!
The fear is, some people, such as General Kim, might be mad enough to do that. The question of what kind of weapon they have is unknown, estimates vary, wikipedia has a nice roundup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_K...ss_destruction
The idea of wiping Los Angeles off the map isn't very likely, however it is quite possible they could get Japan.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Interestingly,the NK MBTs are not as outdated as I suspect they would be too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokpung-ho
AFAIK,due to the terrain engagement ranges are shorter than say in the ME. OTH,the SK K1 is quite a modern tank,and is considered their version of the M1.
There are some threads on the KPA on militaryphotos.net:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...-s-Army-Thread
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ighlight=korea
The first especially has quite a few pictures of the weapons they have.
Although most of their equipment is old,they do seem to have some newer equipment too.
They appear to have RPO-A Shmel thermobaric rocket launchers,SA16/SA18 MANPADs and 9K115-2 Metis-M antitank weapons. The latter even penetrated the armour of Merkava MBTs which are among the best protected in the world.
Edit!!
They seem to have the Chinese version of the SA17 SAM,ie,the HQ-16:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
The effectiveness of those defenses though is questionable. The Wild Weasle flights in nam proved that you can't simply switch them on when you want.
US and ROK between them would be able to provide constant fighter strike coverage of such a small country whilst moving around by chopper?
The downside of any of those MANPADs is that for anything but close and slow targets (choppers) they aren't very effective unless its just a suicide mission.
The fact is that the US got lazy about electronic warfare in the 90s, but had learnt a bit by Iraq mk2, I still love this story (OT http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20209770).
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
csgohan4 (04-04-2013)
There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that NK have managed to produce a nuclear weapon that is deliverable by air. The yields produced from their first 3 tests were estimated to be 1Kt, 2-7Kt and 10Kt (although some have said as high as 40Kt), the latest test being in February of this year.
The IL-28/H-5 can only carry a maximum of 3,000kg in the bomb bay, in contrast a "little boy" weighed 4,400kg
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/h5.asp
If you type Uiju airfield into google earth you can see a large number of them just sat about rusting on the airfield which is just south of the border with China. Estimates have suggested they have 80 of this type, but there is no way they would have more than a handful capable of flight. Not to mention all the fuel spent on training aircrew to do the job etc, etc.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the US and China are monitoring NK, especially airbases in real time as we speak.
As to putting something in a container ship, this is just James Bond or Tom Clancy stuff.
You can play nuke Seoul with varying nuclear yields here. http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/2...roundZero.html
and here with fallout and thermal pressure http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Vietnam is NOT a good example to use!!
The US lost over 5000 rotary wing aircraft and over 2000 combat aircraft alone. Those aircraft were among the most advanced of the time,like the F4 and A5.
The Wild Weasel flights reduced losses,but still the losses were huge.
The problem is though MANPADs also have not just stood still too. Its the way things go.
You do realise the AH64 suffered quite a few badly damage or shot down during the second Gulf War,and it was down to light weapons.
In one engagement alone around 30 were serious damaged,by people with rpgs,1950s era AA guns and assault rifles. The US lists 129 helicopters shot down or crashed during their stay in Iraq,but does not list the helicopters were seriously damaged and had to be removed from service.
A lot of the helicopters in Vietnam probably were shot down by ground fire or RPGs. However,NK has something like 15000 MANPADs too.
The North Korean terrain is not like that of most of Iraq,and if anything is probably closer to what we see in Vietnam.
The other factor is that like in Vietnam,people are probably going to fight hard,unlike in Iraq where the armed forces just imploded and surrendered in mass numbers. It was only the Republican Guard ground units who actually did fight to the end.
Maybe the US could carpet bomb the whole area I suppose.
Moreover,you also are underestimating that the SA17/HQ-16 is some outdated system. It isn't,and even the Russians learned the lesson too when they lost a Tu22 bomber to one and a few ground attack aircraft to the same system when they fought Georgia.
They developed the system,and could not effectively jam it.
This is the very reason,Israel went and bombed the convoy in Syria. It was supposedly transporting SA17 systems into Lebanon.
I would expect the US and SK would try to target as many of the SA17/HQ-16 systems as soon as possible.
