How to deal with NK artillery?

The Strike
With a force of 10 Massive Ordnance Penetrators and 80 900-kilogram GBU-31 JDAMs, the U.S. B-2 bombers alone are more than enough to dismantle or at least severely damage North Korea's known nuclear production infrastructure, as well as associated nuclear weapons storage sites.

The effectiveness of the B-2 first wave would enable the 24 F-22 fighters — and the wave of 600 or so cruise missiles sharing the skies — to focus on destroying North Korea's delivery vehicles. A single good hit from a JDAM or cruise missile is enough to knock out the nascent sea-based leg of North Korea's defensive triad. Hammering the Uiju and Changjin-up air bases, where North Korean H-5 bombers are based, would further reduce Pyongyang's most likely air delivery force for a nuclear weapon.

The most difficult target to eliminate when it comes to delivery vehicles is the missile forces. North Korea has a fleet of approximately 200 transporter erector launchers (TEL) of varying size and type spread out across the country, so the intelligence picture would have to be very accurate. With enough information, however, the United States still has more than enough firepower in a single strike to severely reduce North Korea's TEL inventory.

Even with a severely restricted intelligence picture, we can still make some pertinent observations. Most significant is that, unlike the Iranian nuclear program, the North Koreans in this evaluation are already known to possess nuclear weapons or at least weaponized devices. The destruction of North Korea's nuclear infrastructure is hardly enough to remove the deterrent. Therefore, though the United States can be reasonably certain of its ability to destroy the nuclear infrastructure in a single strike, it would require an extremely accurate intelligence picture — far beyond what is likely — for Washington to be reasonably certain of having hit and destroyed all available weapons and delivery vehicles. The longer the North Korean program evolves, the more this becomes a reality. Realistically, absent the use of nuclear weapons or the invasion and occupation of North Korea, the United States and its allies are already at a point where they cannot guarantee the complete removal of the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack......snip~

https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/what-us-would-use-strike-north-korea

If the US strikes.....its going to be massive. Lil Kim just has no idea. All of this takes place as the 18th Wing out of Japan, plus whatever airpower from at least 2 Carrier Strike Groups takes apart Lil Kims Anti Air & Artillery. Which doesn't count anything the S Koreans do. Nor our own Artillery in S Korea. Nor any attacks with Apache and Cobra Helicopters.

 

China has ballistic ship buster missiles.

It think they call them DF 21.

Essentially SCUDs. Very long range ship killing weapons.
The guidance system is the Russian made Sunburn system.
It's like an Exocet guidance system. It dodges and does all that clever stuff.

I've seen the test results of it against a static ship sized target, but nothing of vs a moving one.
This missile is currently too fast for any known anti missile system.
If it does as claimed, that missile alone, makes them the dominant Navy in the world in terms of naval conflict. Ship vs ship or land vs ship.

Outside of that the Kittyhawk Incident has demonstrated to the world in no uncertain terms that Chinese diesel subs are a match for any US carrier group.

I don't think we can successfully counter their threat.

Carriers are notoriously pants vs subs.


Numercially they are not that far from the USN in terms of subs and surface vessels, but I don't feel their navies do much for force projection. Aircraft carriers, marine landing ships.
They don't seem to have developed an expeditionary force capability.

Naval battles are few and far between in history. And ships are very expensive.
So the arms race moves slow.

With the usual stupid caveat of "as long as it doesn't go nuclear", if I had to choose, I'd choose China to win. That missile, is a game changer.

The sub threat has been there since Battle of the Atlantic.
We've known subs find big old carriers really easy to sink from the first time we put one up against the other. And the lost it in the first week and damn near lost another at the same time.
And so you will see Russian Navy development to have been sub heavy. Built to exploit that weakness.

The Chinese have done the same, and so have the North Koreans.
North Korean sub, (they have 50!) look to me like rejects from WW2.
I can't say they fill me full of dread.

But they are dangerous. That much we know. They sunk the Cheonan, probably with the loss of all hands.
So they present a strategic threat to any seaborne invasion or naval air assault.

So a sub war should be expected before any naval led assault gets underway.
When you start seeing the sub hunting begin. No matter what Trump does or doesn't say, invasion is imminent.

It's the very first hurdle they face.

 

Performance is heresy and you can only maneuver a ballistic warhead so much. The new laser system of the USN makes this thing DOA. Besides, with speed of only mach 5 it's vulnerable to advanced Aegis missiles. It also must get precise targeting information. Otherwise it's simply a ballistic missile.

 

It is absolutely nothing like within the norm of the US.

Seen only once in history despite numerous wars.
The US are nice people mate. You won't face a nicer enemy.

They aren't the Nazi's they aren't the Japs. They aren't the Chinese, the Russians or the Libyans.
They are in a very civilised league indeed.

They had a nuke last time round, their General asked them to use it and they said "no".
And since Nagasaki every day of history has been a day in which America has not nuked anyone, but could have if they wanted to

 

Aegis can hit it?

That's not the opinion of the USN.

I'll dig you some newspaper link. But essentially they reported to Congress that they had no defence against it.


While looking for that I found this article on the latest pentagon appraisal on the PLA Navy.
Interesting read.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

 

It's within the parameters of the missile. Besides the US got ahold the ballistic version of the missile from the Saudi's.

 

Now we are talking, I think you over estimate stealth myself, but I think you have the right idea about who is Goliath here.
Stealth it think has had it's day. It was a secret weapon but that weapon is now out, and Russian aircraft have been up close to F22, so they have their radar profile anyway.

North Korea loses this war and loses it bad. and even if it wins any kind of strategic goal at all, the price it will pay to do so means it has lost.
This is a no win scenario for NK.
The optimum result they can play for is not being attacked for a bit longer.

America will rip the **** out of them. Chew them up in the grinder.
None the less North Korea is a hard target. Not to be underestimated.

 

Possibly....in terminal phase.


How to Kill China's 'Carrier-Killer' Missile: Jam, Spoof and Shoot....

China has developed a missile that would turn an aircraft carrier into a two-billion-dollar hulk of twisted metal, flame, and dead sailors. Publicly, the U.S. Navy downplays its importance. Privately, the sailors are working out several different options to kill it before it kills them.

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy's top officer, explained to reporters during a Friday breakfast meeting that the Navy has ways of exploiting some of the DF-21D missile's formidable technical capabilities, even before opening fire and praying.

"You want to spoof them, preclude detection, jam them, shoot them down if possible, get them to termination, confuse it," Greenert said. "The concept is end-to-end, and the capabilities therein [are] what we're pursuing".

"If whatever is launched has a seeker, can you jam it?" Greenert mused. "Yes, no, maybe so? What would it take to jam it?" For now, that's a job for the flying, jamming Growlers which messed with Moammar Gadhafi's anti-aircraft systems in Libya last year. Later on, the Navy will have a next-generation jammer, also built onto some of its jets, which it wants to use to infect enemy systems with malware. Alternatively or in supplement, the strike group would go radio silent, to stop the missile from homing in on its electronic emissions.

Then comes the "more popular" part, Greenert said: shooting the missile down. The Aegis missile-defense cruisers included in an aircraft carrier strike group would be tasked with that over the next decade. Afterward, the Navy wants to use giant shipboard lasersto burn through incoming missiles. But it's by no means clear the Navy really can clear all the technological obstacles to oceanic laser warfare by its mid-2020s deadline.

And shooting down this new missile isn't a guaranteed proposition. "When do you have to engage it? On the way up? Mid-course? Terminal?" Greenert said.

His answer: all of the above. "We call it links of a chain," Greenert said. "We want to break as many links as possible." Navy weapons have to be ready to disable the DF-21D – either through jamming it or shooting it – during "all" phases of its trajectory.

There's also something that Greenert didn't mention: he has time on his side.

The Navy conceded in December 2010 that the DF-21D had reached "initial operating capability." But its intelligence chief quickly added that blowing up a carrier is still past China's means. Hitting a moving object is difficult. Testing the thing at sea is too. Then China needs to integrate the missile into its general surface warfare plans. And after all that come the countermeasures Greenert outlined. Solving all that takes time.....snip~

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/killing-chinas-carrier-killer/

 

The USN in the 80's could defend against mass missile attack from the AS-4 that had a speed of over Mach 4. I don't see this a huge threat.

