Article

2015-08-24 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Blossom Unains5562 2015-08-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top
File under: Commies

#1 Can the subs reach the US or shooting distance?

Posted by 3dc 2015-08-24 02:08|| 2015-08-24 02:08|| Front Page Top

#2 3DC,

Kimmie's operational boats are a weird mix:

*About 30 Romeo and Whisky SS, all 50s and 60s ex-Soviet and ex-Chinese, with a handful of Nork-built ones in the fleet. The oldest ones are near museum pieces, and although they are capable enough for the time when they were built, up against a late-flight Los Angeles (or worse, a brand new Virginia) they will be in deep trouble unless their skippers and crews are world class...and they ain't.
*Approximately 40 Sang-0 class. These are good, well-designed, but fairly small boats that can only carry 2 torpedoes and/or 4 mines...and the mines are likely to be what they're carrying. On the other hand, the ROK captured one of these beasts some years ago, so they know it inside and out.
*A small number of midget subs, one of which killed the ROK frigate Cheonan a couple years ago. If anything, these are the ones we need to be worried about - they're small, quiet, and they've got a punch.

As far as them getting close to the US...the Romeos and Whiskeys could do it, but if they have, there's an SSN sitting right behind them waiting. The Sang-0s and midgets are strictly local - but they could do grim damage to merchant traffic in ROK ports or even some Japanese ports.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2015-08-24 05:59|| 2015-08-24 05:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Can the subs reach the US or shooting distance?

Sure, but unlikely.
DPRK can receive logistics support overland from either Russia or China. The 20,000 US troops in ROK can only be supported through the seaports. Simply blocking those channels by sinking a few tankers and freighters will isolate the ROK.
One scenario that was once played by David Poyer was a mini-sub nuclear event at the major ROK port of Pusan. Such an action would make all of the heavy-lift load and unload resupply capability unavailable.

Posted by Skidmark 2015-08-24 09:23|| 2015-08-24 09:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Let's not dismiss the trouble (1) of these subs could cause.

Read "Flight of the Old Dog" (yeah, I know it's fiction, but...).

Posted by Vast Right Wing Conspiracy 2015-08-24 09:33|| 2015-08-24 09:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Given the age and lack of good spare parts for maintenance, how many of these are now at the bottom of the Sea of Japan?

Posted by DarthVader 2015-08-24 11:19|| 2015-08-24 11:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Not enough?

Posted by Bobby 2015-08-24 13:01|| 2015-08-24 13:01|| Front Page Top

#7 How much of this increased posturing is real pre-war positioning of forces (the explosions in Japan at us logistics facilities are very troubling) and how much is bluster at a new level. Is fat boy really consolidating power because of shaky grip, or has someone figured that Champ really is gutless?

Posted by NoMoreBS 2015-08-24 14:01|| 2015-08-24 14:01|| Front Page Top

#8 Do any of these subs have ballistic missile capability, perhaps something improvised and grafted on?

The big worry would be an EMP attack on North America.

Posted by Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-08-24 14:26|| 2015-08-24 14:26|| Front Page Top

#9 Re #7: Why can the answer to your question not be
'C; Both are correct?'

Posted by USN, Ret. 2015-08-24 14:26|| 2015-08-24 14:26|| Front Page Top

#10 Do any of these subs have ballistic missile capability, perhaps something improvised and grafted on?

Ballistic missile capability? No.

Improvised and grafted? It's remotely possible. There is evidence that one submarine has undergone sail modifications for a missile tube. At last report, the only tests were for ejecting the missile (not the actual firing of the missile.) Whether or not that has been done to others would be conjecture.

Posted by Pappy 2015-08-24 15:12|| 2015-08-24 15:12|| Front Page Top

#11 If I have a specialty, which is questionable, nautical strategies are not it. I have noted over the years however, that the NORKS use small subs for pesky infiltration missions into the South. They have generally turned into one-way suicide missions. 50 seems a rather large number.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-08-24 15:52|| 2015-08-24 15:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Their value is in the implied threat. In an actual shooting war N. Korea would fall apart quickly.

Posted by Iblis 2015-08-24 16:24|| 2015-08-24 16:24|| Front Page Top

#13 If NK thinks it might end up in a shooting war, it makes sense to surge the only useful naval assets they have and get them out to sea rather then let them be destroyed at dock.

Posted by Chantry 2015-08-24 19:03|| 2015-08-24 19:03|| Front Page Top

#14 How long can they remain at sea. I imagine that large a deployment drained the warehouse.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2015-08-24 20:59|| 2015-08-24 20:59|| Front Page Top

#15 Again, CHINA = PLA is in control of NOKOR's military + Space, NUke Programs, etc. NOT NOKOR per se.

NOKOR has then unenviable job or duty to be killed by one or both sides, i.e. US-Allies-vs-China, iff a major war breaks out on the Peninsula.

The real threat to SOKOR + JAPAN is via CHINA's LRBMS, PLAAF ALCMS + TLAMS, Motherly PLA Airborne Forces, + Sino-NOKOR SPECOPS.

Again, CHINA = unlikely to agree to any INTER-KOREAN REUNIFICATION unless it de facto gets back TAIWAN, + any new post-Reunification Inter-Korean Govt. must also likely be CHINA-FRIENDLY/NEUTRAL, + NONE OR VERY SMALL, BENIGN US MILFOR PRESENCE IN THE NOW FORMER SOUTH KOREA [ditto Japan?].

PERSONALLY, I'M INTERPRETING THIS LATEST INCIDENT BETWEN THE TWO KOREAS AS CHINA GETTING MORE BELLICOSE IN REGARDS TO ACHIEVING ITS SUPERPOWER AMBITIONS + STRATEGIC ACCESS FOR THE PLA IN EAST ASIA-PACIFIC.

* FYI PRAVDA > US [weighs option = decision] TO DEPLOY [base] B-52 NUCLEAR BOMBERS AND NUCLEAR SUB IN SOUTH KOREA.

CHINA = Beijing to get more nervousy twitchy.

MOre evidencia/indicia that so-called US-CHINA "SHARING" OF THE PACIFIC = US DOMINATING OR ISOLATING CHINA IN AN UN-FRIENDLY, ANTI/NON-CO-SUPERPOWER WAY.

* TOPIX > [Japan Times] CHINA WANTS GREAT POWER, NOT RESPONSIBILITY.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2015-08-24 22:32|| 2015-08-24 22:32|| Front Page Top

#16 NO RETURN OF TAIWAN TO MAINLAND CHINA = CHINA WILL CONTINUE TO DOMINATE, IFF NOT EVENTUALLY ANNEX, NORTH KOREA, + SOKOR IN TIME AS OPPORTUNITY ARISES.

CHINA = wants the Diaoyus/Senkaku Islands + Okinawa Islands, + new islands in SCS, to secure the startegic approaches to,from its desired future PLA CENTCOM on Taiwan.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2015-08-24 22:40|| 2015-08-24 22:40|| Front Page Top

23:35 DarthVader
23:32 swksvolFF
23:16 anon1
23:03 anon1
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:39 Rob Crawford
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:09 JosephMendiola
21:47 OldSpook
21:45 JosephMendiola
21:30 JosephMendiola
21:28 OldSpook
20:59 NoMoreBS
20:04 Alaska Paul
19:45 JosephMendiola
19:41 JFM
19:03 Chantry
18:53 trailing wife
17:46 paul
17:09 JHH
17:06 Whiskeymike
16:24 Iblis
15:52 Besoeker
15:47 Besoeker