The US faced quite old missile systems and MANPADs during the first Gulf War. A number had already been compromised in the previous decade or so,by examples being captured by the Israelis and South Africans. The Serbian systems were even more out of date too.
Its very lucky for the US that the rest of the NK SAM system is based around older systems such as the SA2,SA3,SA5 and SA6 whose weaknesses are known.
The only issue,if the Chinese have updated these systems significantly.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 04-04-2013 at 07:19 PM.
That is the unmodified version thou? The Russians had a version designed for nuclear bombing. I don't know the specs it can take, but these things are not a hard limit such as the link suggests, having flown some older military planes I can tell you, these things are a graph. Also is that 3,000kg with the rear gun?
We are not talking about the plane having full utility category handling even, its a one way trip.
Granted they would need a perfect storm of events, failure of the ROK defenses, bad weather, operator error, but it is very realistically possible.I'm not starting to suggest they'd win in a dog fight, that they are highly trained or anything of the sort. They are so close, so near by, the difference between normal military training and aggression is so small.
I also don't think they would use it as a first strike. Because it would be far more successful if they had engaged the forces conventionally.
It's reminiscent of this: http://rense.com/general64/fore.htm he did nicely demonstrate the way to win with the US is to not engage them in a fair war, to maximise the amount of collateral damage they will have to inflict etc.
I'd have thought we were too, and the Japanese.... Luckily we've never had a failure of sigint... ever.
People had said the same about flying commercial jets in to buildings. It's so outlandish that a sizeable portion of Americans think it didn't really happen.
At the end of the day, the 9/11 incident didn't really create much direct loss. 4,000~ people dieing, if NY cared about that, they'd look to their healthcare. It was however, incredibly symbolic. DPRK getting any kind of aggression against ROK appears to have the same aim, be symbolic. Their last aggressions were not in any way masterful bits of strategic gain.
I'm not saying we need to pre-emptively nuke them either mind. Just that having a close eye is prudent, as is China securing the border. If we're very lucky they might just back down without any fight.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
The North Korean Air Force may operate the Mig29C which can carry nuclear weapons. The US bought the Moldovan ones,to stop Iran from acquiring them.
It has a short range,but in this case it is not really important.
Edit!!
They seem to operate a number of Mig29SE versions,which are similar to the ones sold to Malaysia.
These can carry 4000kg of weapons and are much more advanced than the Mig29B supplied to Iraq. It also has drop tank capability,and ground attack capability.
However,as with the H5 I don't think you could actually carry one weapon of such a large mass on one pylon.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 04-04-2013 at 07:38 PM.
you seriously have no idea do you.
a delivery system is one which allows the device to reach the target - you automatically assume `missile` or ` aircraft`; whereas the Russians had submarines and cargo containers (yes go look that one up - its called deniability)
Cat you know I would never use Vietnam as an example of a well fought war by the US! The thing is those numbers you've quoted are total, not from introduction of weasel stuff, what is really important is hours per plan lasted before and after. Also you need to remove some of the pilot error, a lot of deaths were due to that. A friend of mine lost his best man because he had the wrong FL. Another fondly remembers his friend (surving) a carrier landing going pete tong, he got away with mechanical error but admitted it was he who was to blame. The numbers of planes lost isn't really enough of an indicator. But did you read that guys story (or have you seen it before) its interesting stuff.
As for the H5, its not pylon in that configuration.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I do get where he is coming from, these are not the wepons of a jedi night, it is clumsy and random or unpredictable.
It is an excellent weapon of fear.
However with DPRK all bets are off. If its total war between the north and the south, my money is on the north. The south will need outside help (which they would probably get) to stand a chance, but also the north is used to hardship, its used to strife, it has been indoctrinated in such a fashion (ok I base this only on a couple of biographies of ex-DPRK/political prisoners).
The south isn't as tough, they have easy lives, they have a lot to loose. Someone who is barely able to feed themselves doesn't mind loosing their home, every possession and been forced to live in a state of total war for say 5 years. Someone who used to be an Architect does. The north would turn it in to a gorilla war. Even when armistice is in effect they don't give a toss about their citizens, they know how to survive on a diet of rat and wild plants, for some, it would be an improvement. If they want to move a column of infantry across a mine field, its not a problem.
The south isn't as likely to have this functionality.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote