These guys obviously think one nuke will take out the US, and one Silkworm will take out a carrier.And that our guys aren't praying for an excuse to wipe that smug look off their faces. >:-}
| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Norks deploying SA-2s, Samlet & Silkworm missiles around Yellow Sea |
| 2010-11-28 |
| These guys obviously think one nuke will take out the US, and one Silkworm will take out a carrier. And that our guys aren't praying for an excuse to wipe that smug look off their faces. >:-} |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #24 See also FREEREPUBLIC > NORTH KOREA DEPLOYS MISSLES ON SOUTHERN BORDER. Yokay, Ill bite, as per ARTIC = ISN'T THE DPRK'S "SOUTHERN BORDER" FACING CHINA + RUSSIA, i.e. NOT THE DMZ WID SOUTH KOREA??? * WAFF > NORTH KOREA READIES MISSLES [SSMS, SAMS] AS US, SOUTH KOREA BEGIN DRILLS. --------------- ION KOREA TIMES > [YeonPyeong] FIRST NORTH KOREAN ATTACK ON SOUTH KOREAN SOIL [since 1950-1953 Korean War]. * SAME > NORTH KOREA USED "FUEL-AIR" SHELLS [thermobaric] FOR YEONPYEONG. * SAME > SEOUL MULLS NEW COMMAND FOR WEST SEA REGION [Integrated = ROK "Joint Services/Forces"]. ROK hindsight in aftermath of DPRK ARTY strikes agz YeongPyeong Island. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-11-28 22:02 |
| #23 Again, the DPRK had unilater abrogated = declared null + void the 1953 Armistice "ending" the first Korean War. SCOPE > Tech speaking, as far as North Korea is concerned A MAJOR MIL CONFLICT = "SHOOTING WAR" on the Korean Peninsula can RESUME ANEW AT ANY TIME. A Pyongyang dems istelf the SOLE LEGITIMATE GOVT FOR BOTH NORTH, SOUTH KOREA, ITO THE USS "MIGHTY/HOLY GEORGE" CVN + CBG, etc. will be violating DPRK sovereignty by: (1) holding MILEXS in DPRK-claimed territorial waters, or else agz "Spheres/Zones of Influence". ANDOR (2) Holding sSame wid what Pyongyang perceives are ILLGITIMATE, ILLEGAL, SOUTH KOREAN "REBELS/ INSURGENTS/CRIMINALS" IN OPPOS TO PYONGYANG. IFF MAHA-RUSHIAN "HISTOIRE'" IS ANY MEASURE, NORTH KOREA WILL CLAIM "DEFENSE OF SOVEREIGNTY/TERRITORY" WHILE SIMUL CLAIMING THAT IT TWASN'T THE ONE WHOM PLANNED OR ORDERED THE SPECIFIC ATTACK [SSSSSSSSSSHHHHHH...CCCCCCCCCCC C-orrectness read, "CHINA" TWAS DUN IT]. STARVING NORTH KOREA ... * will be destroyed either by China or US-Allies in MAJOR WAR [Sino-US/UNO]. * will be destroyed by China to save China from US-Allies. * RUSSIA > likely will refuse to fight any major War Agz NUCLEAR CHINA. * CHINA > may likely entrench deeper both Economically + Demographically, hence also Politically, in coming decades thanks to NEW SINO-DPRK FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS [Chin-built, Chin-dominated FREEPORTS = EEZS-SEZS/FTZ Encalves inside DPRK]. Think "INK BLOT" STRATEGY. * CHINA > does NOT want either a NON-COMMIE GOVT IN DPRK NOR TO SEE ANY NON/ANTI-CHIN US-WESTERN INFLUENCE OF ANY SORT GAIN A POTENT FOOTHOLD IN DPRK. * CHINA > desires CONTINUITY OF HISTORIC PAN-KOREAN "VASSALAGE" OR HOMAGE TO BEIJING, HENCE THE DPRK FEARS BEING SEEN IN BEIJING AS "TOO SUCCESSFUL/INDEPENDENT" FROM, COMPARED TO BEIJING. * PERTS > ITO CHINA does NOT desire to care for MILYUHNS + DILYUHNS OF DPRK REFUGEES IN CASE OF WAR OR ECON, OTHER DPRK NATIONAL COLLAPSE. IOW, STARVING NORTH KOREA = "UN-ANNEXED CHIN TERRITORY", WID LITTLE OR NO HOPE OF DPRK/KOREAN-CENTRIC, SOVEREIGN NATIONAL "MANIFEST DESTINY", + WHOSE SOLE ECON INDUSTRY IS MAINTAINING A MASSIVE, COST-PROHIBITIVE ARMY TO DO BEJING'S BIDDING ["DO-N-DIE" FOR CHINA]. The good news for the DPRK = ORDINARY NORH KOREANS is that they get to DIE FIRST in war before any Chinese do. Given the above, the questione for MAINSTREAM AMERICA = POTUS BAMMER is how should the US respond iff the STARV DPRK DOES INDEED DO SOMETHING MIL ASYMMETRIC, EE ATTACKS THE "USS GEORGE" + OR USFK, USFK ASSETS. REMEMBER, IFF BEIJING TAKES OVER THE DPRK FOR ANY REASON, THE KOREANS AS A PEOPLE WOULD HAD LOST ROUGHLY 2-1/2 OF THREE OF THE ORIGINAL ANCIENT "THREE KINGDOMS" OF KORYE. ALSO, A "WEAK" US MIL RESPONSE OR US "NON-RESPONSE" TO DPRK MIL AGGRESSION MAY EMBOLDEN CHINA + perhaps also NUCLEARIZING RADICAL ISLAM. Not to mention a NUCLEAR-ARMED JAPAN, NUCLEAR SOUTH KOREA, + other REGIONAL, GEOPOL DOMINOS. [Domino Theory]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-11-28 21:50 |
