F-35 vs. DPRK

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 521
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 13:59

Tensions are escalating in Korea. We all hope no one goes over the edge, but if they do, and a shooting war starts what role will the F-35 play? The obvious one is SEAD, or DEAD missions, since in order to hit NK artillery, and rocket positions our aircraft will have to fly deep into NK to attack positions from the north side of the mountain ridges. That means NK IADS will have to be taken down immediately.

Coalition air forces won't have days for a SEAD campaign, because they will have to start taking out dug in guns, and rockets on the first day of the fighting. The objective is to stop thousands of guns, and rockets from devastating SK cities on day one. A lot of the work will fall to army counter battery fire, but aircraft will have to play a big part. This will be much more difficult then DS back in 91.

Back then we had time for a systematic air campaign, in open desert country. We had time to assemble our air assets in advance, and set up a vast logistical support system. This time we might be starting cold, and have to deal with a major ground campaign on day one. On top of that NK might be able to deploy nuclear weapons.

To make matters even worse China is implying that if the Coalition initiates the conflict they would join in on the side of NK. In that case were not just dealing with NK's decaying air force, but the PLAAF. Major Chinese ground forces, and mobile IADS could join the fight, along with naval forces at least on the west side of the Korean Peninsula. China could attempt to interfere with the flow of American air, sea, and land reinforcement heading to the port of Busan.

If it comes to all this is the F-35 ready for the highest tempo operation since I don't know when? At this point we only have 1 USMC F-35B Squadron in theater. Every F-35 in the USMC, and the USAF will have to be thrown into the fight. Are we ready for this?

This has to be the most ill-conceived, operation since the Bay of Pigs. No political preparation, no coalition building, no amassing of forces, no mobilization of reserves, or deploying assets that would be needed in the fight on day 1, and worst of all no exhausting of means short of war. We don't even have clearly defined goals. I hope to God that sanity prevails, and this never happens. This is hopefully a bluff on both sides, or the world is facing the biggest miscalculation since Aug 1914. We have 2 megalomaniacs engaging in a pissing contest, and millions of people could be killed in the cross stream.
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 20:50

tincansailor wrote:This has to be the most ill-conceived, operation since the Bay of Pigs.


What operation?
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 521
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 21:29

arian wrote:
tincansailor wrote:This has to be the most ill-conceived, operation since the Bay of Pigs.


What operation?



A preemptive strike on North Korea. The United States should always speak in clear, calm, and measured terms. Not with belligerent threats. Saying we will respond with "Fire and fury, like the world has never seen." to verbal threats is dangerous. The United States should never bluff. If NK follows through with it's counter threat and fires 4 medium range ballistic missiles into the sea around Guam what do we do?

I suspect we will try to shoot them down. If we succeed do we regard it has an attack requiring a response? If we fail, and 1 or more missiles hit the water do we revenge this attack on American water and retaliate? We need to slow down, and start controlling the tempo of this crisis, before it gets out of hand. We have about a dozen steps to take before we start talking about preemptive strikes. Saying this is a none event is like saying the Cuban Missile crisis was no big deal because only 1 pilot was killed.
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 22:38

tincansailor wrote:The United States should always speak in clear, calm, and measured terms. Not with belligerent threats.


It was always ever thus!

The last guy promised retaliation against Russia for unproven "interference" in the last election there, not long after looking a right plum over Syrian 'red lines'.
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 22:48

Again, what operation? Your critique was that, supposedly, we were not making the preparations for this operation which was the most poorly conceived since, whatever.

So several questions:

1) What operation?
2) How do you know what we are or aren't doing?
3) The situation escalated (at least in words) only a few days ago. What do you think could or should be done in terms of deployment in a few days?
4) Do we not have lots of assets already positioned to respond? If not, what else do we need? And if so, do you expect all of that to happen in a couple of days?

As for the rhetoric, how else should we say it to North Korea other than if you fire on us we will erase you from the map? That sounds exactly the sort of thing that needs to be said to North Korea. That is very clear, calm and measured. And...official US policy for decades.

You can of course disagree with that for your own political reasons, but you haven't really convinced me otherwise (or really argued it).

