India - South & North Korea Thread

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Chinese lies. Trouble is the number of ppl in US and Oirope who want to believe the Chinese are sincere. Every such lie delays the US another few days, while they crank out more nukes and missiles. NoKo is already coming out with the ultimate threats; both will join together when they are ready, maybe in a few months. This is worse than all the Blofeld and SPECTER threats, and it is real.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Amber G. »

ramana wrote:UB I am saying they are two tests.
First big one 5.7 to 6.3 MB.
8.5 minutes later a second test with 4.1 to 4.2 MB

This second one so am saying was the primary going off, either a confirmatory or a damaged secondary didn't go off.
Damaged due to the shock from first one.
That's why seismic signature is weird.
The seismologists should let weapons talk and not give silly statements of rock burst etc.
I don't know if there were more comments on this...
IMO, "secondary" as suspected then, and confirmed later by seismic signature of waves were likely land slides or mountain collapse..
There are also MSM news items such as:
North Korea's Nuke-Testing Mountain at Risk of Collapse?
(If that happens fall out will escape)
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Wonder why there is no :(( :(( :twisted: at SeeEnnEnn etc about this:

Trump signed new Exec order after markets close, that sounds very much like ultimatum to cheen-noko.
This EO allows the federal government to recall into service any:
retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or RegularMarine Corps.

Added later: It's being explained as a routine move to fill the shortage of pilots for the Air Force.
Message may have got to NoKo/cheen.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 21 Oct 2017 06:32, edited 1 time in total.
periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by periaswamy »

So Trump didn't buy Eleven Dingding's "I am so very angry at North Korea" charades -- good for him. China has not done anything substantive with respect to putting pressure on North Korea. Everything done so far is to protect NoKo while pretending to turn on screws on NoKo.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

They are just dragging out the tamasha until they are ready to show off the full ICBM+H2Bum in enough numbers to win the game.
periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by periaswamy »

So, after the fact, the Non-Proliferation Ayotallah morons on Chinese payroll will now have a lot of papers to write on how all of these new chinese/NoKo nukes have no effect on the nuclear stability of the world. Potential title: "How I learnt to love the NoKo nukes and sleep well at night".
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Aditya_V »

periaswamy wrote:So Trump didn't buy Eleven Dingding's "I am so very angry at North Korea" charades -- good for him. China has not done anything substantive with respect to putting pressure on North Korea. Everything done so far is to protect NoKo while pretending to turn on screws on NoKo.
Forget doing something, it is Chinese TEL plus Chinese equipment which is being fired by North Korea. N Korea is way of Chinese leadership to make fun and of American+ Japanese H&D. When these 2 squirm the Chinese laugh, lets see how far this brinkmanship goes.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Amber G. »

Meanwhile - something which happened once in 1990's ..
BTW Ex-POTUS Carter went to Pyongyang (over the objections of POTUS Bill Clinton) and did strike a deal with little Rocket Man's grandfather ... Bill Clinton did the same thing when later when he was Ex-POTUS with the "father"!
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter says would travel to North Korea - NYT
periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by periaswamy »

Jimmy Carter is a worthless has-been in the history books -- he caused more problems than he solved during his tenure, NoKo is one his lesser eff ups compared to his invasion of Afghanisthan pushed by his NSA, the mass murderer Zbigniew Brzyzenski -- which has now turned into the gift that keeps on giving to the USA (and the whole world), sucking money and lives and spreading islamist terror all over the world. Apparently, shutting up and staying retired is not one of JC's strengths -- thankfully the Trump admin has the sense to ignore this loser.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by ramana »

AdityaG
The first Korean War led to Japanese re-indistrialization starting from mid 1950s.
This NKo nuke tests are unshackling Japan.

This will have its own fallout.

