The new old war in Korea

[Jester]

And I think you're wrong because you're not looking at the whole picture of the theatre involved. The South Korean Airforce has a number of modern aircraft, but their forces have a large number of F4s and F5s (both Vietnam era, same as most of the NKs planes you listed).

The bottom end of the South Korean air force is roughly comparable with the top end of the North Korean, assuming similar maintenance, fuel, parts, pilots, etc..., all of which are actually advantages for the South Koreans. The bottom end of the North Korean air force might not even get off the airstrip.

Now, the NK Air Force has 40 fighters, their MiG-29s, that are competitive technologically with the 200-odd F-15s and F-16s that are the vanguard of the SK air force. I don't think those numbers are near enough, especially since if there's anywhere the South Koreans are not going to be alone, it's in the air. Once American air power hits the skies, it'll be all over for NK air power, if it wasn't already.

They also have no attack helicopters at all where as the NKs have a number of them (specifically Mi 24s and Mi 26s).

That might be true of their Air Force, but it's not true of their military. South Korea has hundreds of attack helicopters, and has been toying for years with building their own cutting-edge versions. North Korea, meanwhile, as a couple dozen imported ones, that they've had to jury rig together from their own (read: crappy) industrial base.

Now, let's take a look at ground forces (which you seemed to have ignored as well). North Korean Ground Forces are using similar era equipment to the South Korean Ground Forces. Again, the South Koreans have a few more modern pieces, but, the technical advantage isn't this gigantic amont that you continue to portrait. As I said many times earlier, have you actually looked at the forces involved here?

The South Koreans are mostly driving K1 "Baby Abrams" tanks. They've got somewhere around 1400 of them, which would the be the bulk of their tank forces. That's a flat out modern tank, all the bells and whistles. (According to the wiki, North Korean defectors call it the "monster tank", and have no adequate response to it.)

The effectiveness of the North Korean tanks is debatable, since nobody has actually seen them in action. As generous as I can be, this puppy here is, just maybe, almost a match for the South Korean standard K1s, although it appears to be slower. They have, at best, 1/5th of the number the South Koreans have. The rest of the NK tank equipment is damned impressive in number, but increasingly outdated. They've got maybe 1000 of these, from the 1980s. The rest is between old and ancient, Korean War relics that would be a sorry sight indeed against the South Korean K1A1s.

Edit: ... and heaven help them once these start coming into play, which was supposed to be this year and next.

And remember, this is all North Korean upgrades and maintenance, and some of it is NK design. If that's even close to as solid as American or South Korean design, on a budget that's beyond shoestring, then we really need to take another look at Communism as an economic model.

Clearly you haven't if you continue to spout that 24Billion is trumping 9Billion to have better equipment.

Where do you think the North Koreans are getting the money, then? Are they just so beloved in the international community that people send them tech and weapons free of charge? Or do they feed their soldiers manna from the heavens? The strain of running a military that gigantic on a sum that paltry has to reveal itself in weaknesses somewhere. Partly, it's straight up oppression - I wouldn't want to live, let alone fight, on a NK soldier's rations. But it also shows up in all the advantages of wealth - supplies, refits, maintenance, fuel, training.

They're not a paper tiger. But if you're going to put money on the quality of equipment made or maintained with North Korean tech, on a North Korean budget, against the top of the line from the rest of the world...

Whether you want to believe it or not Jester, a lot of the money in the US armed forces budget is for training/operations and personnel. If you take a look at the US Defense Budget, you'll notice that 2/3s of the budget is going to operational/training and personnel costs, that's over $400 Billion right there.

Okay. Since you've already stipulated that the US has a human advantage, I'll just reiterate that this is a *very* large advantage to have. But yes, training, educating, paying, feeding and housing a large army is expensive. Just remember the North Koreans have to do it too, on a lot less money, with an absurd number of active troops.

You'll also note that between procurement and research, a little than a third of the US budget is spent on equipment. If you look at the situation in NK and SK, I'm sure you will see something along the lines where SK is spending their budget like the US, $16 Billion on training/operations and personnel, where as the NKs are spending more money on procurement (and if you pay attention in the link you did above about the NK Air Forces, you'll see that an entire class of aircraft is ground due to high fuel costs which shows that NK isn't spending as much on operational/training costs if they can't fly those jets due to the cost of the fuel).

