Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Or have heard of top-secret DARPA technology called "radar" and "computing".

Yeah... you would be able to achieve a perfect hit on the missile a short while after it's too far away to hit.

[Mangled]

In b4 reflective shielding on missiles.

And just an FYI, a SCUD is not an ICBM is definitely not an artillery round. Yes. You can put a nuclear warhead on those. Good luck tracking something with no exhaust.

Radar.
Oh radars been mentioned..
Ach.

[Nikov]

Unfortunately, most missile launches are detected by the fuel ignition. If you miss that, then by the time you realized that radar blip was an actual missile, it'd be too late. (and wouldn't exactly help with nuclear artillery, either)

Not only that, but you don't need an ICBM to hit SK from NK. Any number of cruise or low-altitude/short-range missile systems can be adapted to carry a nuclear warhead.

That picture there is older technology being updated with a missile-based defence system. That, or even the newer system, can't intercept artillery rounds. Even if it could, NK has tons of artillery; they'd keep firing until it runs out of ammo.

The Phalanx CWIS was purpose-built for missile defense, the new technology is being able to shoot down mortar rounds. Everyone keeps repeating this tired line about not being able to shoot down a missile if you don't know where its launched from. Its absolutely false. Over the horizon, supersonic sea-skimming missiles can be shot down by CWIS systems purpose built to do so in the amount of time it can see the missile coming in. And it DOES NOT require a launch signature or an engine signature.

The Phalanx randomly shoots down seagulls.

[Duke 2.0]

In b4 reflective shielding on missiles.

And just an FYI, a SCUD is not an ICBM is definitely not an artillery round. Yes. You can put a nuclear warhead on those. Good luck tracking something with no exhaust.

Radar.

And even if were a small blip that could be a bird, it is a small blip that could or could not be a bird coming from North Korea. If things get hot every eye, sensor and detector will be trained on that place.

Won't do much for stopping an all-out artillery strike on Seoul, but anything heading anywhere farther than China will be seen soon enough to be dealt with.

[Eugenitor]

BTW, what should really cinch this argument is that, unless they're just not announcing it (and why wouldn't they? They could gloat about it and knock a great deal of wind out of NK's sails), absolutely none of the artillery that NK actually fired was intercepted. Had NK been using nuke artillery, that island would be toast.

Again, Nikov. Short-range radar-based point defense against an armed nuclear warhead with a blast radius greater than your point defense's range, probably implosion-style, practically guaranteed to fail deadly. You shoot it. What happens?

[Leafsnail]

The Phalanx CWIS was purpose-built for missile defense, the new technology is being able to shoot down mortar rounds. Everyone keeps repeating this tired line about not being able to shoot down a missile if you don't know where its launched from. Its absolutely false. Over the horizon, supersonic sea-skimming missiles can be shot down by CWIS systems purpose built to do so in the amount of time it can see the missile coming in. And it DOES NOT require a launch signature or an engine signature.

The Phalanx randomly shoots down seagulls.

Which is great if you're ok with all incoming planes being shot down too.  Also... isn't that something to do with the way the missile will generally be towards the CWIS system?

And yeah, what Eugenitor said.

[Nikov]

All out, no. But North Korea has very few artillery tubes that can hit Seoul. The majority of the ordinance they would send south is unguided rocket artillery. As I recall, the amount of time needed to put a counterbattery round on a launch site at the DMZ is about six minutes. Unfortunately they're firing from hardened positions where they pull a truck out of a concrete tunnel, fire the rack, and drive back into the tunnel. So their launchers are pretty survivable until ground penetrating bombs can be called in from aircraft. But NK air defense is built around density and survivability with a lot of old fashioned AAA.

Basically the whole thing is nasty and the first twelve to twenty four hours will be the worst of it for South Korea.

Eugenitor, that doesn't cinch anything. Patriot batteries aren't going to intercept artillery rounds. South Korea doesn't operate the Phalanx, they use Goalkeepers. And if you shoot a nuclear warhead, it explodes irregularly and fails to properly compress the uranium core. That's pretty easy to grasp.

