www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:The Essex carries Harriers so it has a effective combat radius of about 300 miles, but those are Harriers so they won't be carrying all that much.

Actually, I was more thinking of Amphibious deployment. What kind of transport aircrafts and troops the Essex host, and how quickly could they be relocated to support SK?

Deepcrush wrote:Their regular troops are of poor quality on a good day.

Compared modern western armies, maybe. Compared to the DPRK? I doubt it.

They're out numbered 3:1 by the NK armed forces.

They've also got tremendous technological superiority

Their primary population and industrial centers are with range of NK guns and aircraft.

This is the problem. If it were purely a matter of armies, then the DPRK would be a lot less obnoxious, because the South would hammer them even without the 8th Army. What allows them to be obnoxious is the fact that as soon as a full-scale war breaks resumes, Seoul will get wiped off the map.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Actually, I was more thinking of Amphibious deployment. What kind of transport aircrafts and troops the Essex host, and how quickly could they be relocated to support SK?

They don't have anywhere near enough troops to make an impact. The Harriers will have the most immediate and significant impact on any armed conflict in the region.

Tyyr wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Actually, I was more thinking of Amphibious deployment. What kind of transport aircrafts and troops the Essex host, and how quickly could they be relocated to support SK?

They don't have anywhere near enough troops to make an impact. The Harriers will have the most immediate and significant impact on any armed conflict in the region.

That's good to know. Do you know anything about the George Washington's complement?

She's a Nimitz so figure about 80 to 90 aircraft, mostly Super Hornets. About 400 mile combat radius for air patrols, less for bomb trucking but they can carry a lot of ordnance. They couldn't take on the NK airforce all by their lonesome but they could take a chunk out of it.

The US involvement in the event of a war will be primarily our naval aircraft, which would be a fairly significant problem for NK. Whatever is left standing after some carrier based air raids would be easy enough to mop up.

Again though, unless the first strike takes out the vast majority of NK's artillery, no matter how short the war is, it'll suck big time for the whole region.

Tyyr wrote:She's a Nimitz so figure about 80 to 90 aircraft, mostly Super Hornets. About 400 mile combat radius for air patrols, less for bomb trucking but they can carry a lot of ordnance. They couldn't take on the NK airforce all by their lonesome but they could take a chunk out of it.

What about SK's airpower. Their planes must be more modern than NK, and probably better equipped overall. Maybe their pilotes aren't as trained, however. What do we know about SK's aerial capacity?

If US/SK managed to establish air superiority, I think the superior mechanised troops of South Korea could hold of any serious advance by the SK army. The big problem is, I don't think the US could neutralised the artillery positions of SK. If I was NK, I'd focus my air power on protecting these positions, so there is no quick wiping of the artillery.

edit: Lighthawk, you ninja'd me

We've actually got between 20, and 30,000 troops in South Korea. They'll make a contribution.

Solka, seriously. Fucking Google it you lazy fuck.

Seriously, why not worry about the Canadian carrier fleets?

Tyyr wrote:Solka, seriously. f***ing Google it you lazy f**k.

Hey, I contributed my part already. The reason I was asking was because some people here seemed more knowledgeable than I about the numbers involved, so I thought I'd as well leverage.

Problem is, I don't know much about plane capacity. So if you tell me "the George Washington is a Nimitz", I really don't know how strong or weak that is. Nor do I know how good is a Super Hornet unless you actually state they could more than hold their own against NK's airforce.

I just have a general lack of knowledge when it comes to military hardware.

Mikey wrote:Seriously, why not worry about the Canadian carrier fleets?

Don't bring my mom into that.




edit: plus, it's not like Canada is involved in North Korea's struggle anymore, but we still would be impacted by a devastation of the Seoul zone.
Wow, what is it with you people, just 'cause I'm from Canada, I can't have an interest in geopolitical struggle?

SolkaTruesilver wrote:I just have a general lack of knowledge when it comes to military hardware.

So take Tyyr's advice and fucking Google it. Don't just spout uneducated gibberish at us.

Tyyr wrote:We've actually got between 20, and 30,000 troops in South Korea. They'll make a contribution.

My bad, didn't know we had that kind of force there. Still, the naval planes represent the biggest threat to NK, especially in the opening battles.

Hmm, weird thought, what if the sinking of that SK ship was some kind of test by NK, seeing how good their ability to strike at naval targets is would be important as the biggest threat to them is a US carrier group. Course if they think a single SK ship is at all comparable...

I can't imagine that any modern military - even one like NK's - would consider a succesful torpedo launch to be a "test of their naval strike capability."

South Korea
60 F-15 Eagles
~180 F-16 Falcons
68 F-4 Phantoms
180 F-5 Tigers.

About 240 front line fighters and another 240 second line fighters.

North Korea
~400 Korean Warish vintage knock off MiG-17s, 19s, Su-7s, -17s, and IL-28s
~200 MiG-21s
~50 MiG-23s
~40 MiG-29s
~40 Su-25's (Ground attack)

About 90 front line fighters and 40 front line ground attack aircraft. About 250 second line half decent fighters. About 400 fighters that are pretty much on a one way trip should they get off the ground and no real clue as to how many of them are in actual service.

Depending on how much of North Korea's airforce can even get airborne South Korea and the US would have no trouble wiping them out and seizing control of the air.