Isn't this very much the point? The North Koreans are spending great gobs of money making their military look impressive, trying to keep up with their much richer, higher tech competitors. That means stretching their already paltry military budget (by world power standards, which is the league they're pitching in), at the expense of everything else, including the things they need to fight a war: fuel, food, training, spare parts, maintenance. You think that's not going to cost them in an actual war? That somehow, their Taepodongs are going to fire accurately without the technical expertise and computing power needed to operate them? That their tanks are going to drive without petrol? That their best equipment is going to survive first contact with a force as impressive as the South Koreans without requiring repairs they are ill-equipped to make?

So, I think you're not viewing things in the proper light and are using some statistics in a non-meaningful manner.

The feeling is mutual.

You are comparing NK forces to US Forces when not realizing that everything the US gets in its military does not automatically get transferred to our allies' inventories. In essence, you've been comparing apples and pineapples.

I've been going out of my way to (generally) keep this comparison between the SK and NK militaries, and to duck the question of the world's superpower simply blowing North Korea into paste. I'm arguing that the South Koreans are a pretty damn fair match for the North Koreans - while capacity of NK is still somewhat mysterious, I strongly suspect that, given budgetary constraints, technological limitations, fuel shortages, and a total failure of human development, the North Koreans are much weaker than they appear. But even if they're not, the South is a formidable force by itself, fully the equal of the North Korean forces.

For a concurring opinion, see here.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But even if they're not, the South is a formidable force by itself, fully the equal of the North Korean forces.

I'd agree with that statement. NK has a few aces, which may tip the initial battle to their favor. 1) Seoul gets badly damaged by artillery in the first 24 hours creating a humanitarian crisis which must be dealt with beyond the battle, 2) NK has a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and they will use them, 3) NK's paranoia has caused them to build most of their critical infrastructure in underground bunker complexes, 4) Launch hundreds of missiles at known fixed targets in SK, at Japan, and US fleet, some may be NCB tipped.

In the event of a NK first strike, I would see them destroying the US forces at the DMZ, and most of the SK force, and occupying most of SK before the US is staged to repel them. They would suffer 1/3 to 1/2 of their forces in casualties as well. Eventually, the US would gain air superiority, destroy the command and control structures, bunker complexes, and roll back the NK forces to at least as far north as Pyongyang. What happens north of the 38th parallel depends on China's disposition.

If the US does the first strike, they would be sure to paralyze NK's capability to move, or harm SK very badly.

[Lissa]

And I think you're wrong because you're not looking at the whole picture of the theatre involved. The South Korean Airforce has a number of modern aircraft, but their forces have a large number of F4s and F5s (both Vietnam era, same as most of the NKs planes you listed).

The bottom end of the South Korean air force is roughly comparable with the top end of the North Korean, assuming similar maintenance, fuel, parts, pilots, etc..., all of which are actually advantages for the South Koreans. The bottom end of the North Korean air force might not even get off the airstrip.

Now, the NK Air Force has 40 fighters, their MiG-29s, that are competitive technologically with the 200-odd F-15s and F-16s that are the vanguard of the SK air force. I don't think those numbers are near enough, especially since if there's anywhere the South Koreans are not going to be alone, it's in the air. Once American air power hits the skies, it'll be all over for NK air power, if it wasn't already.

What good are more advanced fighters if you can't get them off the ground Jester? You're comparing weapons systems straight across without looking at strategic tactics to limit the other side. In a first strike scenario, the NKs are going to start shelling with artillery across the DMZ at the SK ground forces along with causing as much collateral damage as they can in the SK civillians (remember, half of SK's population is within artillery range of the DMZ).

Sure the SKs have more advanced fighters, but the tactic that the NKs are going to use is to launch a massive missile assault on every usable runway in SK. They are going to put as many craters as they possibly can into any long enough strip of concrete or asphault that can hold an aircraft to make sure that the SK Air Force stays on the ground.

They also have no attack helicopters at all where as the NKs have a number of them (specifically Mi 24s and Mi 26s).

That might be true of their Air Force, but it's not true of their military. South Korea has hundreds of attack helicopters, and has been toying for years with building their own cutting-edge versions. North Korea, meanwhile, as a couple dozen imported ones, that they've had to jury rig together from their own (read: crappy) industrial base.