Is the umbrella leaky?
komal
BRFite
Posts: 508
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 14:47

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by komal »

periaswamy wrote:Jimmy Carter is a worthless has-been in the history books -- he caused more problems than he solved during his tenure, NoKo is one his lesser eff ups compared to his invasion of Afghanisthan pushed by his NSA, the mass murderer Zbigniew Brzyzenski -- which has now turned into the gift that keeps on giving to the USA (and the whole world), sucking money and lives and spreading islamist terror all over the world. Apparently, shutting up and staying retired is not one of JC's strengths -- thankfully the Trump admin has the sense to ignore this loser.
OT: Jimmy 'Carter integrated Stealth and Cruise missile technology into USA defense systems. He canceled B2 bomber to fund Stealth and add cruise missiles to B-52. He also began the deregulation of US economy and was willing to take the consequences (much like NaMo with GST and Demonetization) and credit went to his successors.

Alas, Truth Does Not Always Triumph.
periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by periaswamy »

JC's adminstration escalated and created many problems around the world, including North Korea and Afghanistan, which is all that is relevant to this topic. It is pretty rich for JC to now pretend he can do anything useful with respect to NoKo at this time -- NoKo today' is a legacy of a failed policy initiated by JC.

OT: The tool also shutdown US's nuclear energy program research permanently, and screwed US's energy security long term, another in his long list of policy failures.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

I think they should send JC and BO to Pyongyang as Permanent Unofficial Ambassadors. Maybe to advise Kim on foreign policy and How To Conduct a Successful Military Operation. :rotfl:
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Kim is getting kinder than CNN?
North Korea Calls Trump a ‘Lunatic’ With ‘War Fever’ and Says the U.S. Is Over
Positively sympathetic!
“History records weak nations which faced annihilation after acceding to ‘alliance’ and ‘coalition’ out of quick-witted calculation and also subject countries which saved their destiny by getting themselves away from the evil influence of big powers after becoming sensitive enough to understand the change of the times.”
Today's CNN Headline: TRUMP HITS A NEW LOW:roll:
Donald Trump is the Odd Man Out with Xi and Putin: Only one among the 3 that is not pro-communist!
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

komal wrote:
periaswamy wrote:Jimmy Carter is a worthless has-been in the history books -- he caused more problems than he solved during his tenure, NoKo is one his lesser eff ups compared to his invasion of Afghanisthan pushed by his NSA, the mass murderer Zbigniew Brzyzenski -- which has now turned into the gift that keeps on giving to the USA (and the whole world), sucking money and lives and spreading islamist terror all over the world. Apparently, shutting up and staying retired is not one of JC's strengths -- thankfully the Trump admin has the sense to ignore this loser.
OT: Jimmy 'Carter integrated Stealth and Cruise missile technology into USA defense systems. He canceled B2 bomber to fund Stealth and add cruise missiles to B-52. He also began the deregulation of US economy and was willing to take the consequences (much like NaMo with GST and Demonetization) and credit went to his successors.

Alas, Truth Does Not Always Triumph.
No. This is not correct. Stealth designs that became the mainstay of USAF in the 1980s and 1990s were designed prior to the Carter administration in the mid 1970s. Carter cancelled the B-1A since the F-117A was slated to start production developed by Lockheed at Skunk Works. The Reagan administration re-started the B-1 program (stealth design dating back to 1960s), but it was the B-1B designed to deliver nuclear ordinance later modified with the rotary launcher in the late 1980s to deliver conventional munitions. Carter did start development work on the B-2 Stealth Bomber, but it didn't see real funding until the Reagan administration. The ALCM rotary launcher of the B-52 didn't come about until the Reagan administration, but ALCM work started in the 1970s before the Carter administration. Because of START-I, lots of B-52s were destroyed as their primary mission was to deliver nuclear ordinance. The rotary launcher didn't become operational on the B-52 and B-1B until shortly before Gulf War I. The Soviets agreed to START-I because Reagan pushed development of long range ALCM, SLCM, and GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise missile). Long range ALCM and SLCM saw the light of day and went in to production in significant numbers and lots of engineers were picked up in the defense industry in the US in the mid-to-late 1980s. GLCM was absolutely frightening to the Russians who saw no defense against it and was cancelled due to START-I.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Why was GLCM so much scarier than ALCM or SLCM, es. SubLCM? I thought that last was/ is the worst because the subs are much harder to detect, and can launch from your coastline? Were the GLCMs much heavier like big aircraft?

