Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 112

Thread: North Korea nuke test

  1. #61
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I recently came across one of the best analysis I've seen about the ability of the DPRK to follow through on their frequent boasts to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire". I've included an excerpt to get you started, but I highly recommend giving the whole thing a read.

    http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-...c-and-reality/



    Attachment 41309
    Some flaws, if the new PDRK MLRS system is real, it can range well south of Seoul and might be able to layer the city in chemical weapons. People sheltering basements and parking decks are sitting ducks to CBW agents. If they have rap ammunition some of their larger guns can reach the center of the city as well.

    ToT, a tactic the US employed in WWII is now old hat, the PDRK could unleash a barrage that had near simultaneous impact minimizing warning time, causing shock and making evacuation to shelters during the opening hour of the barrage exceedingly difficult.

    I also think a counter battery rate of 1% per hour is optimistic. Sure modern fire finder radars can spot the tube as soon as it fires, maybe not so easy when that tube is one of hundreds. Its also going to take a lot of time to get the ROK and USAF into the air in force unless we detect the impending attack hours in advance. If it comes as a surprise its going to be several hours before a for real air campaign can get underway as munitions are broke out, targets assigned, missions briefed, all while under PDRK ballsitic missile attack which might employ not just HE but area denial cluster bombs or CBW warheads. If even one of those latter types gets through, an entire airbase can be shut down for a good length of time or even rendered inoperable for days/weeks. Even when the air effort does get off the ground, the allied air forces will have to take ingress/egress vectors that parallel the border and/or are high altitude to avoid all those shells in the air. This might maximize PDRK ADA meaning the air forces first mission is SEAD, not hunting artillery.

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    I believe the report predates the unveiling of the DPRK 300mm MLRS.

    http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archi...w-300-mm-mlrs/

    Counter battery fire is a tricky one to figure out. While I agree that fire finder radars might be overwhelmed with large early salvoes, I also expect those salvoes to be sharply reduced when ROK ballistic missiles start falling. Surely ROK has ballistic missiles that are pre-targeted to hit the DPRK's hardened artillery sites and ready to launch on short notice. More mobile NK artillery would probably escape such a fate, but they are probably shorter ranged as well to facilitate transport. I also tend to think that PGMs mitigate the issue of aircraft dodging artillery shells since those munitions can glide to their targets and maintain accuracy from high altitude. It still remains a concern for mobile targets that must be found and lased however.

    While a surprise artillery barrage may catch the ROK with their pants down, any sort of moderate military buildup would certainly be detected considering how closely watched the border area is. Even if troop formations stay in Pyongyang, I wouldn't be surprised if the US and SK pick up on stockpiling of fuel and munitions in anticipation of an artillery attack. Whether we would prep aircraft and brief pilots based on a build up without infantry formations I don't know.

    I don't know of a good solution to the issue of Chems hitting Seoul. You have a good point about underground shelters being death traps for Chems. I doubt that many of the shelters in Seoul are rated for CBRNE since most of them are probably subway stations and basements. The main thing (hopefully) restraining the DPRK from deploying Chems is the threat of US nuclear retaliation.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 07 Apr 16, at 15:22.

  3. #63
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,380
    The chem threat is overrated.

    Due to terrain around the DMZ, there are few sites that artillery can fire from. It also precludes the DPRK from using various CBR avoidance procedures.

    Its as easy as the MLRS commander pulling up a target list. And if there is one thing the US and ROK have, its an abundance of artillery. There are to many prep indicators prior to an attack for the ROK to get caught by the short hairs.

    The ROK Army has shown in the last few years that t can conduct a real world counterbattery mission against DPRK in less than 5 min. The DPRK will get the first few salvos down range unmolested. 1% per hour actually seems to be a low ball number IMO.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  4. #64
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,953
    North Korea launches missile from submarine according to South Korea?

    I assume this is from their one reversed engineered Kilo Class sub called the Sinpo Class and they fitted a launch tube onto it. Well at least it is diesel and noisy.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/23/asia/n...ine/index.html

  5. #65
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,900
    Well, finally back (at least for a little bit) after several weeks of craziness at work.

    I think calling the Sinpo a reversed engineered Kilo is too generous (looks like the missile blew up shortly after launch).

