Strike on North Korea - Page 2

Jimbuna · 06-21-17, 05:18 AM

Threads merged.

Delgard · 10-12-17, 08:48 PM

I believe the continental U.S. has fielded 4 x squadrons already. I read in the spring that Japan had received the first few of their order.

As to policies and plans, I'm sure their are very senior governmental/military officials that provide experienced analytical recommendations based upon sets of conditions/events; someone has them in a book. Whether they are followed really depends on the person/small group making the decisions.

It would be foolish not to contemplate a set of variables to go along with potential events. Otherwise, it would take the decision-maker to long to get input based on valued thoughts.

Someone has a big fat binder. The decision-maker just has to find the opinions that match the events that are happening.

Getting those opinions to the decision-maker would be to hard if someone knocked out all of our communications with an EMP burst.

The picture below could very well be a fake. It happens with many countries that are just trying to puff out their shirt.

ikalugin · 10-13-17, 01:41 AM

Squadrons of what? GBIs?

If we use the following assumptions:
- conservative view of US BMD (vs say Russian alarmist one)
- estimate of DPRK ICBM based on the known R36 series performance but adjusted for number of engines.

We would see that H-14 could carry 2-3 RVs, if developed to the Soviet 80s technology, which they may have acquired from disgrunted Ukrainian enginiers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/w...ype=collection). Then we would notice that in order to defeat 40-48 GBIs and deliver the minimal deterence criteria they would need only 20-16 ICBMs, which I would guess is within their capacity to produce.

Oberon · 10-13-17, 05:45 AM

MIRVs are definitely on their to-do list, but I don't think they're there just yet, the Hwasong-14 is supposedly designed for a 'heavy payload', so MIRVing it is not out of the question, but I think by the time they've gone into MIRV technology they will probably have moved beyond the Hwasong-14 and gone into a cold launch solid fueled ICBM of some description.

What concerns me about Russia and missile interception is that Russia has so far misidentified most of the DPRKs launches, insisting that they haven't launched an ICBM yet. Now either they're doing this for political reasons, or their radar coverage of the DPRK isn't that good. Which makes one worry that if they miss any launch from the DPRK that the Alaskan GMD intercepts then all Russia is going to see is a load of ICBM like launches from Alaska that are going to land on Russia.

Delgard · 10-13-17, 06:42 AM

4 Squadrons of F-35 aircraft.

ikalugin · 10-13-17, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgard

4 Squadrons of F-35 aircraft.

Sorry, I do not follow how JSFs are related to the problem.

ikalugin · 10-13-17, 07:55 AM

Oberon, the heaviest MIRVed ICBMs were always liquid fuelled ones.

All things considered they may be interested in ICBMs with storable liquid fuels due to how those are most efficient in terms of throw weight. For example Russia, despite mastering solid fuel MIRVed ICBMs (such as Yars) is still desighning a new generation liqiud fuel ICBM - Sarmat.

BMD stuff is not a significant issue in my opinion, as the BMD sites are well known and are covered by two EW systems, the EW radars and the new EW sats. While the sat force did suffer attrition, with the gap in capability occuring (2014?) it is now back to minimal capability (with more launches to go) and coverage of two nodes - Pacific and Atlantic from HEOs.
Specifically we have deployed new radar stations on Eastern direction, to improve EW in that direction:

You can read more here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/eks-network.html
http://russianforces.org/sprn/

Delgard · 10-13-17, 08:14 AM

Someone mentioned about the JSF being operationally deployed. I am not as sure how many have moved from the assembly line to European buyers, but Japan is hot for them. Japan is quickly wearing out their F15/F16s just reacting to Chinese patrols.

I am not sure where S. Korea stands in the acquisition flow, but for my thinking, they may not see as much of a need at this point in having to deal with N. Korean air threats.

The Chinese are pushing for a blue water capability and the Japanese Archipelago really blocks them from getting into the Pacific. I did hear that China has "made" itself a corridor over/between small Japanese islands and Japan is pissed about it. But, what can they do?

Getting back to the JSF, at this point there may be 5 or 6 squadrons in the U.S. Most likely assigned around the U.S. perimeter. I do think Alaska, Virgina, and Tucson have squadrons, but not sure of the rest.

Delgard · 10-15-17, 06:43 PM

But will the firing of another missile over Japan prompt a response? What will cross the Trump line, the Chinese line, what about the world line.

As to a single Seal Team, There are about 6-700 SOF personnel in the immediate area. But, at this point they don't do squiddley when nukes are considered.

It is about gamesmanship.

Gerald · 11-14-17, 01:58 PM

Quote:

A North Korean who defected at the heavily guarded Demilitarised Zone was shot at least five times and is in a critical condition, South Korea says.
The soldier crossed to the South Korean side of the Joint Security Area (JSA) in the village of Panmunjom on Monday.
He had driven near the JSA, but had to finish his journey by foot when a wheel came loose, the South said.
North Korean troops shot at him 40 times - but he made it across and was found under a pile of leaves, it added.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41979423

Jimbuna · 11-14-17, 02:29 PM

^Above thread merged to the already existing thread regarding NK.

ikalugin · 11-21-17, 03:53 AM

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...-Authority.pdf
This document mentions Nixon, but amongst others from that organisation and FAS states that there are no checks and balances in the US C3 system for nuclear use.

Which incidentally leads to suggestions such as this:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/safeguar...dures-proposal

Delgard · 11-21-17, 08:20 AM

Things can change rather quickly with leadership changes. Passive or aggressive positions by a leader are built into the system so that nothing extreme occurs in either direction.

The past, up until this moment, teaches us that crisis management is...managed.

Rather a general statement, but experience does teach us. We just don't always hear about those management steps that occur. The STRATCOM CDR statement is a rare public exposure to a small corner of the management program involved.

I expect that the General, in question, will be reviewed and appropriately managed as his seniors see fit. Like all things about the management program involved it probably will not be as public as some will want; good or bad.

ikalugin · 11-21-17, 08:33 AM

I think that improving the C3 and/or moving to 2nd strike only policy would be a good policy for US, considering US conventional superiority.

HerrRitter · 05-26-18, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gargamel

From the subsim frontpage:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-na...h-korea-2017-3

My initial reaction is that of course we should have plans in place for most foreseeable scenarios. This one is looking more and more relevant as time passes.

But then the f-35's got me. I was under the impression these were not in active service yet, but perhaps I'm wrong. I can see a few being used in a training exercise, but not on actual missions yet. Seems more of an F-22 thing anyways. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The F-35 is, indeed, in service. The problem that I have with this fighter is that they tried to create an aircraft that does everything. But according to an F-35 pilot that I talked to, it does, indeed, do everything, but does nothing really well.

A ... ahem ... former President decided that the United States did not need an Air Superiority fighter, and so he cancelled the F-22. Those that were already built are still in service, but there aren't enough of them. My opinion is that they should start up the F-22 program, again, and keep the Aardvarks flying for ground support (the plane is the most survivable aircraft in our inventory).

06-21-17, 05:18 AM	#1
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,552 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Threads merged. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

10-13-17, 01:41 AM	#3
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Squadrons of what? GBIs? If we use the following assumptions: - conservative view of US BMD (vs say Russian alarmist one) - estimate of DPRK ICBM based on the known R36 series performance but adjusted for number of engines. We would see that H-14 could carry 2-3 RVs, if developed to the Soviet 80s technology, which they may have acquired from disgrunted Ukrainian enginiers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/w...ype=collection). Then we would notice that in order to defeat 40-48 GBIs and deliver the minimal deterence criteria they would need only 20-16 ICBMs, which I would guess is within their capacity to produce. __________________ Grumpy as always. Last edited by ikalugin; 10-13-17 at 01:49 AM.

10-13-17, 07:55 AM	#7
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Oberon, the heaviest MIRVed ICBMs were always liquid fuelled ones. All things considered they may be interested in ICBMs with storable liquid fuels due to how those are most efficient in terms of throw weight. For example Russia, despite mastering solid fuel MIRVed ICBMs (such as Yars) is still desighning a new generation liqiud fuel ICBM - Sarmat. BMD stuff is not a significant issue in my opinion, as the BMD sites are well known and are covered by two EW systems, the EW radars and the new EW sats. While the sat force did suffer attrition, with the gap in capability occuring (2014?) it is now back to minimal capability (with more launches to go) and coverage of two nodes - Pacific and Atlantic from HEOs. Specifically we have deployed new radar stations on Eastern direction, to improve EW in that direction: You can read more here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/eks-network.html http://russianforces.org/sprn/ __________________ Grumpy as always. Last edited by ikalugin; 10-13-17 at 08:07 AM.

11-14-17, 02:29 PM	#11
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,552 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	^Above thread merged to the already existing thread regarding NK. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

11-21-17, 03:53 AM	#12
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...-Authority.pdf This document mentions Nixon, but amongst others from that organisation and FAS states that there are no checks and balances in the US C3 system for nuclear use. Which incidentally leads to suggestions such as this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/safeguar...dures-proposal __________________ Grumpy as always. Last edited by ikalugin; 11-21-17 at 04:04 AM.

10-12-17, 08:48 PM	#2
Delgard Captain Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	I believe the continental U.S. has fielded 4 x squadrons already. I read in the spring that Japan had received the first few of their order. As to policies and plans, I'm sure their are very senior governmental/military officials that provide experienced analytical recommendations based upon sets of conditions/events; someone has them in a book. Whether they are followed really depends on the person/small group making the decisions. It would be foolish not to contemplate a set of variables to go along with potential events. Otherwise, it would take the decision-maker to long to get input based on valued thoughts. Someone has a big fat binder. The decision-maker just has to find the opinions that match the events that are happening. Getting those opinions to the decision-maker would be to hard if someone knocked out all of our communications with an EMP burst. The picture below could very well be a fake. It happens with many countries that are just trying to puff out their shirt.

10-13-17, 05:45 AM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	MIRVs are definitely on their to-do list, but I don't think they're there just yet, the Hwasong-14 is supposedly designed for a 'heavy payload', so MIRVing it is not out of the question, but I think by the time they've gone into MIRV technology they will probably have moved beyond the Hwasong-14 and gone into a cold launch solid fueled ICBM of some description. What concerns me about Russia and missile interception is that Russia has so far misidentified most of the DPRKs launches, insisting that they haven't launched an ICBM yet. Now either they're doing this for political reasons, or their radar coverage of the DPRK isn't that good. Which makes one worry that if they miss any launch from the DPRK that the Alaskan GMD intercepts then all Russia is going to see is a load of ICBM like launches from Alaska that are going to land on Russia.

10-13-17, 06:42 AM	#5
Delgard Captain Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	4 Squadrons of F-35 aircraft.

10-13-17, 08:14 AM	#8
Delgard Captain Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	Someone mentioned about the JSF being operationally deployed. I am not as sure how many have moved from the assembly line to European buyers, but Japan is hot for them. Japan is quickly wearing out their F15/F16s just reacting to Chinese patrols. I am not sure where S. Korea stands in the acquisition flow, but for my thinking, they may not see as much of a need at this point in having to deal with N. Korean air threats. The Chinese are pushing for a blue water capability and the Japanese Archipelago really blocks them from getting into the Pacific. I did hear that China has "made" itself a corridor over/between small Japanese islands and Japan is pissed about it. But, what can they do? Getting back to the JSF, at this point there may be 5 or 6 squadrons in the U.S. Most likely assigned around the U.S. perimeter. I do think Alaska, Virgina, and Tucson have squadrons, but not sure of the rest.

10-15-17, 06:43 PM	#9
Delgard Captain Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	But will the firing of another missile over Japan prompt a response? What will cross the Trump line, the Chinese line, what about the world line. As to a single Seal Team, There are about 6-700 SOF personnel in the immediate area. But, at this point they don't do squiddley when nukes are considered. It is about gamesmanship.

11-21-17, 08:20 AM	#13
Delgard Captain Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	Things can change rather quickly with leadership changes. Passive or aggressive positions by a leader are built into the system so that nothing extreme occurs in either direction. The past, up until this moment, teaches us that crisis management is...managed. Rather a general statement, but experience does teach us. We just don't always hear about those management steps that occur. The STRATCOM CDR statement is a rare public exposure to a small corner of the management program involved. I expect that the General, in question, will be reviewed and appropriately managed as his seniors see fit. Like all things about the management program involved it probably will not be as public as some will want; good or bad.

11-21-17, 08:33 AM	#14
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	I think that improving the C3 and/or moving to 2nd strike only policy would be a good policy for US, considering US conventional superiority. __________________ Grumpy as always.