Yes, Leafsnail, it works great when they're coming toward you. That's why its called a Close In Weapons System. Which is what lets it shoot down things coming to a target near where the system is set up. What is so hard to grasp about this.

[Duke 2.0]

Again, Nikov. Short-range radar-based point defense against an armed nuclear warhead with a blast radius greater than your point defense's range, probably implosion-style, practically guaranteed to fail deadly. You shoot it. What happens?

The warhead would detonate with a small uneventful fireball.

 It's really fucking hard to make a nuclear reaction. You can't merely blow up the warhead, you need to go through a precise detonation to make it work.

Edit: Goddammit nikov!

[Nikov]

Again, Nikov. Short-range radar-based point defense against an armed nuclear warhead with a blast radius greater than your point defense's range, probably implosion-style, practically guaranteed to fail deadly. You shoot it. What happens?

The warhead would detonate with a small uneventful fireball.

 It's really fucking hard to make a nuclear reaction. You can't merely blow up the warhead, you need to go through a precise detonation to make it work.

Edit: Goddammit nikov!

Hey, correcting idiocy is half the battle (the other half is getting there first).

[Bauglir]

Again, Nikov. Short-range radar-based point defense against an armed nuclear warhead with a blast radius greater than your point defense's range, probably implosion-style, practically guaranteed to fail deadly. You shoot it. What happens?

The warhead would detonate with a small uneventful fireball.

 It's really fucking hard to make a nuclear reaction. You can't merely blow up the warhead, you need to go through a precise detonation to make it work.

Edit: Goddammit nikov!

Hey, correcting idiocy is half the battle (the other half is getting there first).

The third half is violence.

[Eugenitor]

So basically, it's "hope it predetonates instead of the implosion core going off?"

Um. Guys. The reason modern nuclear weapons won't go off unless they go through a specific sequence is because they're designed that way. It's a built-in safety feature, not something inherent to the technology. You're hoping that North Korea designed its weapons the same way.

[Leafsnail]

Yes, Leafsnail, it works great when they're coming toward you. That's why its called a Close In Weapons System. Which is what lets it shoot down things coming to a target near where the system is set up. What is so hard to grasp about this.

So... if you filled the entire country with CWIS, which would shoot birds and planes at random, you would have a sortof defence against nuclear missiles?

[Lord Shonus]

It took the US and USSR over a DECADE to go from first detonation to low-yield atomic shells. It took years even to make them something that could be carried by any but the largest aircraft. With the resources of the world's two richest nations, no international pressure to restrict developments, and no nations threatening war over testing (miniaturizing the warhead is exceedingly difficult without such tests.) IF the DPRK has any serviceable nuclear warheads, they will likely be very low yield, and it is unlikely that they have any delivery system besides their upgraded Scuds. The bomb would probably be too large to be carried by most of their aircraft, let alone their artillery. Those missiles have been brought down successfully in the past by SAMs of the type used by UN and ROK forces. (The "bullet with a bullet" applies to ICBMS, which are several orders of magnitude more difficult to engage do to speed.)

EDIT: Euginator, It IS an inherent nature of the technology. For an implosion-type bomb, the core MUST be compressed exactly right, or it can't detonate. Similarly, a gun-type warhead requres the driver to strike the stationary portion exactly.

As to their conventional capabilities, they are FAR more advanced than most of you seem to think. The most advanced equipment they are known to possess (such as the Mig-29) is nearly at par with the F-15 and F-16 fighters deployed in theater, and their second-line equipment (such as Mig-21 and -23 fighters)is servicable and in very large numbers. Unlike Iraq, the equipment will be in extremely good condition, operated by highly trained, highly skilled soldiers. A second Korean war would be a long, protracted ground war, with perhaps as many as a million casualties.

[Leafsnail]

(The "bullet with a bullet" applies to ICBMS, which are several orders of magnitude more difficult to engage do to speed.)

Ah, yeah, true.  I've read about it more in a kindof "stop Russian missiles" context.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But how many of those highly trained soliders grew up with proper nutrition? The current generation in North Korea is called "The Stunted Generation" for good reason. So many people grew up in perpetual starvation that they never developed properly. Not to mention that NK has the highest millitary population by percentage of any nation. No way they could train all of them well.