On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:07:20 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:
Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:08:05 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:16:52 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:
WHAT? ANY SUB is long range and ocean going! Never heard of WWII in
which a LOT of German subs (far less capable than the ones that North
Korea and China have now) did a lot of damage and threatened the WORLD.
Maybe you missed that little fact. How about a conventional missile
launched into D.C.! They have that ability NOW. Maybe you don't think
that the U.S. should stop that? How about if they decided to target a
few of the U.S. coastal bases? Think a few torpedoes into Groton might
cause a problem? Maybe another Pearl Harbor attack? All very possible
with the current crop of Diesel/Electrics that Russia has been building
and selling off.
Got any specifics on those claims? All I can find says North Korea's
sub fleet consists of approx 20 1950s technology Romeo class
diesel-electrics with a 9000 mile range, and a similar number of
smaller Sang-O coastal subs with a 1500 mile range - nowhere near
enough to reach Washington DC or Groton.
That 9000 mile range is without refueling, but that's what sub tenders
are for. In WW2, the way the Allies dealt with the Nazi Wolfpacks was
to find and destroy the tenders. Having broken the Enigma codes,
finding the sub tenders was pretty easy.
I poked around quite a bit last night and found no indication that
North Korea has tenders. In fact, they don't appear to have any ships
with a range as great as the subs. And even a later version than the
Korean's Romeo (Type 033 vs. 031) is described as "...generally
regarded as an ageing design, only suitable for coastal defence and
patrol duties. The submarine is very noisy, and incapable of operating
deep oceans far from its homeport..."
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033romeo.asp
And a boat made from old inner tubes and plywood could NEVER make it to
the US from Cuba. How about those OLD wooden ships that sailed around
the world and were a LOT less able than a steel hulled ship built using
technology that is far superior. Take a look at what Germany did with a
far older design of sub. Those subs are also considered "an aging
design, very noisy and incapable of operation far from there home ports"
So, the way one gets to DC is to preposition a few tenders.
If the Koreans had such a thing, and if they could operate undetected.
Guess what a sub tender is! A simple ship that carries fuel, munitions
and food for the sub. The US tenders carry spare parts and can do some
repairs as well but for a limited attack they could use a converted
fishing trawler for the fuel and supply only food for the crew. Easy to do.
Diesel-electric boats running on electric can be damn hard to detect
unless someone has a reason to look in a particular place, and even then
it can be hard.
They can operate for a couple days at very low speeds.
Just because a boat is old doesn't mean it doesn't work.
And no mention of missile launching capability.
I have no idea if these old boats can launch missiles while submerged,
but probably not. If one is willing to surface for a launch, it's
pretty easy to cobble together a solution.
Wild speculation.
Nope. Russia developed an exterior mounted launching platform for the
633 class as a "test".
http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/ss.htm
However that isn't really needed. A simple launch rack welded to the
hull can handle a TLAM or two easily.
Or they can use the launcher made for the YJ-8 missile which was
designed for the 033G class Romeos.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type033g.asp
Notice that the boat itself MAY be out of service but nobody knows for sure.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rk/s-romeo.htm
However if they can find a few TLAMs those could be launched from the
torpedo tubes just like the UK and the US have done. The 033s have a 21"
tube and the TLAM will fit in a 20.5" tube.
The hard part was figuring
out where you were, but GPS has pretty much solved that problem.
And suppose that they cannot reach NYC or DC, so they take Los Angeles
out instead. Is that OK?
With luck, they could presumably reach the west coast on a suicide
torpedo attack. That's a long way from a missile strike on DC. There
may be a legitimate reason to carry on the sonar training, but it
ain't North Korea's sub capability.
No luck involved with the West Coast. 5200 miles or so from North Korea
to LA and San Fransisco. 9000 mile range gives them 3800 spare miles.
And that is IF they didn't carry any extra fuel on board.
Of course they could also contact a few nutcases and convince them to
make a suicide run at the US.
You've gone from "any sub" (your words) being able to steam from N.
Korea to the east coast and hitting Washington DC with a missile, to a
hypothetical Korean missile capable of surviving a 3 week, 5000 mile
undersea voyage scabbed on the outside of a WWII technology sub
striking LA. This proposed missile is attached to a "massive launcher
structure on the bow, for weapons tests" (quoted from your cite),
developed by the Soviets, with no indication that the contraption ever
went more than a few miles offshore, nevermind made a Pacific
crossing. And you haven't given any reason to think the Koreans ever
had such a launcher or attempted such a feat.
On top of that, I don't know of any credible authority who's warned
that Kim would like to attack us on our own soil. He seems to be
content destabilizing his own neighborhood with alternate shows of
cooperation, saber rattling, reneging on agreements, kidnaping and
spying. (Love the powder blue parka and oversized horn-rimmed glasses,
though.)
As I said, there may be pressing reasons to conduct the sonar
training, but you won't find them in N. Korea. Creating increasingly
speculative attack scenarios won't change that.
--
Ned Simmons