With NoKo for instance if I were DT I would see no alternative to war, to stop NoKo from acquiring ANY SubLCMs. Destroy the entire submarine fleet and announce that any future ones will be destroyed immediately. Failure to do that means slavery.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

UB,

Long range GLCM was going to be deployed in West Germany at the time. Reaction time even at slow speeds of 500 mph but with terrain following posed a serious problem for Soviet air defense, which was put to shame by teenager Mathias Rust in 1987 when he landed his Cessna in Red Square in a circuitous route starting from Hamburg.

GLCM would have been an ideal weapon for SoKo to deploy today against NoKo. The Defense Reauthorization Act for FY2017, signed by Ombaba in Dec. 2016, calls for re-activation of the GLCM program.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

What NDAA are you talking about here? The US is treaty bound and won't re-launch any GLCM program (unless it wants to withdraw) and none is currently in the works or funded. Obama sanctioned the ALCM modernization in the LRSO but it is a strategic missile and is air launched.

I don't think they need to re-look at GLCM vis-a-vis NoKo since it is better to stay within the INF as long as both sides comply. As it pertains to NoKo, the primary thrust will come from ship and air based assets and the same terrain following modes that the GLCM would have followed (it was a TLAM) the current TLAM's, JASSM's, and JSOW-ERs can as well. You could for the future look at a CALCM equivalent of the ALCM although it really wouldn't make a whole lot difference tactically. The one issue of surface launched TLAM's was that you would need to move resources around once the VLS was empty and the ships had to return to port. This would become less of an issue now that the USN has decided to get back into the business of at sea VLS replenishment.
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Oct 2017 01:15, edited 1 time in total.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

Some variation of the GLCM is suppose to happen is what I understand.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

Some variation of the GLCM is suppose to happen is what I understand
Nope. There is no GLCM program sanctioned. Only one new cruise missile program is currently in the works and that is the Long Range Stand Off weapon, which is a recapitalization of the ALCM capability. Even a Conventional, air launched variant of it is not yet funded. Even the LRPF which is a ballistic missile is being made to comply with the treaty with range kept under the 500 km much like the Iskander system's BM.

There is no need to create a GLCM from scratch. In fact the missile with an integrated booster already exists. The only thing required to put a GLCM capability out there if the US wanted to withdraw from the INF would be a new modernized mobile launcher.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

Then it may be a variation of the ALCM. One news report mentioned GLCM explicitly and there may be talk about withdrawing from INF. It would have implications for SoKo/NoKo situation in the near future.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

What I am trying to say is that the news report was wrong. There is no GLCM program santioned by Obama or Trump that would violate treaty. All budget materials are present for all to see. As I mentioned if a GLCM is to be fielded, they would first need to determine whether withdrawing from INF is in their best interest and if so so simply fund a launcher for the Blk. IV Tomahawk. That is all they need to put the capability out there.

However, unlike the 70s or 80s, CURRENTLY configured B-1's can launch two dozen 1000 km ranger JASSM-ERs per sortie and even the F-16s can launch a pair of JASSMs each. Given the target sets and the combined USAF stand off and penetrating assets and Navy cells they don't need to violate INF just to task cruise missiles on potential North Korean targets. Deciding to withdraw and procure GLCMs has strategic and budget consequences. Would the Army like to up its MSE POR by a factor of 2 or more? What will it be willing to give up to get there? They definitely won't do it for NoKO, but may look to do it long term with China given the ever increasing medium range missile gap.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Wonder why this finds no mention in US MSM (I am learning to use acronyms but certainly not in the league of Mullah BRAR) :mrgreen:
October 24, 2017 09:20
The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-capable B-52 bombers on 24-hour alert for the first time since the Cold War in response to North Korea's "rapidly advancing nuclear arsenal", U.S. news site Defense One reported Sunday. The concrete pads at the runway of Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana "could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment's notice," it said. "This is yet one more step in ensuring that we're prepared," Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein told Defense One. "I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re prepared going forward." "Goldfein and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come," the website added.
The glory days of FAILSAFE are here again..
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

I think the mention of B-52s is just to irritate the NoKos: shades of "carpet bombing".
The war preparations are proceeding at Colin Powell pace, I guess to give diplomacy every chance while the Cheens race to bring more nukes to NoKo.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

brar_w wrote:What I am trying to say is that the news report was wrong. There is no GLCM program santioned by Obama or Trump that would violate treaty. All budget materials are present for all to see. As I mentioned if a GLCM is to be fielded, they would first need to determine whether withdrawing from INF is in their best interest and if so so simply fund a launcher for the Blk. IV Tomahawk. That is all they need to put the capability out there.