The Cobra is older tech than the Mi 24 and Mi 26. MD500 has very little armor (small arms fire could bring one down easily). I'm not sure how effective, or how many would be left, after an initial assault.

Now, let's take a look at ground forces (which you seemed to have ignored as well). North Korean Ground Forces are using similar era equipment to the South Korean Ground Forces. Again, the South Koreans have a few more modern pieces, but, the technical advantage isn't this gigantic amont that you continue to portrait. As I said many times earlier, have you actually looked at the forces involved here?

The South Koreans are mostly driving K1 "Baby Abrams" tanks. They've got somewhere around 1400 of them, which would the be the bulk of their tank forces. That's a flat out modern tank, all the bells and whistles. (According to the wiki, North Korean defectors call it the "monster tank", and have no adequate response to it.)

The effectiveness of the North Korean tanks is debatable, since nobody has actually seen them in action. As generous as I can be, this puppy here is, just maybe, almost a match for the South Korean standard K1s, although it appears to be slower. They have, at best, 1/5th of the number the South Koreans have. The rest of the NK tank equipment is damned impressive in number, but increasingly outdated. They've got maybe 1000 of these, from the 1980s. The rest is between old and ancient, Korean War relics that would be a sorry sight indeed against the South Korean K1A1s.

Edit: ... and heaven help them once these start coming into play, which was supposed to be this year and next.

And remember, this is all North Korean upgrades and maintenance, and some of it is NK design. If that's even close to as solid as American or South Korean design, on a budget that's beyond shoestring, then we really need to take another look at Communism as an economic model.

You did read about the K2 right? Production has been suspended for the time being. They have 3 prototypes at present. Also, while the SKs have better tanks, the NKs have more tanks. K1 has optical systems like the Abrahms, which gives them more leeway yes, but the NKs have roughly equivalent numbers of more modern tanks (not as modern as the K1) and the NKs do outnumber the SKs on tanks by 2 to 1 (all tanks combined across both militaries). And both countries are using old and outdated tanks (NK T34, T55, T62 and SK using M48s and a small amount of T80s).

*need to continue in another post, evidently the board has a limit of somekind*

[Lissa]

Clearly you haven't if you continue to spout that 24Billion is trumping 9Billion to have better equipment.

Where do you think the North Koreans are getting the money, then? Are they just so beloved in the international community that people send them tech and weapons free of charge? Or do they feed their soldiers manna from the heavens? The strain of running a military that gigantic on a sum that paltry has to reveal itself in weaknesses somewhere. Partly, it's straight up oppression - I wouldn't want to live, let alone fight, on a NK soldier's rations. But it also shows up in all the advantages of wealth - supplies, refits, maintenance, fuel, training.

They're not a paper tiger. But if you're going to put money on the quality of equipment made or maintained with North Korean tech, on a North Korean budget, against the top of the line from the rest of the world...

True, but my point is, the NKs are able to keep a sizeable force on less money, it's just that they quality of people is worse.

Whether you want to believe it or not Jester, a lot of the money in the US armed forces budget is for training/operations and personnel. If you take a look at the US Defense Budget, you'll notice that 2/3s of the budget is going to operational/training and personnel costs, that's over $400 Billion right there.

Okay. Since you've already stipulated that the US has a human advantage, I'll just reiterate that this is a *very* large advantage to have. But yes, training, educating, paying, feeding and housing a large army is expensive. Just remember the North Koreans have to do it too, on a lot less money, with an absurd number of active troops.

I agree, however, first strikes can ruin some advantages, and that is what I'm trying to point out, but you do not want to think about the strategies involved. War is about dirty tricks and doing whatever it takes to win. The NKs have shown to be willing to throw any dirty trick they can.

You'll also note that between procurement and research, a little than a third of the US budget is spent on equipment. If you look at the situation in NK and SK, I'm sure you will see something along the lines where SK is spending their budget like the US, $16 Billion on training/operations and personnel, where as the NKs are spending more money on procurement (and if you pay attention in the link you did above about the NK Air Forces, you'll see that an entire class of aircraft is ground due to high fuel costs which shows that NK isn't spending as much on operational/training costs if they can't fly those jets due to the cost of the fuel).