| #22 I think they're stupid enough to TRY it, we shall see. But NOT smart enough to survive the try. Then again, they're all bluster and Hype, I think it's too good a target, For the NORKS to pass up and it WILL be the end of them, hit it or not. I give the NORKS a month to exist, then away to the dustbin of History. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-11-28 21:08 |
| #21 Grom - an Essex class didn't carry upward of 60 tac nukes, either. A single Carrier Battle Group could take out most of North Korea by itself. It's also very strongly defended, and has some "stuff" on board you'd have to see to believe. Taking a poke at a CBG is about as smart as beating a hornet's nest while on crutches. You may get in a lick or two, but you're GONNA suffer. Unless you've seen some of the classified reports I've seen of US warships used in thermonuclear tests, you cannot believe how hard it is to sink a modern warship. The typical carrier is designed to withstand up to 20 torpedo hits - unless the warheads are nuclear, and even then, it better blast immediately under the ship, or the retaliation will be fierce. I don't even believe Kim is stupid to really attack a US CBG. If he does, it very well could be the last thing he does, regardless of who's in the White House. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2010-11-28 20:40 |
| #20 The Yellow Sea is far too shallow a wading pool for the likes of a 12,000 ton nuclear powered submarine. |
| Posted by: Lurker z 2010-11-28 20:18 |
| #19 IIRC the last couple ships tested were sunk with classified weapons/time/intensity/amount. Not a Nimitz class test |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-11-28 19:50 |
| #18 Has anyone ever put a modern CVN in the missile range and test it? |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-11-28 19:46 |
| #17 An Essex didn't have miles of computer cables nor highly sophisticated fighter jets. Whistling past the graveyard. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-11-28 18:00 |
| #16 Interesting coincidence that the Washington is sailing into harms's way just as our friend Assange releases thousands of diplomatic exchanges. For whose benefit is Assange acting? |
| Posted by: Matt 2010-11-28 17:44 |
| #15 A good indicator of how hard it is to sink a carrier is actually visible when you boat past one while it's in port. Doing this, I was able to see a LOT of daylight, right through the middle of the carrier. If a missile hits significantly above the water line, there is a good chance it will take out one of the redundant elevator shafts, or other lower value mostly empty space. Clearly designed to be ship to ship missile resistant. And I imagine the same idea went into its torpedo resistant design as well. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-11-28 17:27 |
| #14 As far as 3 hits disabling a carrier, review how many hits Essex carriers in WWII took and kept fighting. Nimitz class carriers next to Essex class carriers look like Greyhound buses next to Mini-Coopers. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-11-28 16:50 |
| #13 If it is a standard Carrier Battle Group that got deployed, it will have at least 2 attack class subs with it, in addition to all of the surface ships and aircraft. Also regarding the Silkworm, it can be easily spoofed into thinking up is down, left is right, etc. Adding to carrier defenses are the CIWS systems carried by all the CBG frigates and destroyers - Silkworms are easy kills for CIWS. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-11-28 16:48 |
| #12 Do I understand the submarine USS Jimmy Carter is there? She's supposed to be quite good at her job, including detecting enemy subs, despite who she is named after. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-11-28 15:58 |