However, unlike the 70s or 80s, CURRENTLY configured B-1's can launch two dozen 1000 km ranger JASSM-ERs per sortie and even the F-16s can launch a pair of JASSMs each. Given the target sets and the combined USAF stand off and penetrating assets and Navy cells they don't need to violate INF just to task cruise missiles on potential North Korean targets. Deciding to withdraw and procure GLCMs has strategic and budget consequences. Would the Army like to up its MSE POR by a factor of 2 or more? What will it be willing to give up to get there? They definitely won't do it for NoKO, but may look to do it long term with China given the ever increasing medium range missile gap.
I'll see if I can find the report. GLCM was a weapon system being deployed by USAF in late 1980s and not US Army, so no impact to the Army's MSE.

Prior to JASSM, there were variations of the ALCM used on the B-1B's rotary launcher. Given its small radar cross section, even for an older design, of about 1 sq. meter - it is platform that can carry 75,000 pounds of ordinance internally. In the 1970s no cruise missiles were really available in any significant number to USAF. The B-1B will continue in service until replaced by the LRS-B, but that may be well into the 2040s.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

UlanBatori wrote:Wonder why this finds no mention in US MSM (I am learning to use acronyms but certainly not in the league of Mullah BRAR) :mrgreen:
You just need to be looking for defense sub-contracts my yak herder friend! I think some of your high-falutin injeenering brofessor dosts could guide you on that. In no time will you start speaking in acronyms. :wink:
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

Mort Walker wrote:I'll see if I can find the report. GLCM was a weapon system being deployed by USAF in late 1980s and not US Army
Mort, forget the report. Go through the last budgets. All NDAAs are available. If the US was embarking on developing a GLCM, in violation of the INF, it would be a pretty big deal politically. It is not happening, and neither Obama nor Trump have sanctioned anything that even remotely resembles a GLCM program. The Arms Control Community would be all over it if this was the case and you wouldn't have to look for one obscure (and clearly inaccurate) report since hundreds would exist. As I said, the only project that they have funded (Obama) was the LRSO, which is an air launched ALCM replacement. Even funding a CALCM analogous within the LRSO program was avoided for political reasons. LRSO is controversial as many Dems and the Arms Control mafia want it gone but Obama/Carter and now Trump/Mattis have kept it funded (Trump contracted Lockheed and Raytheon with $1.8 Billion worth of TMRR contracts just recently) along with the other two elements of the Triad. Mattis is currently conducting a nuclear posture review but most expect the LRSO to survive that; the recent contracts being a pretty good indication that it will.
so no impact to the Army's MSE.
Independent of which services operates the GLCM, the decision to pursue it (and terminate INF) impacts US Army's MSE inventory and overall defensive capability requirements. Any time you withdraw from a treaty allowing your adversary to produce unlimited amount of conventional GLCMs you have to adjust your defensive inventory. The number of Patriot batteries, launchers, missiles, radars..etc committed to the European AOR would have to be adjusted factoring in the new Russian GLCM inventory. It would be a direct consequence of a breakup of an arms control treaty.

In addition to longer range GLCM's, the Russians would begin deploying Medium and intermediate range land based ballistic missiles which they are currently prohibited form doing just like the US. This would have to be factored in NATO's and the US Army's defensive capabilities via EUCOM. Not only would Patriot inventory have to be expanded considerably (and corresponding increases in NATO partner MEADS and SAMP/T systems) to support troops in that theater, but THAAD, which so far has not been committed to the theater because of the treaty would have to be procured in much higher quantities to account for the new EUCOM demand. This impacts budgets and commitments to one theater when the entire focus has been in bolstering PACOM given the strategic importance of that AOR amidst the ever increasing Chinese threat.

