It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korean Air-Force.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Most of you know about the nuclear test that took place this monday morning about 3 AM GMT. My question does not surround the nuclear test at all, at least not directly. I had some sparetime and I looked up at Globalsecurity.org about the North Korean air-force. I actually managed to find rather interesting info. According to the site the NK air-foce has a personell of 70 000 people. And when I looked up the equipment they use I was actually amazed how old the equipent is that they use. MiG-19 and MiG-21 are everything but state of the art and rather easy to overtake. At least for the Raptor, Eurofighter and the F-35. So my question is: Does North korea have an advanced fighter that could put up any sort of fight againt the "allied" fighters. Obviously they have some MiG-29 too, but that won't save the country will it?

NK air-force

Globalsecurity "NK" air-force equipment




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Their airforce is really weak. Mig-29 are their most powerfull platform and they have not many of them. Aircrafts are expensive and NK economy is in shatters since fall of communism. They have excellent artillery though - probably the most powerfull in the world. That said in case of offensive they might to devastate 100-200km south of the border, but they probably won't be able to advance further without aircover.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Their airforce is really weak. Mig-29 are their most powerfull platform and they have not many of them. Aircrafts are expensive and NK economy is in shatters since fall of communism. They have excellent artillery though - probably the most powerfull in the world. That said in case of offensive they might to devastate 100-200km south of the border, but they probably won't be able to advance further without aircover.


I see, thank you.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
It's not only what you fly but how you fly and we train the best of anybody in the world. Iraq had some late model aircraft too but none of their pilots who engaged us in air to air won a contest. Not one US fighters was shot down by an Iraqi plane!

During the Korean War the only reason we lost much of anything in air to air was because seasoned Russian aces were flying the MiG 15s. The NoKos suck at air combat!



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
It's not only what you fly but how you fly and we train the best of anybody in the world. Iraq had some late model aircraft too but none of their pilots who engaged us in air to air won a contest. Not one US fighters was shot down by an Iraqi plane!

During the Korean War the only reason we lost much of anything in air to air was because seasoned Russian aces were flying the MiG 15s. The NoKos suck at air combat!


Mmm, i thought an Iraqi Mig-25 scored a kill against a US F/A-18 over Iraq? Aircraft belonged to VFA-81.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Experts believe that North Korea Air Force's fleet of fighter jets will be annhilated by both American's Air Force and Navy Air Force in about 10 hours or less of combats. It is Pentagon's stragety, not allowing other enemines to have fair fight. Hell, they'd already send F-22s' to down lotta of MiG-29 and maybe they still got these old MiG-15 in service from infamous Korea War in 1950's...



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dagebow
Mmm, i thought an Iraqi Mig-25 scored a kill against a US F/A-18 over Iraq? Aircraft belonged to VFA-81.


In Desert Storm we did lose pilots, however he could have been referring to OIF, I don't believe we lost any fighters as a result of A2A combat.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I did an extensive google-earth thread on North Korean air power a while back.

By far their most prolific air defense is ground based: light (23mm etc) AAA in static emplacements with limited/zero radar direction. There are literally hundreds of emplacements with more being built, particularly around the capital and near nuclear sites. They also have a few SA-2 and SA-5 SAM sites but nothing like total coverage and these look neglected anyway.

One problem the South faces is the closeness of the capital to the boarder. In case of unwarned NK air attack on the Seol, the primary defences would be the South Korean/US I-Hawk and Patriot SAM batteries.

The problem for the South is simply numbers - if the North launched an all out assault with 50+ jets, MiG-17 or otherwise, then it simply couldn't shoot them ALL down in one go. Some South Korean sources say that the North would employ its older jets in the first wave of attack, acting as cannon fodder in the most literal sense. When the US Patriot batteries have run out of missiles and need to reload, that's when the bombers and MiG-29s arrive.


But at any rate, artillery, midget subs and tactical ballistic missiles are far stronger weapons for the North than its outmoded airforce.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I'm fairly sure that by now the US has taken some measures to ensure quick action the moment NK says "war!". NK's air force is quite weak because of the relative age of its aircraft. The MiG 29's the have were excellent in the older days, but now there's some new toys flying around. I'm fairly sure that minutes after NK declares war there will be NATO aircraft in the air, fully armed.

Just as a side note, if NK does declare war how will this affect the development of current aircraft? I'm willing to bet that production of the F-22, F-25, and EF-2000 will be given emergency funds to get these things in the air. Can anyone else shine a spotlight on any plans the governments are making in the event of war that concern aircraft production?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
One of the reasons for going nuclear is insecurity due to asymetrical force levels. Their equipment is antique and reliance is primarily on their missile forces, where their scientists have succeeded in making fairly accurate guidance systems for their missiles which are in hot demand in countries such as Pakistan.

They can never hope to get the latest conventional weaponry due to export restrictions from other countries and now with the looming UN sanctions, it's going to get worse for them.

But then if a nuclear deterrent is in place, then a state of 'Balance of terror' exists and nullifies the conventional asymetry. So probably they would not need to spend billions on the latest 'gizmos' just yet!



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
NK would just nuke the US bases in SK - and lob something at CONUS



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I don't think they have the capability (yet) to put their nuclear weapons into an IRBM/ICBM, or to fit it into any other platform capable of hitting US bases, nevermind the CONUS. In any case the US has PATRIOT batteries in the region along with ABM assets as well as missiles capable of destroying it's one and only long range launch pad on short notice. That's another thing to look at, without air cover their medium to long range missile force wont even get off the ground. And I'm willing to bet the US has gotten much better at destroying mobile SCUD launchers.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
No Iraqi pilot claimed even a single confirmed kill against any Coallition aircraft. Interviewed pilots stressed that they never fully recovered from the fact that they failed to shot down even one enemy, despite their sternous efforts to mount at least a single successful interception, and a number of air combats in which they fired missiles. On the basis of this as well as on the basis of additional evidence supplied from official USAF, USN, RAF and AMI documents, conclusion was that there is no basis for any of the known claims for downing of Coallition aircraft by IrAF interceptors in 1991.