PS: Oh and, what preemptive strike on NK? Nobody ever said anything about preemptive anything. Sorry but that is not even a strawman. That's outright false. As I've said in the past, lay off the CNN. It's brain rot.
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 22:59

tincansailor wrote:Tensions are escalating in Korea. We all hope no one goes over the edge, but if they do, and a shooting war starts what role will the F-35 play? The obvious one is SEAD, or DEAD missions, since in order to hit NK artillery, and rocket positions our aircraft will have to fly deep into NK to attack positions from the north side of the mountain ridges. That means NK IADS will have to be taken down immediately.

Coalition air forces won't have days for a SEAD campaign, because they will have to start taking out dug in guns, and rockets on the first day of the fighting. The objective is to stop thousands of guns, and rockets from devastating SK cities on day one. A lot of the work will fall to army counter battery fire, but aircraft will have to play a big part. This will be much more difficult then DS back in 91.

Back then we had time for a systematic air campaign, in open desert country. We had time to assemble our air assets in advance, and set up a vast logistical support system. This time we might be starting cold, and have to deal with a major ground campaign on day one. On top of that NK might be able to deploy nuclear weapons.

To make matters even worse China is implying that if the Coalition initiates the conflict they would join in on the side of NK. In that case were not just dealing with NK's decaying air force, but the PLAAF. Major Chinese ground forces, and mobile IADS could join the fight, along with naval forces at least on the west side of the Korean Peninsula. China could attempt to interfere with the flow of American air, sea, and land reinforcement heading to the port of Busan.

If it comes to all this is the F-35 ready for the highest tempo operation since I don't know when? At this point we only have 1 USMC F-35B Squadron in theater. Every F-35 in the USMC, and the USAF will have to be thrown into the fight. Are we ready for this?

This has to be the most ill-conceived, operation since the Bay of Pigs. No political preparation, no coalition building, no amassing of forces, no mobilization of reserves, or deploying assets that would be needed in the fight on day 1, and worst of all no exhausting of means short of war. We don't even have clearly defined goals. I hope to God that sanity prevails, and this never happens. This is hopefully a bluff on both sides, or the world is facing the biggest miscalculation since Aug 1914. We have 2 megalomaniacs engaging in a pissing contest, and millions of people could be killed in the cross stream.


1) No coalition? I thought South Korea and Japan were our allies, and holding exercises with us to deal with precisely this problem. And UN is putting sanctions on NK and even China is condemning them. Sounds about as unanimously anti-NK as it gets.

2) No exhausting of means short of war. Wait...did we start the war yet?

3) No amassing of forces. Ok. What are the US assets currently in SK and Japan and Guam and elsewhere? How long does it take to forward deploy more from the mainland US, or to carry out strikes directly from the mainland US? I'd be willing to accept that, but you'd need to give us some more details of what you think is missing or needed.

Your critique is tautological in nature: we haven't prepared for months for an unforeseen development from only a few days ago. And then trying to spin it as a "mad man Trump rushing us into a war unprepared".
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4175
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 23:32

tincansailor wrote:Tensions are escalating in Korea. We all hope no one goes over the edge, but if they do, and a shooting war starts what role will the F-35 play? The obvious one is SEAD, or DEAD missions, since in order to hit NK artillery, and rocket positions our aircraft will have to fly deep into NK to attack positions from the north side of the mountain ridges. That means NK IADS will have to be taken down immediately.

Coalition air forces won't have days for a SEAD campaign, because they will have to start taking out dug in guns, and rockets on the first day of the fighting. The objective is to stop thousands of guns, and rockets from devastating SK cities on day one. A lot of the work will fall to army counter battery fire, but aircraft will have to play a big part. This will be much more difficult then DS back in 91.

Back then we had time for a systematic air campaign, in open desert country. We had time to assemble our air assets in advance, and set up a vast logistical support system. This time we might be starting cold, and have to deal with a major ground campaign on day one. On top of that NK might be able to deploy nuclear weapons.

To make matters even worse China is implying that if the Coalition initiates the conflict they would join in on the side of NK. In that case were not just dealing with NK's decaying air force, but the PLAAF. Major Chinese ground forces, and mobile IADS could join the fight, along with naval forces at least on the west side of the Korean Peninsula. China could attempt to interfere with the flow of American air, sea, and land reinforcement heading to the port of Busan.