Expect INF termination to be preceded by a very long and deliberate debate on the treaty both politically (in Congress) and in the strategic community (outside of hawkish think tanks like Heritage). Of course it becomes more palatable if the GOTUS believes that the other side is not honoring its commitment but so far (there are allegations and counter allegations on both sides), despite the noise both sides have continued to stay. There are reasons to take a long hard look into whether staying compliant is in the best US long term strategic interests but despite the rhetoric there is no real movement to terminate and there definitely wasn't any termination triggered by Obama by funding a phantom GLCM which would all but kill the treaty as it currently stands.
Prior to JASSM, there were variations of the ALCM used on the B-1B's rotary launcher. Given its small radar cross section, even for an older design, of about 1 sq. meter - it is platform that can carry 75,000 pounds of ordinance internally. In the 1970s no cruise missiles were really available in any significant number to USAF. The B-1B will continue in service until replaced by the LRS-B, but that may be well into the 2040s.
Right. and with the JASSM and JASSM-ERs arrival in the inventory (Total combined JASSM/ER POR is 5000 missiles), the number of platforms capable of launching cruise missiles have increased exponentially. As mentioned, even the smallest USAF fighter can now launch a pair of JASSMs with the B-1 (now limited to conventional strike) capable of launching up to two dozen JASSM-ERs or its anti-ship cousin LRASM. The USAF has decided to further extend the JASSM-ER capability via integrating it with all Universal Armament Interface (UAI) compliant aircraft so it will go on the F-16, F-15, B-52 and B-2. Aviation Week did an article on this last week.

Add to this the total number of penetrating strike aircraft the AF is adding to its inventory (180 odd F-22s, with around 2 squadrons worth of F-35As coming every year atm) and you do not need to violate treaty and go after a GLCM in order to go through potential NoKo target sets. The one shortcoming to the VLS being emptied during first-days-of-war scenarios is now being addressed by the USN as they are getting back into at sea VLS replenishment which would provide a major boost to their ability to persistently deliver long range fires via their very large TLAM inventory, Raytheon having delivered close to 4000 Block IVs alone. To this, the USN has recently funded Raytheon on the JSOW-Extended Range demonstration which would incorporate an engine on the 70 km glide munition, taking its range to JASSM territory. Each of the USN's strike fighters can carry a pair or more of those weapons. If speed and time to target isn't a concern, there is even a 300 km ranged JDAM variant on offer which can be pursued if yet more stand-off attack capability is required.

There simply isn't a shortage of medium-long range weapons or platforms that can be air or surface/sub-surface against this threat that would warrant fielding a GLCM capability and violating a major arms control treaty. The USAF since the Gulf-War where they used the CALCMs from B-52s have invested heavily in getting this capability across their strike fighter and bomber lineup and the JASSM and JASSM-ER gets them that. Where capability gaps exist, they have been identified and future investments are being directed there. Two areas that immediately stand out and have received focused investment are in PNT (GPS degraded and denied performance) and Air launched (INF compliant) Hypersonic weapons with the two programs (a scramjet cruise missile, and a Tactical Boost Glide weapon) getting heavy investment. Long range subsonic cruise missiles are simply not an area where shortfall exists.

Again, there are threats out there that may force the US to take a hard look at the INF in the long term but those aren't with NoKo in mind. Those are likely to be based on the Chinese MRBM inventory. Even then one could argue that one potential solution to many of those problems could be to arm the VLS with similar weapons which allows them to honor the treaty while also expanding their ability to deploy similar support via arsenal_ship like concepts. Also, keep in mind that a long range cruise missile is limited in terms of the target sets it can currently attack. None currently in the USAF inventory are capable of going after relocatable, or moving targets. A future JASSM capability that incorporates seekers and other components developed by DARPA for the LRASM is in the works but so far there are only a subset-of the overall targets you will have to go after that these weapons can be assigned with. For others you need data to effectively target it with an appropriate weapon and this would mean strike fighters, or bombers in the air prosecuting targets via the J-series or SDBs and shorter ranged weapons.

Moreover, the North Korean Air Defenses are not at all impressive. You can easily saturate them with glide munitions launched at short to medium ranges. Stealth and non stealth platforms can pepper them with SDBs and even JDAMs given the capability mismatch that exists there. The ATACMS, HIMARS, and in the future the LRPF will be the primary ground launched weapons. Both HIMARS and ATACMS (along with South Korean missiles) are more than adequate for fire support given the distances we are talking about here (200 km or less). In fact, expect ATACMS and HIMARS to be the first strike weapons against fixed air-defense and early warning and fixed C2 complexes within 200 km of the DMZ.
Prior to JASSM, there were variations of the ALCM used on the B-1B's rotary launcher. Given its small radar cross section, even for an older design, of about 1 sq. meter - it is platform that can carry 75,000 pounds of ordinance internally. In the 1970s no cruise missiles were really available in any significant number to USAF. The B-1B will continue in service until replaced by the LRS-B, but that may be well into the 2040s.
The B-1's primary Long range strike weapon is the JASSM/ER since it now no longer carries out the strategic mission (a role switch verified by the Russians) hence is now incapable of carrying the ALCM or its Conventional cousin.

The LRS-B will have a dual use i.e. it will be configured for both the Conventional and Nuclear roles so that distinction for the purposes of the treaty will still apply. The priority there is to add to the fleet and begin replacing the B-52s that also serve this dual purpose (there are 76 B-52's in the active and reserve inventory and those will be replaced first). The B-1Bs will serve well into the 2040s and perhaps even beyond. They will be getting a new AESA radar and a Mission System / Cockpit overhaul over the next 5-10 years along with a possible DEWS bump as well. Based on current utilization, the USAF does not anticipate structural upgrades b/w now and 2040 but if they do decide to go down that path you could expect them to last perhaps another decade or more of service.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/b-1b-fl ... -extension
The B-1B entered service in 1986 and the Air Force retains an active inventory of 62 aircraft assigned to squadrons at Dyess AFB, Texas, and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. So far, of those aircraft, 32 have been modernized through the Integrated Battle Station upgrade process at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.

In 2012 and 2013, Boeing began fatigue testing the wing and fuselage, respectively, to validate the predicted life of the B-1B, which at the time was forecast to fly through 2050.

With 72% of wing testing and 20% of fuselage fatigue testing now complete, the Air Force estimates the B-1B can operate through 2040 without needing an expensive life extension.

Brig. Gen. Michael Schmidt, the Air Force’s program executive officer for fighters and bombers, says B-1B testing is extremely important and helps identify which parts of the swing-wing supersonic bomber need closer inspection and which need repair or replacing, and in what timeline.

“As of right now, we don’t plan a fully fledged life extension,” Schmidt confirmed during a Sept. 25 interview.
Like the Boeing B-52 and Northrop Grumman B-2, the B-1B was built tough and will fly longer than expected without needing new wings or other major structural upgrades, like smaller fighters and attack aircraft. The B-1B was originally designed to fly 9,681 equivalent flight hours. But data provided by the fighters and bombers directorate at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, shows it lasting far longer. The projected service life of the B-1B, originally built by Rockwell and acquired by Boeing, will reach 19,900 equivalent flight hours, the service says.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

ISDU (i still don't understand) y GLCM (which I hope ground launched cruise missile, not Gaandoo phrom LaHore Carrying Mijjile) is so fearsome compared to a sub-launched one. I mean, if a sub is grounded, does that make the SLCM a GLCM? Presumably a PAF F-16 parked on cement blocks instead of landing gear, can launch an ALCM, does that become a GLCM? How does the stable launch platform make it more fearsome? Must be related to weight and size, and prospect of an ICBM-class 20MT payload arriving via low-altitude terrain-following direct delivery?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

UlanBatori wrote:so fearsome compared to a sub-launched one.
It really isn't if one looks at the trajectories, and flight profiles vis-a-vis exploiting Air Defense gaps. The Block IV TLAM already is as smart as any GLCM can possibly be made using current US technology/capability, and the same will have with the Next Gen Land Attack Weapon (Tomahawk replacement).

Where a GLCM has benefits over a sub-surface launched cruise missile is the overall cost of deploying hundreds of such weapons. Subs are expensive, and once they have exhausted their rounds must go back to port to reload whereas ground based mobile launchers can be supported by mobile resupply.

