North Korea!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If NK really launch a BM to Guam and the boost phase is OK, then line out THAAD in SK, it will not help. SM-3 can help, but as it was correctly mentioned above, the intercept probability is not yet proven. And if they miss, it would make NK more than happy and even more furious.
However, THAAD batteries are located at Guam for a long time already. And from the trajectory point of view, it would be indeed their "use case" (note "terminal area" in its name). Official reports on all the recent tests (about a dozen in the last 10 years) said they were successful. So, Guam seems to be prepared...
However, THAAD batteries are located at Guam for a long time already. And from the trajectory point of view, it would be indeed their "use case" (note "terminal area" in its name). Official reports on all the recent tests (about a dozen in the last 10 years) said they were successful. So, Guam seems to be prepared...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Australia will back US in any conflict with North Korea, Turnbull says
Malcolm Turnbull has made it plain that Australia will be involved in any conflict in the event North Korea attacks the United States.
The prime minister told 3AW on Friday morning “if there is an attack on the US, the Anzus treaty would be invoked” and Australia would come to the aid of the United States.
He said the form of Australia’s engagement would be determined in consultation with allies. “In terms of defence, we are joined at the hip,” Turnbull said.......
Malcolm Turnbull has made it plain that Australia will be involved in any conflict in the event North Korea attacks the United States.
The prime minister told 3AW on Friday morning “if there is an attack on the US, the Anzus treaty would be invoked” and Australia would come to the aid of the United States.
He said the form of Australia’s engagement would be determined in consultation with allies. “In terms of defence, we are joined at the hip,” Turnbull said.......
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just B1s on Guam
As I understand it, there are not just B1s on Guam, there have been and may still be B2s and B52s, among other assets.
If there is to be a scramble on launch of the B1s, armed conventionally I assume, what is going to happen to the possibly strategically more important Nuclear Capable B52s and B2s?
Not sure if it might not be an idea to relocate the B2s and B52s? As their launch gives a specific message.
If there is to be a scramble on launch of the B1s, armed conventionally I assume, what is going to happen to the possibly strategically more important Nuclear Capable B52s and B2s?
Not sure if it might not be an idea to relocate the B2s and B52s? As their launch gives a specific message.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Press reports claim that the B-1s are deployed specifically because they are not nuclear capable and if used against NK will not be seen as a potential threat by China. No B-52s or B-2s currently deployed in the region.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to hear that there seems to be some common sense then.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operation "Save R1 Sentinel" to the thread please....
Bones
Slightly surprised to hear that the B1 is not nuclear capable given that it was developed at the height of the Cold War?
Would have thought it was a pretty good platform for low level ingress at speed against a very capable IADS?
Would have thought it was a pretty good platform for low level ingress at speed against a very capable IADS?
It was exclusively used in the nuclear role up until 1990-ish, when conventional weapons were fitted for the first time. It had lost its nuclear role by 1995, following the end of the Cold War and the inactivation of SAC.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there's a technical reason why the B-1B can't carry a nuclear weapon any more, a GBU-31 (JDAM equipped Mk 84) is similar in size and weight to a B61.
Of course, it would be a treaty violation for it to do so as because, as has been pointed out/linked to, it has been declared a conventional bomber.
Of course, it would be a treaty violation for it to do so as because, as has been pointed out/linked to, it has been declared a conventional bomber.
I don't think there's a technical reason why the B-1B can't carry a nuclear weapon any more, a GBU-31 (JDAM equipped Mk 84) is similar in size and weight to a B61.
Of course, it would be a treaty violation for it to do so as because, as has been pointed out/linked to, it has been declared a conventional bomber.
Of course, it would be a treaty violation for it to do so as because, as has been pointed out/linked to, it has been declared a conventional bomber.
May have had the PAL removed as part of treaty compliance......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to the TV news last night there was a rundown of the NK forces and it stated just how many aircraft the NK airforce have.
My initial thoughts were the obvious things like a Mig 15/17 wouldnt be too much of an issue for an F15 or 16.
The Mig 21s are more modern and the Mig 29s more modern again.
But even if we assume all US aircraft are modern, with modern systems and AWACS coverage it still leaves the fact the NK airforce have a large number of aircraft on paper.
How many fighters would NK have in an airworthy condition?
The question would be pointless if the NK runways became unusable, but if not there could be an awful lot of NK targets in the air and a finite number of US air to air missiles to target them with.
Obviously answers only need to be generic, but I've found recent news reports very interesting and alarming at the same time. Almost all reporters equate one NK atomic weapon to one US nuclear weapon, a 'rocket' as being the same item used by both sides and each sides fighter aircraft in the same capability group.
My initial thoughts were the obvious things like a Mig 15/17 wouldnt be too much of an issue for an F15 or 16.
The Mig 21s are more modern and the Mig 29s more modern again.
But even if we assume all US aircraft are modern, with modern systems and AWACS coverage it still leaves the fact the NK airforce have a large number of aircraft on paper.
How many fighters would NK have in an airworthy condition?
The question would be pointless if the NK runways became unusable, but if not there could be an awful lot of NK targets in the air and a finite number of US air to air missiles to target them with.
Obviously answers only need to be generic, but I've found recent news reports very interesting and alarming at the same time. Almost all reporters equate one NK atomic weapon to one US nuclear weapon, a 'rocket' as being the same item used by both sides and each sides fighter aircraft in the same capability group.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Does Guam still exist? I thought it was going to capsize, and presumably sink. With talent such as this directing affairs of state we can sleep safe and sound.
No idea how may MiG21s they have, but they won't wander far from mother, so unless what the B whatevers are bombing is right close to an airport or established stretch of road, their impact will be minimal I would think.
Last edited by West Coast; 11th Aug 2017 at 23:57.