    Speaking of missile failures, the official Chinese media has been mocking Best Korea about the failed Musadun (sp) launches.

  6. #66
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    I think calling the Sinpo a reversed engineered Kilo is too generous (looks like the missile blew up shortly after launch).
    Gee, what a surprise (insert <sarcasm>); it's almost too bad it didn't blow up before launch.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    North Korea launches missile from submarine according to South Korea?

    I assume this is from their one reversed engineered Kilo Class sub called the Sinpo Class and they fitted a launch tube onto it.
    Could a Kilo class submarine (let alone a copy RE'd by the North Koreans) even fit a SLBM tube in it's hull? A quick check shows they have a draft of 6.5 metres max which gives a max hull diameter of what 13 metres or so? A trident is longer than this. Notwithstanding the fact the NK's would be launching a much simpler and smaller (shorter ranged) test missile there's still not much room to play with one you include all the ancillary equipment.

    Seems more likely to me they used a submersible barge again - which I suppose they could tow it to the launch point using a sub - LOL
    Last edited by Monash; 05 May 16, at 12:06.

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Could a Kilo class submarine (let alone a copy RE'd by the North Koreans) even fit a SLBM tube in it's hull? A quick check shows they have a draft of 6.5 metres max which gives a max hull diameter of what 13 metres or so? A trident is longer than this. Notwithstanding the fact the NK's would be launching a much simpler and smaller (shorter ranged) test missile there's still not much room to play with one you include all the ancillary equipment.

    Seems more likely to me they used a submersible barge again - which I suppose they could tow it to the launch point using a sub - LOL
    If you cut a hole near the conning tower to enlargen the conning tower, it might work, depending on the SLBM (I'm not too familiar with Nork missiles, so that SLBM could be just a glorified Scud or some solid motor SRBM).

  9. #69
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    If you cut a hole near the conning tower to enlargen the conning tower, it might work, depending on the SLBM (I'm not too familiar with Nork missiles, so that SLBM could be just a glorified Scud or some solid motor SRBM).
    The technology exists and is ancient. Soviet Golf class sub carried modified Scud missiles about 11m in length in tubes in the conning tower.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,453
    So we are talking what, one or two tubes Max? Also weren't the Golf's tubes integrated into the design from the onset as opposed to being retrofited?

    Again not an expert but wouldn't shoehorning a tube into a Kilo mean almost a complete rebuild? May as well build a new design from scratch.
    Last edited by Monash; 07 May 16, at 03:09.

  11. #71
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    10 GOLF class subs were sold to North Korea in 1993 as scrap. They apparently got one working again.
    Chimo

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    10 GOLF class subs were sold to North Korea in 1993 as scrap. They apparently got one working again.
    They can't have more than one or two in working order, perhaps someone could organise an ' accident' at sea. After all given their age and the quality of the missile tech involved they are already accidents waiting to happen.

    FYI not the kind of action I would normally recommend against any nation but given the nature of the regime involved and the type of tech they are trying to develop it might be justified.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    North Korea just tested a pair of Musudan missiles. The first test failed, but the 2nd traveled 400km and reached an altitude of 1000km, making it the highest flying North Korean missile to date.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36603416

    I have to wonder how long it will be until tests of THAAD or SM-3 start coinciding with North Korean missile tests and causing more rocket failures for Lil' Kim.

  14. #74
    Each one has taken it closer to what decades of international talks have tried to prevent - a nuclear weapon in the hands of one of the world's most unpredictable states.

  15. #75
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,953
    Well they launched another and apparently an improvement. Told we better watch out and not insult the dignity and security of their precious country.

    Mommy, mommy, they called me a bad, bad name.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/world/...-un/index.html

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. North Korea Suspected of Planning Rocket Test
    By xinhui in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Dec 12,, 08:25
  2. North Korea seen readying for new nuclear test
    By xrough in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07 May 09,, 10:36
  3. North Korea Cancels Test Launch.
    By Maxor in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05 Apr 09,, 16:17
  4. North Korea claims nuclear test
    By Anoop C in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 289
    Last Post: 13 Mar 08,, 05:20
  5. North Korea test-fires 7th missile
    By ARH Gabriel in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06 Jul 06,, 18:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •