What A Full-Fledged Air War Would Look Like Over North Korea

 

What A Full-Fledged Air War Would Look Like Over North Korea

Jacek Siminski and David Cenciotti, The Aviationist    | 57 minutes ago |

1,682 | 3

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-an-air-war-would-like-over-korea-2013-4

 

 

Although defended by an obsolete Air Force made of ex-Soviet fighters and

bombers, North Korea still operates a decent air defense system featuring:

radar system with overlapping coverage and high mobility allowing for

shoot-and-scoot tactics, anti-aircraft guns (probably ex-Soviet ZSU-23s) and

shoulder-fired stinger-like missiles.

 

As pointed out by an interesting article published on Popular Mechanics

website, tunnels and command centres located underground, similarly to

Afghan Tora-Bora, could make hitting key fortified and hidden targets a bit

difficult.

 

The general picture of the U.S. forces location in case of war in the

peninsula sees B-2s flying from Missouri and F-22s stationed in South Korea:

however, this is a plan based only on the recent involvement of these

aircraft in the region.

 

Even if the batwing bomber could operate from their homebases in Continental

U.S., as done in Serbia and Libya, there's a chance they could be stationed

at Guam in the Pacific in a second stage of the air campaign.

 

Guam as well as other bases in the region will be probably used to host

other bombers (B-52s, B-1s) as well as the numerous tankers needed to

support the air war.

 

An eventual war will start with the typical cruise missile attack, targeting

the main air defense sites (i.e. airports, radars, SAM - surface to air

missile batteries, etc).

 

Then, the first waves of air strikes will be conducted by stealth bombers

escorted by stealth fighters, with Electronic Warfare planes (in the form of

Growlers or Prowlers) providing the required electronic cover.

 

As already explained, F-22s would predominantly be tasked with high-value

escort and air-to-surface missions.

 

When it comes to neutralizing the underground structures, the U.S.

experience dates back to the first Iraqi war, when they were to destroy

Saddam Hussein's bunkers. Then, USAF used GBU-28 bombs, which were 2,500 kg

steride-fed PaveWays. The mass of the unit was to penetrate the thick

concrete roof of a bunker and explode inside.

 

GBU-28 and F-15

 

Wikipedia Commons

The GBU-28 was a mother for Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Developed in order

to be used against the Afghan fortified mountains the monster MOP bomb can

only be carried by the B-2: each stealth bomber can carry two such weapons.

 

Nevertheless it is said that Pentagon has developed a new penetration

munition which began testing at the beginning of this year. We might see its

first use in the Korean air campaign.

 

For sure, what will happen after the initial stages, it's quite difficult to

predict (the unbalance of power does not imply it would be a quick

campaign.) and this is one of the reasons that make the military option

unlikely at the moment.

 

Moreover, the political situation though does not let us predict that the

war will start soon.

 

Taking into account the fact that the North Korean Air Force is old, and the

plans to launch the rockets against US targets are rather science-fiction

than a realistic objectives, it is quite unlikely the war will start, or at

least that it will be started by the North Koreans, regardless of the fact

that the state of war with the South was declared by the North Korean

leader.

 

Indeed, since 1994, North Korea has cancelled the cease-fire agreement six

times.

 

When it comes to the political-outline of the crisis it bears a great

resemblance to the Cold War between U.S. and USSR. It is also the reason why

the War is unlikely to be started by Kim Jong Un.

 

The situation is quite similar to the Cold War MAD doctrine (Mutually

Assured Destruction). During the Cold War this doctrine resulted in Nash

equilibrium. In other words, that meant that if any of the sides decided to

attack the other, it would be destroyed. This stemmed from the extensive

proliferation of the nuclear weapons.

 

The Nash equilibrium does not really exist in case of DPRK but, on the other

hand, once it starts any action against the South, it is quite certain that

the US intervention would have catastrophic results.

 

Hence, the whole crisis is rather a demonstration of ideologies, pretty much

similar to the Cold War political setting, than the real conflict.

 

This New York Times article says that the White House officials do not

consider the North Korea to be a serious threat.

 

According to NYT, the White House's press secretary, Jay Carney said: "We

are not seeing changes to the North Korean military posture such as

large-scale mobilizations or positioning of forces, what that disconnect

between rhetoric and action means, I'll leave to the analysts to judge."

 

==========================================

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this

message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to

these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed

within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with

"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The

Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain

permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials

if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,

teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria

for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies

as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four

criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is

determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not

substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use

copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS

PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.