Isn't this very much the point? The North Koreans are spending great gobs of money making their military look impressive, trying to keep up with their much richer, higher tech competitors. That means stretching their already paltry military budget (by world power standards, which is the league they're pitching in), at the expense of everything else, including the things they need to fight a war: fuel, food, training, spare parts, maintenance. You think that's not going to cost them in an actual war? That somehow, their Taepodongs are going to fire accurately without the technical expertise and computing power needed to operate them? That their tanks are going to drive without petrol? That their best equipment is going to survive first contact with a force as impressive as the South Koreans without requiring repairs they are ill-equipped to make?

Again though, there's more here to consider that just straight up equipment vs. equipment. SK has an advantage, but NK has the dirty tricks and willingness to use them. It doesn't matter if you have a $55 million tank or a $100 million aircraft if the enemy surprises you and takes those pieces of equipment out of play. This is why I disagree with a lot of the assements you've been going with. You're looking at a straight up numbers game, not a tactics game on what forces have been known to do in a wartime situation.

So, I think you're not viewing things in the proper light and are using some statistics in a non-meaningful manner.

The feeling is mutual.

Start looking at tactics Jester. You're not, that's why all these statistics you throw around can quickly become meaningless. There's a lot more here to think about than someone have various advantages due to money or training.

You are comparing NK forces to US Forces when not realizing that everything the US gets in its military does not automatically get transferred to our allies' inventories. In essence, you've been comparing apples and pineapples.

I've been going out of my way to (generally) keep this comparison between the SK and NK militaries, and to duck the question of the world's superpower simply blowing North Korea into paste. I'm arguing that the South Koreans are a pretty damn fair match for the North Koreans - while capacity of NK is still somewhat mysterious, I strongly suspect that, given budgetary constraints, technological limitations, fuel shortages, and a total failure of human development, the North Koreans are much weaker than they appear. But even if they're not, the South is a formidable force by itself, fully the equal of the North Korean forces.

For a concurring opinion, see here.

-Jester

I noticed that in the article the didn't talk about other tactics that the NKs might employ. They gloss over the use of rockets and artillery to take the other airforce out of the fight. They didn't discuss the humanitarian situation (one of the time I agree with Kan). They glossed over the shock value of a first strike by artillery against half of the SK population within minutes of war starting again. Sure the SKs have an equipment and training advantage, but what if the tactics used limit those? That is my point.

[Jester]

In the event of a NK first strike, I would see them destroying the US forces at the DMZ, and most of the SK force, and occupying most of SK before the US is staged to repel them.

Maybe ten years ago. Today, my best bet would be that the North Koreans would fail to penetrate the border. An attack of that magnitude would almost certainly have been telegraphed, at least to some extent, giving the defenders a head start on preparations. Even if not, the border is fortified, and US and SK troops are among the strongest in the world.

Even if they did get through, anything but a decisive rout would leave them vulnerable to retaliation by air, and by the more mobile SK forces. I don't think they've got what it takes to pull that off. I don't think they're even close anymore.

-Jester

[Taelas]

Why is tactics an issue? Both sides can employ tactics.

[Jester]

Why is tactics an issue? Both sides can employ tactics.

And why are we assuming that the ossified, ideologically-rigid, ultra-Stalinist state that can barely manage to feed its people, is filled with tactical ultra-geniuses who are going to beat out the finest the first world has to offer?

I'm open to the possibility that some incredible tactic will change the course of the war. It's happened before. But I'm certainly not seeing it so far. Right now, it sounds like moving goalposts - having failed to demonstrate the case on its merits, we are now expected to believe in yet unimagined tactics that will reverse the strategic balance.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why is tactics an issue? Both sides can employ tactics.

I believe that Lissa's point is that if NK launches a surprise attack, and if they use the correct tactics, then they can negate most of SK's advantages. If, OTOH, they simply roll tanks and troops across the DMZ, then SK would have the advantage.

I suspect that, if NK thought they could pull off a surprise, they'd use tactics very much as Lissa outlined. What I doubt is that they can pull off a surprise, or even that they think they can. Both sides are on hair trigger, and I suspect SK knows and goes to maximum alert every time a NK general hits the head at an unusual hour.

As to what would actually happen, I wouldn't care to guess. I doubt there is enough information in the public sector to game the possible scenarios. Short of actually going to war, that would be the only way to answer the question.

--Pete

[Lissa]

Why is tactics an issue? Both sides can employ tactics.