If it comes to all this is the F-35 ready for the highest tempo operation since I don't know when? At this point we only have 1 USMC F-35B Squadron in theater. Every F-35 in the USMC, and the USAF will have to be thrown into the fight. Are we ready for this?

This has to be the most ill-conceived, operation since the Bay of Pigs. No political preparation, no coalition building, no amassing of forces, no mobilization of reserves, or deploying assets that would be needed in the fight on day 1, and worst of all no exhausting of means short of war. We don't even have clearly defined goals. I hope to God that sanity prevails, and this never happens. This is hopefully a bluff on both sides, or the world is facing the biggest miscalculation since Aug 1914. We have 2 megalomaniacs engaging in a pissing contest, and millions of people could be killed in the cross stream.



I'd be astonished if SK didn't know the position of each piece of artillery within a few feet. And they have a LOT of PGMs. GMLRS would be taking those things out all day long.

"We have 2 megalomaniacs engaging in a pissing contest, and millions of people could be killed in the cross stream."

Jesus, you're going to have a stroke when Trump wins in 2020.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 521
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 07:41

I'm amazed by these reply's. I started out asking a military question about a possible war. I added the political comment about precipitating events that could lead to it. Sec Mattis said if NK attacks us we will retaliate. Other presidents said NK would be wiped out if they started a war. Those statements are fine, and the appropriate thing to say. Trump said we might launch a preemptive strike if they continue to make verbal threats. Pretending that he didn't say it because CNN reported it is delusional. Every media outlet played the video of his comments.

Pretending there is no difference between saying we will retaliate if attacked, and we may attack you if you attack us with words is being obtuse. His cabinet has been trying to clean up his mess, he keeps doubling down on his comments. Asked if we might launch a preemptive war, he said "We'll see." NK is an isolated, paranoid regime, telling them we might attack them for making statements is foolish.

If our objective is to stop their nuclear, and missile programs we have to have a strategy to achieve it. Yes we got a 15-0 security council resolution imposing sanctions on NK. That's a very good start, not the end of diplomacy. We need to put the screws to NK access to world banking. That requires U.S. and allied sanctions. We may have to impose sanctions on Chinese financial institutions to cut their ties with NK. Oil sanctions may be needed. Trump's statements have impeded our diplomatic efforts, by shifting the focus of the crisis to a military confrontation.

These maneuvers will take months. We might have to add a naval blockade to prevent them from exporting nuclear, and missile tech, and equipment to Iran, and other bad actors. On the military front we should move other forces to the area. One THAAD Battery in SK will not handle the missile, and rocket threat. SK needs a tactical defense, like the Israeli "Iron Dome". Japan has Aegis Ships, and Patriot PAC-3 they should also get THAAD. U.S. forces need to strengthen our own missile defense.

We need to talk with the Japanese to determine just how far they are willing to go in a collective defense plan. Since U.S. forces would be using Japanese bases, in a Korean War Japan will almost surely be attacked with missiles, or even submarine attacks. Will Japanese Air Forces join in offensive actions? Will they send ground forces? The USA has only 2/3 of a division in SK, we should send the reinforcement Brigade for the 2nd Division to Korea now. The 25 ID in Hawaii should be prepared to move on short notice. At least one armored division should be prepped for deployment.

If president Trump will not permit the United States to be targeted with NK Nuclear tipped missiles these are the kinds of steps he has to take. They will all take time, patience, and planning, not reckless statements. If you guys think we have all NK's artillery, and missile units targeted, so we just have to push a few buttons your just plan wrong.

Guns that can be quickly pulled in and out of caves dug into the reverse slops of mountains are not easy targets even for smart weapons. Mobile missiles are hard to find. Counter battery fire might be limited if our artillery assets are also engaging a ground offensive. Again this is not DS, with fighting in open desert, and our forces holding the initiative. The NK will not simply stand on the defensive absorbing our attacks like the Iraqis did. They will try to throw us onto the defense. In the event of war they know their only chance to survive is an offensive.

They believe their only chance is to strike first, which is why telling them we may attack them is so dangerous. It's also unnecessary. We have all the long term advantages. NK has a $12 Billion GDP, they can't defy the whole world, if we rally it to our cause. Trump needs to stop talking like a child in a school yard, and start talking, and acting like a president. This is serious business, we can't grade a president on a curve.

As for the political statement that he's going to be around for the next 7 1/2 years, I doubt it. I could of course be wrong, but my guess is he will be gone early next year. The level of corruption that is being uncovered is cesspool like. Anyone who followed Trump's business career from the 70's on knew he was a sleazebag. Cheating people left, and right, keeping sets of false accounting books, cheating on taxes, always lying. Now we're seeing the investigation moving onto money laundering, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

The secret of being a white collar criminal is keeping a low profile, once you draw the attention of investigators onto you your finished. Rats will leave a sinking ship, and will testify against the people higher up on the food chain to save themselves. Trump has no loyalty to anyone, and no one will be loyal to him. Blaming CNN, and the failing NYT won't save him, the Alt-right can't save him ether. His own actions have destroyed him. After 6 months this is a failed presidency. As Trump would say "Sad".
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 16:12

Your military question was a thin pretense to discuss politics from what I can see...
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 521
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 18:46

bigjku wrote:Your military question was a thin pretense to discuss politics from what I can see...



No it was not. Most of my initial post was about the military problems posed by an out brake of war in Korea. The posters have elected to only respond to the political portion of it. War is an extension of politics, if you discus a particular war it will come up. If you only discus wars in the abstract, 4 F-35A's attack an S-300 on top of a 5,000ft mountain what would happen? it won't because your not even identifying whom is fighting whom, or why they are fighting, it's just an abstraction. My question was what role would our limited number of F-35's play in a war in Korea today?

Would our standing regionally based forces be able to do all the jobs assigned to them? If not how long would it take to send enough reinforcements to do the job? What tactics might we use? Can the F-35 do it's job with 3I software? What would be the implications of China being drawn into the conflict? Instead what I hear is there is no crisis, CNN is making it up, Trump is doing a splendid job, and you wouldn't be asking these questions if you didn't hate Trump.
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 19:36

tincansailor wrote:I'm amazed by these reply's. I started out asking a military question about a possible war. I added the political comment about precipitating events that could lead to it. Sec Mattis said if NK attacks us we will retaliate. Other presidents said NK would be wiped out if they started a war. Those statements are fine, and the appropriate thing to say. Trump said we might launch a preemptive strike if they continue to make verbal threats. Pretending that he didn't say it because CNN reported it is delusional. Every media outlet played the video of his comments.


He didn't say anything of the sort. You're straight up lying.

And if I may add, you're also a dumbass for continuing to bring your s**ty politics into this. GTFO.
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 521
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 21:00

arian wrote:
tincansailor wrote:I'm amazed by these reply's. I started out asking a military question about a possible war. I added the political comment about precipitating events that could lead to it. Sec Mattis said if NK attacks us we will retaliate. Other presidents said NK would be wiped out if they started a war. Those statements are fine, and the appropriate thing to say. Trump said we might launch a preemptive strike if they continue to make verbal threats. Pretending that he didn't say it because CNN reported it is delusional. Every media outlet played the video of his comments.


He didn't say anything of the sort. You're straight up lying.

And if I may add, you're also a dumbass for continuing to bring your s**ty politics into this. GTFO.



I may be a dumbass, but you are delusional. If you can listen to the video of what he said and deign he said it your nuts. The whole world heard what he said, and reacted to it, including NK. Again I asked about a military problem, no one is reacting to that, they only react in a reflexive defense of Trump. Your emotional investment in this man is skewing you ability to logically evaluate the situation.

I'll simplify the question for you. If President X orders a preemptive attack on NK in late August 2017 how will the battle playout? If NK strikes first how would that work out? How well would the F-35 perform in this situation? How would we employ the small numbers of F-35's we have? Is the 3I software up to the task? Is 3F software ready to go? Just how many combat ready F-35's do we have?

I am not asking anyone to evaluate the relative merits of Donald Trump, or even the merits of starting a war in Korea. I am asking how such a war would play out, and will the F-35 live up to it's potential? Any comments from anyone?
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 21:23

Again, you're straight up lying at this point just to post political BS.
Offline

white_lightning35

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 21:27

tincansailor wrote:
I may be a dumbass, but you are delusional. If you can listen to the video of what he said and deign he said it your nuts. The whole world heard what he said, and reacted to it, including NK. Again I asked about a military problem, no one is reacting to that, they only react in a reflexive defense of Trump. Your emotional investment in this man is skewing you ability to logically evaluate the situation.