Whether it's an urban myth or not one plane claimed ain't no air superiority for sure.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't think they have the capability (yet) to put their nuclear weapons into an IRBM/ICBM, or to fit it into any other platform capable of hitting US bases, nevermind the CONUS. In any case the US has PATRIOT batteries in the region along with ABM assets as well as missiles capable of destroying it's one and only long range launch pad on short notice. That's another thing to look at, without air cover their medium to long range missile force wont even get off the ground. And I'm willing to bet the US has gotten much better at destroying mobile SCUD launchers.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by WestPoint23]


From all respects, I myself find it quite improbable that the North Koreans have developed a missile platform with sufficient range to reach the CONUS. Alaska may be an interesting target if they so wished to take pot shots at the Oil production fields in the region, but the only real risk to the US, is their bases in the local area.

As for the Patriot Missile system, I still have serious misgivings for that system, its performance in the first gulf war was questionable, not to mention the second. Does any one recall the fact it managed to shoot down a RAF F-3 in a landing pattern? I understand that it has been upgraded, but I will withhold judgement on just how effective, its designer's claim it to be.

I agree that without air cover, I doubt that it will ever manage to launch any thing, if its pre-emtive, then there will be some issues with the South Koreans or American forces actually attempting to intercept it.

As for attacking Sud type launch platforms... Thats a tricky one in my opinion, a lesson learned from the Gulf War was the fact that you need feet on the ground, scouting possible transport links and launch areas, with North Korean, I can see it being nearly impossible. The flat desert is very different to the mountain terrain of korea... Look at how well we did in Bosnia, at attacking the Serb tanks... Without special forces in North Korea, I don't see much success in attacking a SUD before it launches...

UAV's will help, but as its been mentioned before, UAV's don't have a threat system and MANPATs are cheap.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Here's a link that discusses the loss of an F/A-18 flown by LCDR Scott Speicher, USN. The kill was credited to a Mig-25, though there is still some debate about what exactly happened.

Scott Speicher

Sorry this slightly off topic!



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Yeah I know the Speicher story but "suggests" and "reportedly" are not "conclusively." There is no War Department report confirming anything of the sort. Even if true, one kill don't make air superiority.


[edit on 10/12/06 by Cruizer]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
InterestedBrit

I too have doubts that North Korea has a missile capable of reaching the CONUS and I don't think it will possess one with that type of capability for some time. And I also doubt it's current long range IRBM will be able to reach Alaska with a nuclear payload. Also the PAC-3 is a new systems specifically designed for TBM's and it is battle tested. As for the Tornado, an unfortunate incident no doubt, but you should look into the cause of that, it had nothing to do with the Patriot's ability or capability, or lack thereof. But I admit in a preemptive attack from mobile SCUD's these systems can be overwhelmed if North Korea can surprise us with dozens of missiles (or more) at once.

As for destroying mobile SCUD launchers, while it will be tough I think the US has gotten a lot better since we now have a whole array of systems and technologies that were not available to us during Gulf War One.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Yeah I know the Speicher story but "suggests" and "reportedly" are not "conclusively." There is no War Department report confirming anything of the sort. Even if true, one kill don't make air superiority.


[edit on 10/12/06 by Cruizer]


You first said "Not one US fighters was shot down by an Iraqi plane!"

I responded with the Mig-25 kill. CIA and other reports avialiable via the above posts link do in fact point out that the plane was probably shotdown in light of other evidence.

Yes one kill is not air superiority but i was trying to point out that indeed on eaircraft had been lost to what many experts believe may have been an enemy aircraft.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Westpoint

The PAC-3, to my knowledge has yet to actually tested in a threat environment. Yes it may have been deployed and I do believe it has also taken part in a number of test engagements, but that does not make it combat tried and tested.

The PAC-3 is an interesting evolution in my belief, its designed to intercept incoming ICBM's yet American's seem to believe that it can intercept ICBM's even in the launch stage... Alaska, I still believe is one part of the US which would be some what easier to strike than the CONUS, if it were to effect oil production, that would have some important economic repercussions, which in the end would still have a huge effect on North Korean Morale. Striking back and all that jolly good stuff.

The F-3 Incident, I must admit still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Command and Control issues, not to mention intelligence mistakes and miscommuncation, do not make the incident any more shocking or disturbing. I myself still find it hard to believe that its difficult to mistake a 200 knot aircraft in a dirty profile, to a mach 3 missile. Sadly, we all base assumptions on what we hear or read about, based on the information available to me, I still see the Patriot program lacking, either in crew training, operational concept or its ability to do its job. Sadly I must admit some bias in this arena.

SUD Hunting in my opinion is the bread and butter of the Special Operations Lads, with a nice high flying B-2 or low level fast mover with some goodies. In a situation with North Korean, I still feel that the Special Ops bunch will be the ones that will be tasked with the actual job of finding and in some cases taking care of them. Again this is all hypothetical, but this is just my opinion on the matter, the terrain and physical make up of the North Korean military, in my opinion only leaves a hole open for the Spec Ops bunch.

Thanks.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by InterestedBrit]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Well if they attacked Alaska with a nuclear missile little proud would the North Koreans could have, mainly because they will be sent into space minutes after.

I bet at least one Ohio class sub is around North Korea right now...

Also if missile defence system works it would work against a relatively simple missile




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join