| #11 To Gronky and others: 1) you're talking a lot more than 100 missiles; each Aegis ship in the AAW screen is carrying nearly that, not counting SeaRAM, Sea Sparrow and Sea Wiz. 2) You're overlooking electronic jamming and spoofing- the Silkworm is a very old, very stupid missile; and there's no limit on the number you can direct into the water. 3) Even the much smaller Essex-class carriers in WWII took multiple hits from kamikazes and bombs with more destructive power than an SS-N-2, and in most cases had resumed flight ops within a couple of hours. Even the tiny throwaway frigate Stark survived two Exocets. 4). However, the Norks do have half-decent submarines, a much, much much bigger threat- especially since that moron Clinton got rid of the S-3 Vikings. |
| Posted by: Fat Bob Uleasing6862 2010-11-28 15:43 |
| #10 I think the Norks are hedging against the exercise being cover for a retaliation strike. |
| Posted by: Pstanley 2010-11-28 12:28 |
| #9 I think there is a little more going on than rolling 51 dice, especially if the base thac0 is 20, course depends on who is rolling eh? I do miss the f-14, thought it could be useful as a picket anti-missile defense system. Wonder how ye olde sosus game went. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-11-28 12:25 |
| #8 Finally I want to point out that when we sunk that old carrier not too long ago it took a great number of missiles, torpedoes, and salvos to sink a stationary target. Yeah, to SINK it. I'm sure after the first 1-3 hits it was a flaming wreck that needed a tugboat to go anywhere. Not to mention the thousands of casualties. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-11-28 12:15 |
| #7 In agreement with the comments regarding the propaganda value of hitting the carrier or some of the aircraft. The more basic question is about is this a statement by a very determined US leadership convinced they can stare down the NORKs and with the stones to do what is necessary is that shot is fired, or the stupid act of a clueless moron in the White House making a press statement because he is convinced no one would dare offend him? Buehler? Buehler......anyone? |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2010-11-28 10:25 |
| #6 I've seen that game before. Where little sister smacks big brother hard, then runs to mommy for protection. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-11-28 09:35 |
| #5 shooting a missile at a carrier is hazardous to your health and those around you |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-11-28 08:59 |
| #4 You don't have to sink a carrier. You don't even have to incapacitate it. Just hit it, and you've got a huge victory in a propaganda war where the enemy's press is your greatest ally. And there's an extra bonus if you can get a few aircraft refueling or rearming. The propaganda value of putting these targets in harms' way in no way corresponds to the risk assumed, as we will learn at the least convenient moment, especially as we have no intention of using them. If we really want to send a message, we should talk to the Japanese about basing rights for Predators. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-11-28 08:29 |
| #3 Damn, ain't anyone said shit about running up against no Guidelines. Count me and the boys out. |
| Posted by: Goldies Every Damn Where 2010-11-28 08:15 |
| #2 These are very old missiles and can be intercepted or defeated. Both are subsonic and are vulnerable to anti missile defenses. Also both need a radar for guidance and radars are sitting ducks when they are radiating. Finally I want to point out that when we sunk that old carrier not too long ago it took a great number of missiles, torpedoes, and salvos to sink a stationary target. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2010-11-28 06:18 |
| #1 How do you destroy a carrier that has 100 defensive missiles and a 50% interception rate? Fire 51 Silkworms at it. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-11-28 04:06 |