 

I'll take your word for it, but I have no faith in these at all.
I don't think you can shoot down dick.

We use your point defences against incoming mortars. Iron Dome does the same.
Your Patriot doesn't work at all. THAAD is just a long range Patriot, so that's useless.

And essentially I call this a placebo defence.
Makes us feel safe to think missiles can't hurt us.

We designed this stuff and we tested in the Falklands under real naval warfare conditions. It was just ****. It didn't work.

The Russians have anti missiles for their tanks. Again, seen the tests, it works in test conditions, but no confidence in that either.
THAAD don't even work well in test conditions.
Patriot and THAAD are unsellable. no one wants them unless they are free, Aegis, you might have sold some the Japs.
So I'm a little more optimistic about Aegis. But I have no examples of it being tested or working in action to offer. And given Patriot, and THAAD, I'm inclined to think it doesn't work either. Or they would never have made Patriot or THAAD.

They shot a satellite down with one. So it can do that.

 

China has this missile.....a Submarine launched missile. Unlike their landbased DF21.




China’s supersonic ship-killing missile makes U.S. Navy’s job riskier.....

A new report to the U.S. Congress assessing a Chinese submarine-launched missile known as the YJ-18 highlights the danger, noting the missile accelerates to supersonic speed just before hitting its target, making it harder for a crew to defend their ship.

Defence chiefs from several countries in Southeast Asia have warned in recent months of the danger of undersea “clutter” as countries build up submarine fleets and the U.S. challenges China over its claim to a large swath of the South China Sea. This week’s U.S. patrol inside the 12-nautical mile zone that China claims around its man-made islands in the waters saw the USS Lassen shadowed by two Chinese naval vessels.

The YJ-18 missile can cruise at about 600 miles an hour, or just under the speed of sound, only a few metres above the surface of the sea and then, about 20 nautical miles from its target, accelerate to as much as three times the speed of sound, according to an Oct. 28 report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

“The supersonic speed makes it harder to hit with on-board guns,” according to commission Chairman Larry Wortzel. “It also makes it a faster target for radars.”

The YJ-18’s speed and long range, as well as its wide deployment “could have serious implications for the ability of U.S. Navy surface ships to operate freely in the Western Pacific” in the event of a conflict, the commission found......snip~

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...lling-missile-makes-us-navys-job-riskier.html

 

They work just fine. The Falklands was a very long time ago. The Brit stuff certainly didn't work.

 

So I the weakness of the DF21, the DF 26 is nor all that bull about Americans being able to shoot it down, and decoying it is something I hadn't considered but like the sound of it.
Obviously if they detect one of those they will be chucking every thing they have at it.

Jamming it at all stages? Meh. A likely story.
Jamming plus decoy, getting somewhere. Jam radar decoy optical sensors.

But mainly they have seconds to do all this from the moment of detection. Not enough to respond. Blip on the RADAR "what's that?"
That is.. MACH five so five miles per second... 80 miles detection range.. 16 seconds to impact.
You can't do ****. The hatch on your missile tube takes longer to open and the guy detecting it takes longer than that to pass the information to the missile man.

To combat Exocet we used a lot of Chaff. Radar decoy screens. They worked best for us. We didn't shoot anything down. Missed every time. And yes that was a long time ago and things have changed, you will not be facing Exocets any more either.

The weakness in the link for this missile is enemy detection. Not by the missile itself when it arrives over the target area, but choosing which target area to send it too. So it might have a gazillion mile range, but wher inthat gazillion miles is and enemy ship going to be?
Think "Battleships" the kids game. So you still need to hunt the fleet and for that a satellite will do the trick if it's not cloudy. Or hacked. Or shot down.
So there is still some cat and mouse action to be had in all this. "In range" doesn't mean autosunk.

 

And then we sold it to you.
And it still doesn't work.

You may notice those of us who have tried it, are not interested in buying it.
We do use the point defences on land vs mortars.

Falklands war is quite recent in naval terms. A good number of ships in your fleet will pre-date this war.
It's also the most recent naval conflict in history. The best model for comparison available and as state of the art as naval warfare has ever been.