And why are we assuming that the ossified, ideologically-rigid, ultra-Stalinist state that can barely manage to feed its people, is filled with tactical ultra-geniuses who are going to beat out the finest the first world has to offer?

I'm open to the possibility that some incredible tactic will change the course of the war. It's happened before. But I'm certainly not seeing it so far. Right now, it sounds like moving goalposts - having failed to demonstrate the case on its merits, we are now expected to believe in yet unimagined tactics that will reverse the strategic balance.

-Jester

Incredible tactics aren't even needed Jester. Just a minor understanding of war will allow someone to realize things that can be done to put the opponent off balance from a first strike. It doesn't take a military genius to come up with these things, what it does require however, is to pull off a precision timed assault. That's much easier to do with forces in the field like the NKs and SKs have. Any we all know that it will be the NKs to make the first strike, because SK knows what will happen if they strike first (China enters the fight on the side of NK).

[Jester]

Incredible tactics aren't even needed Jester. Just a minor understanding of war will allow someone to realize things that can be done to put the opponent off balance from a first strike. It doesn't take a military genius to come up with these things, what it does require however, is to pull off a precision timed assault.

The South Koreans have been preparing for this for every bit as long as the North has. While they lack the absolute paranoiac devotion to military-over-everything, they also have more than twice the population, and an economy at least ten times the size.

They have fortifications. They have guarded airfields all over the country, with reinforced bunkers for their equipment. They've surely gone through a bazillion wargames exercises, anticipating the "minor understanding of war" tactics. They watch the North Koreans vigilantly from orbit, from the ground, and presumably through intelligence, though we know little about that.

The easy tricks work in wars that people aren't really expecting. This is a war everyone is expecting. Both sides are amply prepared for dastardly tactics. That may mean the war turns into a meat grinder, but it's not going to be a rout because South Korea has no plan to deal with Seoul being bombarded, or their airstrips shelled, or chemical weapons being deployed, or whatever else. Insofar as "dirty tricks" can be anticipated, they surely have been, and prepared for.

A much better question seems to be whether North Korea has the flexibility to respond strategically, given its isolation and political rigidity. I suspect if their initial strike goes poorly, that their tactical playbook has just one play: "turtle."

-Jester

[Lissa]

Incredible tactics aren't even needed Jester. Just a minor understanding of war will allow someone to realize things that can be done to put the opponent off balance from a first strike. It doesn't take a military genius to come up with these things, what it does require however, is to pull off a precision timed assault.

The South Koreans have been preparing for this for every bit as long as the North has. While they lack the absolute paranoiac devotion to military-over-everything, they also have more than twice the population, and an economy at least ten times the size.

They have fortifications. They have guarded airfields all over the country, with reinforced bunkers for their equipment. They've surely gone through a bazillion wargames exercises, anticipating the "minor understanding of war" tactics. They watch the North Koreans vigilantly from orbit, from the ground, and presumably through intelligence, though we know little about that.

The easy tricks work in wars that people aren't really expecting. This is a war everyone is expecting. Both sides are amply prepared for dastardly tactics. That may mean the war turns into a meat grinder, but it's not going to be a rout because South Korea has no plan to deal with Seoul being bombarded, or their airstrips shelled, or chemical weapons being deployed, or whatever else. Insofar as "dirty tricks" can be anticipated, they surely have been, and prepared for.

A much better question seems to be whether North Korea has the flexibility to respond strategically, given its isolation and political rigidity. I suspect if their initial strike goes poorly, that their tactical playbook has just one play: "turtle."

-Jester

Bunkers are great and all for protecting your planes Jester, but what are you going to do if your runway is cracked and full of craters? Simply, a weapon system that costs a few million dollars can totally nullify serveral weapons systems that cost a few hundred million dollars a piece.

Why do you think militaries of the world create weapon systems like runway cratering missiles and bombs? Sometimes it's easier to let someone defend their equipment to great effect, but their equipment won't do them a damn bit of good if they can't use it.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that you only are going to listen to your own opinion or people that share your opinion without looking at other aspects. Think outside the box Jester.

[Jester]

Bunkers are great and all for protecting your planes Jester, but what are you going to do if your runway is cracked and full of craters?

You're probably going to put your major military runways deep in your territory. It also doesn't hurt to have an ally that can position their air force on aircraft carriers offshore.