I'll simplify the question for you. If President X orders a preemptive attack on NK in late August 2017 how will the battle playout? If NK strikes first how would that work out? How well would the F-35 perform in this situation? How would we employ the small numbers of F-35's we have? Is the 3I software up to the task? Is 3F software ready to go? Just how many combat ready F-35's do we have?

I am not asking anyone to evaluate the relative merits of Donald Trump, or even the merits of starting a war in Korea. I am asking how such a war would play out, and will the F-35 live up to it's potential? Any comments from anyone?


So you have alluded to Trump in every single one of your posts, yet still you are claiming others are bringing up politics? That may be some people's problem. If you really wanted an answer dealing solely with f-35's then you would have only mentioned them.
Offline

mike.fink

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2017, 01:45

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 02:44

tincansailor wrote:
These maneuvers will take months. We might have to add a naval blockade to prevent them from exporting nuclear, and missile tech, and equipment to Iran, and other bad actors. On the military front we should move other forces to the area. One THAAD BatterAegis Ships, and Patriot PAC-3 they should also get THAAD. U.S. forces need to strengthen our own missile defense.y in SK will not handle the missile, and rocket threat. SK needs a tactical defense, like the Israeli "Iron Dome".


We probably don't have months. A naval blockade is an act of war in legal terms and in the minds of NK. You are opposed to "pre-emptive" action, correct? SK had plenty of opportunity and the GDP to support getting Iron Dome and Magic Wand. That they have not speaks to their possible foolishness, not ours. As it is they believe they do not need these systems as they expect to take out the NK artillery with counter battery fire. It is believed that the NK redlegs have a terrible training standard and will be hard pressed to keep up a high volume of fire against the SK Capital AND survive the massive and accurate return fires. I hope they are right. Personally I would have bought the insurance from the Israelis anyway if I were running SK.

tincansailor wrote:We need to talk with the Japanese to determine just how far they are willing to go in a collective defense plan. Since U.S. forces would be using Japanese bases, in a Korean War Japan will almost surely be attacked with missiles, or even submarine attacks. Will Japanese Air Forces join in offensive actions? Will they send ground forces? The USA has only 2/3 of a division in SK, we should send the reinforcement Brigade for the 2nd Division to Korea now. The 25 ID in Hawaii should be prepared to move on short notice. At least one armored division should be prepped for deployment.


We really don't need any ground forces in SK at all except for perhaps MLRS and THAAD batteries. It is not 1950. SK is a fully evolved modern nation with a robust defense industry that rivals our own and Israel and anyone else. They make their own missiles, tanks, warships, etc and they have plenty of armor and infantry of their own. American maneuver forces are therefore redundant and moving them into the theater will only be a waste of logistic assets and put them into short and medium ballistic missile range.



tincansailor wrote: If you guys think we have all NK's artillery, and missile units targeted, so we just have to push a few buttons your just plan wrong.

Guns that can be quickly pulled in and out of caves dug into the reverse slops of mountains are not easy targets even for smart weapons. Mobile missiles are hard to find. Counter battery fire might be limited if our artillery assets are also engaging a ground offensive. Again this is not DS, with fighting in open desert, and our forces holding the initiative. The NK will not simply stand on the defensive absorbing our attacks like the Iraqis did. They will try to throw us onto the defense. In the event of war they know their only chance to survive is an offensive.


I believe your assessment of our requirement for ground troops and their "only chance to survive is an offensive" logic is exactly wrong on both counts.

We are not going to launch a general ground offensive into NK. As you say, they were dug in in depth up to 20 miles from the DMZ in 1953 when SLAM Marshall wrote "Pork Chop Hill" . We don't have that kind of infantry anymore and we damn sure are not going to throw it away fighting for every hill in Korea. By the same token, NK should know that their best option is to stay where they are and hope we try to root them out of those hills. The tank army NK has is obsolete and will be easy prey if they try to drive it south on those narrow mountain roads. They may do such a thing as a suicidal diversion, but I cannot believe anyone in NK thinks they can replicate June 1950 and succeed this time. No, they will not be advancing out of their fortifications and neither will we.
Next

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests