North Korea!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The treaty is with the Russians. Not a good idea to violate it, and it's not necessary. When I was in the USAF it was SLBM's that were most feared because their flight time is so short. I'm sure there is one or more boomer cruising off the Korean peninsula, ready to take out the prime targets if it comes to that.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The treaty is with the Russians. Not a good idea to violate it, and it's not necessary. When I was in the USAF it was SLBM's that were most feared because their flight time is so short. I'm sure there is one or more boomer cruising off the Korean peninsula, ready to take out the prime targets if it comes to that.
Too much money to spend for not giving them a chance at (more or less) the action for which they were designed.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Last edited by Carbon Bootprint; 12th Aug 2017 at 05:04.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, and a bit strange to read and hear (in media) about B-1B to use bombs in case the situation with NK goes that far. Why not cruise missiles from ships or subs (or the same B-1B) some 1500 miles away with no risk of entering the reachability zone for SA ground complexes?
NK planes seems to be not a serious issue in this bad scenario because all the air strips would be damaged in a couple of days. But C-300ПТ (SA-10) presumably shipped from Ukraine long ago and recently built KN-06 (using Chinese technologies) would be a more serious threat.
NK planes seems to be not a serious issue in this bad scenario because all the air strips would be damaged in a couple of days. But C-300ПТ (SA-10) presumably shipped from Ukraine long ago and recently built KN-06 (using Chinese technologies) would be a more serious threat.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Because cruise missile warheads are not bunker busters - though I am sure many would be used against softer targets such as C4 sites, SAW and airfields, whilst the B-1Bs would then do the heavy lifting carrying up to 24 of weapons such as the BLU-116.
OAP
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I would suggest the B1s would be deployed against artillery on the NK border.
Sniper pod or not, I don't see the B1 doing the role that should be assigned to a tactical aircraft. As they're artillery is mobile, unless the fat one lines them up in a row for the B1 to take them out in one pass (not) that it would be at a disadvantage compared to smaller tactical aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago- U.S detonated a nuke at high alitude in the pacific- EMP result took out part of the power grid in Hawaii- many many miles away. So much for accuracy if a EMP version nuke is launched with maybe a CEP of a few hundred miles. And NOT much of a reentry vehicle - or a heat shield is needed to survive at over 50k feet or so.
Maybe game has gone from checkers to chess or ma johgn or ???
Hope it stays a the ' mine is bigger than yours stage ' and not the ' double dare you " stage
Maybe game has gone from checkers to chess or ma johgn or ???
Hope it stays a the ' mine is bigger than yours stage ' and not the ' double dare you " stage
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SOUTH WEST
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I 'd guess not.
Satellites: Vectors predictable days in advance.
ICBMs: Not so much. Launch will come as a surprise (partly the point)
Different problem.
Also, I'd think F-15s unlikely to be in range unless a 24/7/365 CAP (where?).
Finally, the ASAT programme was cancelled by the Reagan administration nearly 30 years ago.
Satellites: Vectors predictable days in advance.
ICBMs: Not so much. Launch will come as a surprise (partly the point)
Different problem.
Also, I'd think F-15s unlikely to be in range unless a 24/7/365 CAP (where?).
Finally, the ASAT programme was cancelled by the Reagan administration nearly 30 years ago.
How about the 'Airborne Laser' armed 747 ?, is that not a feasible option or is that still under development. Only the years we've seen it on TV together with the claims of what it could do seemed ideal, or is the flight duration too short to track/lock on and fire (not being pedantic just a ground crew individual who is not in the know )
So what would be affective against an I/b Korean idiots rocket, short of kicking his bottle over after he lit the touch paper ?
And finally, why did we let him get this far in the first place ?
Because no one was eager to get involved with a regime that survived even though its people starved to death in large numbers while the NK nuclear capability was developed.
There won't be any war either, as both China and SK have far too much to lose to allow NK's antics to break up the party.
Just my $0.02.
How about the 'Airborne l@ser' armed 747 ?, is that not a feasible option or is that still under development. Only the years we've seen it on TV together with the claims of what it could do seemed ideal, or is the flight duration too short to track/lock on and fire (not being pedantic just a ground crew individual who is not in the know )
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The 747 technology was obsolete and scrapped. There are tenders out for tactical lasers to be fitted to FJ for self protection, effectively burning out the sensors of incoming SAW and AAM, but the range to stand-off by a couple of hundred miles and take out an accelerating ICBM is something different.
Thought they haven't given up......
Missile Defense Agency Seeking A High-Flying Drone For "Airborne Laser 2.0" - The Drive
Thought they haven't given up......
Missile Defense Agency Seeking A High-Flying Drone For "Airborne Laser 2.0" - The Drive
The main problem with all the laser cannons is power efficiency, your 747 gets a few shots off then runs out of power, same with the truck mounted version. It needs massive amounts of power per shot, supplied by some pretty nasty chemicals (hydrazine?). Not really practical in the real world. Yet.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon Bootprint.
An ideal system to deal with the NK artillery is MLRS. It can nuetralise gun crews over a wide area and can repeat the effect as long as ammo is available. The downside being that it would need to be based in SK so would instantly involve SK even if fired by US army personnel.
An ideal system to deal with the NK artillery is MLRS. It can nuetralise gun crews over a wide area and can repeat the effect as long as ammo is available. The downside being that it would need to be based in SK so would instantly involve SK even if fired by US army personnel.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
An ideal system to deal with the NK artillery is MLRS. It can nuetralise gun crews over a wide area and can repeat the effect as long as ammo is available. The downside being that it would need to be based in SK so would instantly involve SK even if fired by US army personnel.
Afaik, most of the NK artillery lining the DMZ is buried deep into hillsides, so not vulnerable to area weapons such as the MLRS dispenses. Reportedly several thousand units are involved, spread among many locations.
Targeting such a mass of sites even with bunker busters of uncertain efficacy is not going to be easy or quick.
Targeting such a mass of sites even with bunker busters of uncertain efficacy is not going to be easy or quick.