The North Koreans have squat all for bombing capabilities, and missiles that can't hit the broad side of a barn. How are they going to crater enough runways to stop South Korea from taking control of the skies? My guess is they just can't. NK Artillery can barely reach Seoul, let alone the bulk of South Korean territory.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that you only are going to listen to your own opinion or people that share your opinion without looking at other aspects. Think outside the box Jester.

I'm listening. Are you listening? I just think you're wrong. Should we sit here and argue about who's being open minded? That's a fun time for all.

-Jester

[Lissa]

Bunkers are great and all for protecting your planes Jester, but what are you going to do if your runway is cracked and full of craters?

You're probably going to put your major military runways deep in your territory. It also doesn't hurt to have an ally that can position their air force on aircraft carriers offshore.

The North Koreans have squat all for bombing capabilities, and missiles that can't hit the broad side of a barn. How are they going to crater enough runways to stop South Korea from taking control of the skies? My guess is they just can't. NK Artillery can barely reach Seoul, let alone the bulk of South Korean territory.

Before you go spouting you opinion on capabilities, maybe you should read about them first. The NK missile do have the accuracy in their short range systems to hit runways all the way to the southeastern coast.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that you only are going to listen to your own opinion or people that share your opinion without looking at other aspects. Think outside the box Jester.

I'm listening. Are you listening? I just think you're wrong. Should we sit here and argue about who's being open minded? That's a fun time for all.

-Jester

I'm quite listening, I'm also showing you where your opinion is not correct. Usually you're much better at looking up information before commenting, but this thread is showing that you're not.

[Jester]

Before you go spouting you opinion on capabilities, maybe you should read about them first. The NK missile do have the accuracy in their short range systems to hit runways all the way to the southeastern coast.

They're basically using modified Scuds - the Hwasong and Rodongs. I'd be willing to put good money that those missiles only hit their intended targets through the power of prayer at a range of 300-400 Km. If you're cratering an airstrip, a miss is as good as a mile - you have to hit the strip, or else you've wasted a shot. They'd basically have to fire off everything they have, and hope like hell it hits the right targets - because if they don't, they're fresh out of options. Those missiles are the one and only method the North Koreans have at hitting airstrips deep inside South Korea. As for the ones on aircraft carriers, you still haven't explained how they're supposed to deal with that - that's hundreds, and eventually thousands, of totally modern fighters and bombers, parked out in the ocean.

I'm quite listening, I'm also showing you where your opinion is not correct. Usually you're much better at looking up information before commenting, but this thread is showing that you're not.

Because in this thread, I'm disagreeing with you, rather than someone you disagree with?

I don't think you've demonstrated your case at all. You say NK has comparable tech, I showed that there is a huge deficit there. You say SK has no attack helicopters, I show they have hundreds. You say the South Koreans will be stunned into insensibility by the force and surprise of a North Korean attack, I point out that they've been anticipating exactly this attack for fifty years, have fortified their borders, and know location of North Korean forces down to the square centimeter.

What is it exactly that you said that was supposed to leave me flummoxed here?

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

Before you go spouting you opinion on capabilities, maybe you should read about them first. The NK missile do have the accuracy in their short range systems to hit runways all the way to the southeastern coast.

Hm, I'm certainly no expert on missile technology, but just from the information found after following up on your link (nothing in the paragraphs you linked said anything about NK missile accuracy regarding runways or similar structures, by the way), it would appear that NK has a lot of ballistic missiles with inertial guidance systems, which are, from what I've read, nowhere near accurate enough to reliable cripple South Korean airbases.

But maybe I missed something, a cracked rib kept me awake and I'm certainly not in my most reliable research mode.

take care
Tarabulus

[Lissa]

Before you go spouting you opinion on capabilities, maybe you should read about them first. The NK missile do have the accuracy in their short range systems to hit runways all the way to the southeastern coast.

Hm, I'm certainly no expert on missile technology, but just from the information found after following up on your link (nothing in the paragraphs you linked said anything about NK missile accuracy regarding runways or similar structures, by the way), it would appear that NK has a lot of ballistic missiles with inertial guidance systems, which are, from what I've read, nowhere near accurate enough to reliable cripple South Korean airbases.

But maybe I missed something, a cracked rib kept me awake and I'm certainly not in my most reliable research mode.

take care
Tarabulus

The KN-2-Toska is said to be very accurate and has a fairly good range for a short range missile. NK is also said to have a good number of them. They could easily be used to do some damage to air fields making them unusable.

[Jester]

The KN-2-Toska is said to be very accurate and has a fairly good range for a short range missile. NK is also said to have a good number of them. They could easily be used to do some damage to air fields making them unusable.

By "fairly good range", you mean 110 Km. That couldn't hit 80% of South Korea, and it wouldn't come even close to hitting targets on the southeast coast. For that, they need their modified Scuds, and the accuracy on those things is terrible.

-Jester

Edit: Perhaps I don't have the right missile - I hardly get any results for "KN-2 Toska" in google. Is there a different KN-2?

Edit of Edit: Ah! Toksa! And yes, it's a piece of junk, relative to what they'd need for what you're proposing. And they have 50 of them - even if they bullseyed every runway, they wouldn't do enough damage.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Hm, I'm certainly no expert on missile technology, but just from the information found after following up on your link (nothing in the paragraphs you linked said anything about NK missile accuracy regarding runways or similar structures, by the way), it would appear that NK has a lot of ballistic missiles with inertial guidance systems, which are, from what I've read, nowhere near accurate enough to reliable cripple South Korean airbases.

Inertial guidance systems can be quite accurate. I don't know of another system that would be suitable for war missiles (ballistic or cruise). The EMP from one big high altitude nuke can take out almost all the ground based and a lot of the space based electronics.

However, quite accurate is a relative term. Runways are small targets. Twenty years ago, I would have expected a CEP (circular error probable) of about 15 to 20 meters. Roughly speaking, that means three or four missiles per runway to get one crater. Runways are also pretty hard targets. A handy pile of gravel, a bulldozer, and some PSP, and that runway can be back in service in a matter of hours.

But maybe I missed something, a cracked rib kept me awake and I'm certainly not in my most reliable research mode.

Sorry to hear that. I hope you at least had fun cracking it

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Before you go spouting you opinion on capabilities, maybe you should read about them first. The NK missile do have the accuracy in their short range systems to hit runways all the way to the southeastern coast.

Hm, I'm certainly no expert on missile technology, but just from the information found after following up on your link (nothing in the paragraphs you linked said anything about NK missile accuracy regarding runways or similar structures, by the way), it would appear that NK has a lot of ballistic missiles with inertial guidance systems, which are, from what I've read, nowhere near accurate enough to reliable cripple South Korean airbases.

But maybe I missed something, a cracked rib kept me awake and I'm certainly not in my most reliable research mode.

take care
Tarabulus

The KN-2-Toska is said to be very accurate and has a fairly good range for a short range missile. NK is also said to have a good number of them. They could easily be used to do some damage to air fields making them unusable.

From info on Wikipedia the North Koreans reverse-engineered those from Scarab - A missiles out of Syria (though the reference links to some site in Russian that looks like a catalogue ). And those are listed as having a CEP (Wikipedia told me that that's a measure of accuracy) of 150m. Later types of Scarabs are more accurate, the best CEP given as under 95m. Not enough to reliably disable a runway, I'd say. No idea how the NK variant fares here, being based on a missile that entered service in 1975.

So, accepting that all the information we have here is based on educated guesses (I guess...?), I'd say that NK's chances of crippling the SK air force with those missiles are on the slim side.

take care
Tarabulus

[TheDragoon]

However, quite accurate is a relative term. Runways are small targets. Twenty years ago, I would have expected a CEP (circular error probable) of about 15 to 20 meters. Roughly speaking, that means three or four missiles per runway to get one crater. Runways are also pretty hard targets. A handy pile of gravel, a bulldozer, and some PSP, and that runway can be back in service in a matter of hours.

Plus, I would add that it's not like South Korea has 5 bases and each one has one runway or something. This link shows that they have quite a few airbases and to reach the level of being completely pinned down that Lissa is proposing a significant number of those would need to be shut down.


Lissa, overall I think you're just reaching too far. You're assuming that basically everything goes right for North Korea and that everything goes poorly for South Korea. A couple of those assumptions might be ok on their own but to assume that Seoul would be in flames and every South Korean runway disabled within the initial salvo, South Korea has no planned response for such an obvious North Korean initial attack and the US and South Korea were caught by surprise and are completely unprepared for the attack seems just shy of impossible.