Outside of that you are probably going back to WW2 for naval tactics.

 

What did you sell to us?

 

@MMC I think you can launch DF 21 from a Chinese ballistic missile submarine.
It's the same old missile as all the others, only the guidance system has changed.

 

Our Naval tech. Anti missile.
Or rather we all developed it together if you prefer to think of it that way.

Tried it, useless.
Sea Dart? Sea Arrow?
Crap. You have it.

 

Not so. The Sea Dart, however did well and had 7 confirmed kills in the Falklands considering it was a new system. The Sea Cat not so well. The USN was not involved in either project.

 

7 confirmed kills of what?
Most ships sunk were equipped with one. Work it out.

Big ****ing holes in the sides of those that weren't sunk. Bag of **** mate. Evolutionary dead end.

Placebo defence doesn't work when you know it is a placebo.
We can't use it any more. Seeing is believeing and we've seen.

Your missile defences are made by Raytheon. Raytheon bought the tech from Hawker Siddley, the makers of Sea Dart and Sea Arrow. And it is pants. We have tried it ourselves in battle. It did not do what it said on the tin.
This made us all quite angry as we had been led to expect something different. And people I like died.

If you can show me evidence of any of your anti missiles systems working in action I'm keen to see. But seeing is believing.

And I haven't seen and I don't believe.
All I've seen is tall stories followed by failures.

By far the most impressive one I've seen is Iron Dome.
That's probably a Ratheon job.

 

Aircraft. That's confirmed and there may have been 3 or more others. Pretty good considering the system was not designed for ultra low level or point defense. The Sea Cat was an abject failure. Most ships were not equipped with the Sea Dart and the smaller frigates like the Antelope certainly weren't.

 

Their YJ 18 is their Sea Based missile to take out ships. The DF 21 can be put in mobile launches and moved around. They haven't reported that they were able to convert it for launches from subs or ships.




It bears emphasis that Chinese carrier-killing capabilities constitute a system of systems, not dependent upon any particular weapon. The rest of China’s system of systems includes nuclear and conventional submarines, medium and long range strike aircraft, surface warships, and land-based cruise missile installations. These platforms can launch a wide array of weapons, most importantly China’s vast arsenal of cruise missiles.

In sufficient numbers, all of these can threaten to kill a carrier. In a shooting war we could expect China to use all of these systems, or to graduate their use depending on political and military developments. Some of these are more easily countered than others, while some pose greater costs to the Chinese. For example, any surface ship launching a cruise missile at a USN carrier group can likely expect quick destruction. Similarly, both aircraft and submarines would face a high rate of attrition while making attacks on US ships and installations.

ASBMs have some obvious advantages over these other systems. Operating from land bases, the DF-21D can strike carrier groups at greater range (1000+ miles) than any cruise missile. US air defense systems were designed to defend against Soviet cruise missile attacks, but a ballistic missile attack is a different prospect entirely. While the US can strike land bases, China can defend these targets more heavily through active and passive measures that it can protect relatively fragile ships and aircraft.....snip~

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/should-america-fear-chinas-carrier-killer-missile-11321

 

As I understand it. Not a single aircraft was shot down by anything except Harriers armed with Sidewinders.

Chaff. The best defence we had against missile attack turned out to be chaff. It worked.

 

Not true at all. The SeaWolf system had two confirmed kills and was only deployed upon two ships. It was a brand new system that had significant technical difficulties. Another year or two and systems would have been very deadly.

 

In WWII? There were US Marine security elements on battleships & carriers, & a couple of these were in support of Normandy. The Marines raised 6 divisions, which were committed to the PTO. There were no Marine ground troops in ETO. This stuff is easy to look up.

 

You know who actually has a lot of experience in dealing with incoming missiles? Israel has it. And Hamas, Hezbollah and Iraq were all successful with hitting Israel with low tech to 2nd class Iranian obsolete junk. Now... I'm having a wild guess here,.. but I think China is WAAAY much better equipped than Hezbollah, while I doubt the US kept a utterly massive weapon upgrade for themselves and just shrugged it of when Israel got hit.