This is much less of a problem for US combat forces given the air-superiority that will be enjoyed by the combined USAF and USN aircraft and the fact that the primary means of saturated cruise missile attacks will be a combination of air-force aircraft and Navy ships (which will soon be able to reload at sea). The ground forces will be better off focusing on shorter ranged, rapid response fires support in the sub 500 km range as they would with ATACMS, HIMARS and eventually Long Range Precision Fires. Vis-a-vis North Korea, a GLCM capability has no real benefit and the consequences of developing and fielding a launcher for either the current Block IV TLAM, or a new weapon would be felt elsewhere particularly in Europe.

Vis-a-vis any potential North Korean conflict, the challenge isn't a mismatch between the number of long range cruise missile appropriate targets and the missile inventory (or delivery mechanism), but that of mobile TELs, and artillery and rocket forces in close proximity to Seoul .
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Hmmm! Thanks. What prevents someone from developing hajaar-hajaar "air-launched onlee" ALCMS, but no airplanes and keeping them to be mated to several rocket stages at the right time, for use as a long-range GLCMs?

On similar items, what I see now is a HUGE amount of :(( :(( on the Poor Misunderstood NoKos and the Hugely Capable Nuclear Power of NoKo, all with the common denominator of It's All Trump's Fault.
Many parallels with Nazi propaganda via their radio broadcasts.
Berlin calling, Londoners Listen!
On the last point about the huge number of nuclear missiles, now believed hidden in caves directly off mountain roads for short-notice Horijontal Repheuling and Launching, I have the following observation.

Not so long ago, when the South Koreans were kindly hosting Mongolian yak-herders, they took me at the end of an afternoon of climbing through complex equipment and huge facilities in summer heat and humidity, to this fine Welcome Center, where one could relax in heavenly recliners and cool airconditioned breezes, watching huge full-wall, 70mm screens with a live display of satellite feed. Houris coming around to make sure visitors were comfortable.

It was over American cities, European cities etc. You could certain read license plate numbers. Full rich colors. Better than seeing with own eyes.

I asked about all this because the facility seemed to be doing nothing except allow Distinguished Guests (meaning DEFINITELY not engineers!) to be impressed watching a pretty but otherwise pointless movie.
We want the Other Side to know that we can see everything that they are doing, down to very fine resolution
So now, cutting to Shivullah's admirable demonstration of patience and care, we see that he was able to detect many such access points off roads in mountainous areas, that appeared to just end. Apparently entrances to caves or underground facilities. I assume that he did this in his spare time of which he has very little (he has not responded to several emails in recent years).

Putting the above two demos together, don't u think the SoKos, if not the US, has every single POSSIBLE hiding place for truck-mounted ICBMs and IRBMs and GLCMs and all the other acronyms, carefully written into the address labels of weapons? IOW, the buildup of NoKo's fearsome capabilities sounds more and more like the buildup for Saddam's DubyaEmDee and his Imperial Guards and Air Fauj etc etc. 2 hours of kind attention needed.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 25 Oct 2017 19:44, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

What prevents someone from developing hajaar-hajaar "air-launched onlee" ALCMS, but no airplanes and keeping them to be mated to several rocket stages at the right time, for use as a long-range GLCMs?
Nothing other than treaty obligations for US and Russia. Testing of a launcher for a GLCM is prohibited. As I had mentioned earlier, the Tomahawk already has a booster integrated to it so essentially the only thing required to field a GLCM would be to develop an appropriate launcher and conduct testing. This is something prohibited by treaty.
Putting the above two demos together, don't u think the SoKos, if not the US, has every single POSSIBLE hiding place for truck-mounted ICBMs and IRBMs and GLCMs and all the other acronyms, carefully written into the address labels of weapons
The US gains nothing substantial from this since they have plenty of other ways of putting cruise missiles on targets and plenty of cruise missiles in their inventory to sustain that (in combination with other munitions). South Koreans can independently pursue any long range weapons as they are not bound by the INF. South Korea already has a conventional ballistic missile program that they have increased testing of in the last few months and have also decided to increase warhead weights in subsequent iterations. They have armed their F-15Ks with the Taurus stand off cruise missile and it is quite likely that they have internal domestic cruise missile development programs as well. But many of the most pressing targets (where one may consider putting a cruise missile) are in the 200 km of the DMZ so rightfully the attention is on shorter ranged systems.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Brarji, point is about the hype about Hidden Missiles being Impossible To Find In Time and therefore US/SoKo/Japan should Accept NoKo as a NewClear Power. This hype is getting shriller. I am saying that not only are there "Revenge" weapons, the targeting has long-since been done to identify and target every LIKELY launcher and storage facility in the first wave of **CMs, with absolutely no warning.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

