posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:53 PM
As others have stated, putting jets out of Japan, over water, on extended coverage CAPs for Korean missile systems is an exercise in diminishing
returns. Not least because Japan is likely fully coverable with basic No Dong technology on any damn trajectory you care to name.
That said, I would start with a weaponized MQ-4 as a baseline and hope and pray the missiles high-endo mechanic was good enough to work as-is (rather
than LEAP to an SM.4a equivalent as a pure high-tier weapon with long development lag of it's own).
We tried something like this with the HARM-ASAT simulations as part of Raptor Talon I think it was. Never could get enough cross track performance to
get even a small threat country sufficiently 'on the rise' guaranteed of fallback kills without effectively making the UCAV as numerous as the
tacjets it nominally was intended to preserve for other missions. And so the effort was 'abandoned for cause' beyond that of the DOD refusal to
weaponize a superior HALE solution.
CMD is a more interesting issue, especially given the typically short range accredited to the ERINT. I would suggest that altitude buys you crossing
planview geometries on LO target tracks and the interceptor speed/snap down of the weapon is then used to buy into the intercept geometry before the
weapon passes from your radar cone.
KR-100/KS-172 functionally and by looks is more or less an ERINT as much as an AAAM clone and aside from the golden needle to needle $$:trade issues
(for which DEWS /always/ win in the end), it could probably be made workable.
Still pretty worthless (as persistent coverage on a low-encounter probability threat) in comparison with the simpler notion of JLENS+MALI as a
land-VLS launch box force cued by a few simple aerostats or an equivalent 'mountain top' (RQ-4+RTIP as SM.6 cuer) type handed defense from an
Given as they want me to register before I read even the synopsis, I cannot say what the article included beyond your initial quote to cover these
For every weapon there is a countermeasure. The Taepo Dongs are just so much fluff in the wind so long as the Chinese keep there hands on the
Norkian's economic choke chain because they have only the one launch site, no silos and too damn few warheads to make the ending of all Peninsular
life North of the 38th Parallel worth even Dear Leader's mad hatter teaparty.
OTOH, if you give the attention-deprived brat what he wants by way of trying to stopper his genie bottle, his next-best solution is going to be either
out-of-country through subs and infilitrators.
Or road and rail mobile TELs and super hard if not 'dense pack' shell gamed silo fields. For which Korea's geography and status as something like
the worlds fourth or fifth largest purchaser of LBTM positions it rather well.
If you're not willing to start wars so that you can finish spending wastefully on 'defense' (by making a public hanging example of the losers), you
are basically stuck with the notion of isolation-until-generational-death as the only means to rid yourselves of those you deem too unstable to have
nuclear toys. And yet too dangerous to pull them from.
The sooner we come round to this conclusion, the sooner we can dual-key both the Koreans and the Taiwanese and stop letting the Chinese bleed us white
'defending against' a stalking horse strategic policy.
I mean after all, China doesn't have any problems threatening to invade a 'rebel province' with whatever means necessary so long as that is their
point of access to Western banking and technology efforts. And the China/Norkian connection is also inherent to the Pakistani Ghauri and Iranian
Shahab systems. Hell Norkias own nuke tech base is origin-sourceable to China.
So why can't we just hand the ROKs some glowey in darky counterforce and walk away cheap?
What all the morons at the five walled asylum fail to realize is that we are having the same game played against us as we once did unto Russia:
Namely that nuclear weapons trump conventional ones whether by mass or sophistication. Always have, always will. So if their stupidity lay in
failing ot acknowledge that they can't beat us on the fields of a tripwire-NATO because we will rad their asses at least 30 minutes before they
return the favor. And indeed, 'noone on the planet' can beat the Mighty War Machine that is U.S. militarist adventurism in the post Cold War
WHY NOT make us spend money hand over fist to beat those whom they arm to stand-as-second-only-first in their place? They get money from the sale.
They get the pleasure of seeing U.S. spend to ammeliorate the consequences of that sale. And nobody shoots his arms dealer.
Of course it's probably not the inhabitants of the Pentagon who are morons but rather those who believe the 'dire tales' coming out of the looney
bin as an excuse to leverage our futures to their retirement plans.
Cost to Cost however; the only way to win is not only not to play. But not to spend like fools pretending we intended to.