How to deal with NK artillery?

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Le Chef, Aug 11, 2017.

  1. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    10,661
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They don't need a navy to shoot the US navy in front of the NK coast.
     
  2. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well I don't know about all that, but I don't think the Chinese are very enamored with little Kim. I don't think they really care if the US does something about Kim's nuclear program, as long as we don't try to reunify the two Koreas. I think the Chinese would fight to prevent reunification from happening, but I don't think they will fight on NK's behalf otherwise.
     
  3. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, now the NOKO or the Chinamen don't need a navy. Do they have a genie in a bottle? Look at the map and tell me how this works. With airpower, you'd fly into the teeth of ground based aircraft. You'd need targeting for cruise missiles and they're vulnerable to being shot down. The USN has had years of experience dealing with missile swarms. Tell me how this works besides wishful thinking?
     
    MMC likes this.
  4. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The the Chinamen need to get rid of the goofy little fat boy and put their own guy in place.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  5. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    10,661
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You got the US army all over South Korea, to even at the border of North Korea. So it doesn't sound true one bit that North Korea may not retaliate against South Korea. Besides, Nagasaki got nuked by the US. A civilian target. And Seoul with all it's governmental agencies as no doubt also plenty of military headquarters... dunno why NK may not do what the US did and still is perfectly fine with that they did it.

    Not even the war against Iraq, which had a real smal army, in a flat desert like environment, lasted real quick. The North Korean army is utterly and utterly massive, in a mostly forest and mountainous environment.
     
  6. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agree. Now that would be what a leading world nation should do if they regard themselves as such.
     
    QLB likes this.
  7. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What? The Iraqi army was huge. Ever been to Korea? It's full of chokepoints. You can try to flank over the hills, but it becomes a light infantry fight when you move past your artillery support, which btw is mostly towed and vulnerable. It means after 3 days it's only what you can carry on your back. The NOKO's don't have a helicopter force worth mentioning so just how do they resupply?
     
    MMC likes this.
  8. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no equivalence between the US nuclear attacks on Japan in WW2 and this situation we are facing today. Those attacks in WW2 were not "in retaliation". Those attacks were specifically made to end the war. After the first attack, the US asked for Japan's surrender. The second attack came after Japan's refusal to surrender. After the second attack, they surrendered. The two countries were already engaged in a long, bloody, full-scale war, and the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended it, saving millions of lives of both Americans and Japanese.

    By contrast, a devastating artillery attack upon a major civilian center like Seoul in response to a limited attack on NK's nuclear assets would be an escalation of war, not an end to it. The vast majority of casualties would serve no military purpose; they would just be mass murder for the sake of mass murder and revenge. I would expect the United States to put an end to that immediately, using the same moral authority it used to put an end to WW2 and using similar weapons to do it.

    I would expect that US actions, if taken, would not really involve a long drawn out war against the NK army. I would expect the US would carry out a limited attack designed to end the nuclear threat to our country and others, and this attack would come from the air, not the ground. If NK attempted to invade the South with its army, I would expect the US to end NK's ability to fight overnight using the power we possess to do that. I would expect the US to explicitly warn NK of this outcome at the time.
     
  9. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    23,681
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Our ships will be operating far off the coast. So China wont have that chance. N Korea wont have a chance either.
     
  10. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    23,681
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ;)



    What the U.S. Would Use to Strike North Korea
    .....

    No other country can match the United States when it comes to projection of power. Should Washington decide to carry out a military strike against North Korea, even a limited one, the immediate impact would be devastating for Pyongyang. When considering military action, however, it is important to acknowledge the variables and intelligence gaps that inevitably complicate political and military decision-making. Even with the United States' advantage in training, coordination and equipment, complicating factors and uncertainty about the exact locations and dispositions of North Korean assets make complete mission success far from assured.

    It is important to consider the parameters of any operation; in this case, we are basing our assumptions on a scenario in which the United States conducts a limited, stealthy attack using a small number of specialized platforms and weapons systems. The United States has enormous force projection and deep-strike capabilities. In a surprise attack scenario, the primary tools for the task would be stealth aircraft and standoff cruise missiles launched from ships and submarines.

    The North Koreans have a dense and interlocked air defense network, but the force is obsolete and largely incapable of adequately defending against or even detecting full-spectrum stealth aircraft such as the U.S. B-2 bomber and F-22 tactical fighter. Because of their unique properties, these expensive, stealthy platforms would form the backbone of any anti-nuclear operations. Given enough time, the United States could assemble upward of 10 B-2 bombers for a deep-strike mission into North Korea. The shorter combat radius of the F-22 would limit the number of aircraft available for the task, necessitating the deployment of the fighter to regional airfields. This in turn could alert Pyongyang to upcoming offensive operations. Using airfields in Japan and South Korea and operating under a highly restrictive operational security environment, the U.S. Air Force could probably deploy 24 F-22 aircraft for the mission, remaining fairly confident that undue suspicions were not raised in the process.

    Each F-22 can be equipped with two 450-kilogram (1,000 pounds) GBU-32 JDAM bombs. The F-22 can actually carry a larger number of small diameter bombs instead of the bigger GBU-32, but the nature of the mission calls for more explosive heft. Unlike the multipurpose F-22, the B-2 Spirit is a designated bomber and can carry a lot more explosive weight per plane. Each B-2 would deploy with either 16 900-kilogram GBU-31 JDAMs or a pair of massive 13,600-kilogram GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators to reach deep underground bunkers.

    In addition to the guided bombs dropped by U.S. stealth aircraft, the United States can rely on large numbers of venerable BGM-109 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles to fly in on the heels of the stealth aircraft and strike remaining targets. For the mission, the U.S. Navy (with enough time to prepare) can surreptitiously park two of its four Ohio-class cruise missile submarines off the North Korean coast. Together, these submarines can deploy more than 300 BGM-109 missiles. When combined with destroyers and cruisers from the 7th Fleet already in the area, the United States could use more than 600 cruise missiles for the mission......snip~

    https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/what-us-would-use-strike-north-korea
     
    Baff likes this.
  11. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    23,681
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  12. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,009
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  13. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    MMC likes this.
  14. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,009
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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
     
  15. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,009
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83

    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
  16. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's within the parameters of the missile. Besides the US got ahold the ballistic version of the missile from the Saudi's.
     
  17. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,009
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
    MMC likes this.
  18. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    23,681
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    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/
     
  19. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,093
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    MMC likes this.
  20. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    3,009
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017

Share This Page