That is quite likely but then again one would never know who wins the cat and mouse game (concealment/decoying vs targeting) until it actually happens. On that topic, the cruise missile capability (GLCM or no GLCM) is less important than what has been claimed in the past, particularly vis-a-vis Conventional Prompt Global Strike. Enough cryptic messages have been sent over the last few years to suggest there is some limited capability to deliver such effects which will no doubt be focused on command and control and communication nodes that will significantly impact their ability to effectively C2 and utilize their artillery and ballistic missile forces.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

I assume that "prompt" there means hypersonic cruise. Wonder which is more effective for total suppression in a pre-emptive attack: a horde of SLCMs and ALCMs from Sea of Japan and Japan, plus from orbiting B-52s, or "prompt" things from further away.

There is no doubt in my mind that a massive pre-emptive strike is the only way to do this with any chance of clean completion.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

Likely not cruise but something fast, quick and at medium to intermediate ranges. Easier option would be a ballistic trajectory but who knows what delivery options could be in the works since testing has involved a myriad of propulsion technologies. Interestingly enough a recent RFI by the USAF for a "rapidly fielded" hypersonic capability based on mature technologies (hence likely not scramjet or TBG) looked awfully lot like a program where they are just going through the motions of a competitive source selection having matured or identified either a weapon or components in the black world. The "Rapid procurement" nature of the solicitation basically rules out the HAWC or TBG, two programs where DARPA is currently executing a multi-billion dollar technology development and demonstration program before the tech is transitioned to the individual services.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/usa ... ike-weapon
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

What SoKo needs are hundreds of the Brahmos variants. It can be their GLCM. ;)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by brar_w »

For their needs vis-a-vis NoKo a highly accurate 200-300 km MLRS is enough. NoKo doesn't have the ability to shoot down a heck of a lot of cruise missiles and South's immediate concern is to pepper their immediate vicinity with affordable strike weapons, kill box by kill box so as to quickly damage the North's ability to launch artillery and short range ballistic missiles. That and probably a lot of Iron Dome batteries to absorb some of the initial onslaught
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

India-says-it-wont-close-embassy-in-North-Korea
Oct. 25 (UPI) -- India said it plans to maintain its embassy in North Korea, citing a need to keep channels of communication open with the reclusive state. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj said Wednesday during talks with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in New Delhi that embassy-level diplomatic ties will not be scrapped despite Pyongyang's provocations, Yonhap reported.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

Surrender, Trump, Surrender!
Meanwhile, a rare military exercise involving three of the U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier strike groups was being planned for next month in the Asia Pacific, a U.S. official said. The likely exercise would happen around the time that Trump travels to the region.

Trump entered office declaring his commitment to solving the North Korea problem, asserting that he would succeed where his predecessors had failed. His administration has sought to increase pressure on Pyongyang through U.N. Security Council sanctions and other diplomatic efforts, but the North hasn't budged from its goal of building a full-fledged nuclear arsenal, including missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland.

If Trump sticks to his pledge to stop the North from being able to threaten the U.S. with a nuclear attack, something will have to give - either a negotiated tempering of the North's ambitions or a U.S. acceptance of the North as a nuclear power. :((

The other alternative would be U.S. military action to attempt to neutralize or eliminate the North's nuclear assets - a move fraught with risk for South Korea, Japan and the U.S. {but not for North Korea or China}

Michael Swaine, an Asia defense analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, sees little chance the North will cave in to international pressure and give up its nuclear weapons.

"I just think the United States is far away from coming to grips with this problem in North Korea," Swaine said in an interview last week.
:((
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India - South & North Korea Thread

Post by UlanBatori »

I have not been to any lunches featuring SDOTUS speakers in the past year. Need to see how to do that, to get a better sense of the sheer hatred that the DupliCity establishment has for the DT gang.
Post Reply