Jump to content

Recommended Posts


I'm pretty sure their airforce will fare worse than the Iraqis did. They will be blinded from minute one and systematicaly removed from the fight. not much to worry about. only thing that keeps N Korea from being a complete laughingstock is the half assed nuke they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys obviously missed one fact...

 

their Fishbeds actually transform themselves into Farmers during takeoff!!! West and South Korea are soo outpowered! :blink:

 

ummm, actually I think at IP they transform into Fagots, worry be not :rofl:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,Let me remind you our foe has nothing,Therefor They have nothing to lose........That is what makes them dangerous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft of the N. Korean Air force and my comment on them:

SU-7 (Mig-21 wannabe)

Q-5 (attacking mig-19?)

Su-25 (ok attack aircraft)

H-5/IL-28 (stuck in the 50's)

F-7B (heavily modernized MiG-21F-13 copy)

Shenyang F-5 (mig-17 copy)

Shenyang F-6 (mig-19 copy)

MiG-21 (not that I am the one to judge by being from Croatia but we at least have modernized mig's)

MiG-23 (I dont like that plane, dont know why)

MiG-29 (for N. Korea its very good)

AN-24 (Ok)

Tu-143 ( N. Korea has UAV's ???)

L-39 (Ok)

MiG-15 (WTF!)

Nanchang CJ-6 (?)

IL-76 (good)

AN-2 (still makeing them in China!)-(first flight: 31. 8. 1947.)!?!? XD

Edited by Stipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the GlobalSecurity.org assessment, Stipe? :tongue: Their F-7Bs aren't modernised, if they were, they'd be closer to the J-7E/G/H variants. The most advanced combat aircraft they have are the Mig-29 9.12 and the Su-25. Modernisation programs have fallen by the wayside due to NK's inability to pay for them and arms trade bans imposed. Not even China has risked the ire of the international community by offering update packages. Much of what's listed here isn't serviceable in effective numbers (word is that the J-5/J-6s are in the inventory on paper only!). The Mig-29s are exclusively used to guard airspace around Pyongyang and are the most used of the combat aircraft, but even then, they get less much less than 50 flight hours/year. The only aircraft that I know get regular use and upkeep are the Il-76s, because they're used as part of the state owned transportation sector. They even used to fly to the UK semi-regularly. Oh, and their Hughes MD-500 helicopters.

Edited by SayWhatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stipe, I disagree. During a time of a shooting war I predict usage as this:

 

Su-7: fast ground attack. Fly low in large numbers and drop bombs on bases housing US and SK tactical fighter-bombers.

Q-5: carries bombs and flies fast, see above.

Su-25: will be protected and dispersed. They will only be let out if, a) SK bases are taken out, crippling American response time, or b) N loses territory.

H-5: will probably be expended in a low-level first strike on AD and supplies... one way trip

F-7B: Just to tie up AD

F-5: Tie up AD and low level strikes

F-6: Tie up AD and low level strikes

MiG-21PFM: Low level strikes on runways

MiG-23: runways

MiG-29: grounded unless SK runways are out of commission

An-24: Grounded

Tu-143: NK has UAVs? lol lawn darts

L-39: low level strikes on DMZ area targets

MiG-15: Decoys

CJ-6: low level infiltration

Il-76: grounded

AN-2: low level deployment of specops

Edited by exhausted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXHAUSTED: this im my opinion on them and their planes, NOT their roles during a wartime.

 

SAYWHATT: that ist't a globalSecurity assessmet, I just put what I think about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the ultimate NK weapon since 1950 in case of hot confrontation: the screaming left-winged Peace movements of decadent, fat, loosened-arsed West...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stipe, I disagree about the Su-7 because it filled a requirement unrelated to the MiG-21. Maybe the Su-9 and Su-11 were closer to MiG-21 wonnabes :)

Vengeur, for the left the case against war may be peace, but for the right the case against war may be failure to understand why the west shall even care. The liberalized west (pretty much every democratic nation right now) still seems more than eager to confront Korean aggression.

 

Either way, NK is playing with fire and a calm America shows its virtue as an independent and strong America. Once they overstep then it's on.

Edited by exhausted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned that because the SU-7 looks like an erly version of the mig-21(Except the mig has a dorsal spine and the sukhoi dosen't) and you can't disagree on that (or you can, from my point of view it looks like a mig-21F)

Edited by Stipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I can't disagree that they look similar. They have front intakes, a nose cone to break up and control air flow into the engine, a single seat with similar canopy glass, sharply swept wings (though prototype MiG-21s didn't have the full delta the production models did), cylindrical fuselage, and a similar empenage. But the size and role of the two aircraft are completely different. Another comparison would be any two aircraft that vaguely look similar. To me, an Su-7 looks about as much as a MiG-21 as a KC-135 does to a B-52. But the KC-135 doesn't strike me as a B-52 wonnabe. But bleh, I'm really not trying to make it into a big deal.

Edited by exhausted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I can't disagree that they look similar. They have front intakes, a nose cone to break up and control air flow into the engine, a single seat with similar canopy glass, sharply swept wings (though prototype MiG-21s didn't have the full delta the production models did), cylindrical fuselage, and a similar empenage. But the size and role of the two aircraft are completely different. Another comparison would be any two aircraft that vaguely look similar. To me, an Su-7 looks about as much as a MiG-21 as a KC-135 does to a B-52. But the KC-135 doesn't strike me as a B-52 wonnabe.

They look similar from the front, but from all other

angles its a whole other plane.

Edited by Stipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stipe, I disagree. During a time of a shooting war I predict usage as this:

 

Su-7: fast ground attack. Fly low in large numbers and drop bombs on bases housing US and SK tactical fighter-bombers.

Q-5: carries bombs and flies fast, see above.

Su-25: will be protected and dispersed. They will only be let out if, a) SK bases are taken out, crippling American response time, or b) N loses territory.

H-5: will probably be expended in a low-level first strike on AD and supplies... one way trip

F-7B: Just to tie up AD

F-5: Tie up AD and low level strikes

F-6: Tie up AD and low level strikes

MiG-21PFM: Low level strikes on runways

MiG-23: runways

MiG-29: grounded unless SK runways are out of commission

An-24: Grounded

Tu-143: NK has UAVs? lol lawn darts

L-39: low level strikes on DMZ area targets

MiG-15: Decoys

CJ-6: low level infiltration

Il-76: grounded

AN-2: low level deployment of specops

 

who gives a f*ck, they'll all be burning wreckages before they can even take off...didn't Desert Storm, etc teach you anything?The most I can give is 5 AA kills, all to be attributted to SK Slams or Superbugs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says they won't take off? The West knows it can hand N Korea its own ass quickly, unless NK has another intervention by China. With logic, I can reasonably acertain that it may be BENEFICIAL to let N Korean jets take off en masse so there is no question of their intent at the UN. With no question to their intent the USA can gather a powerful and diverse coalition so it doesn't fight the war alone with the South Koreans. Another war is likely to drag the US economy down again and it only makes sense that since the UN fought united against the North until the cease fire was signed, that they will fight again once the cease fire is violated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a case of war, they will hide their planes in shelters and will use their artillery, which is heavily bunkered. Thats enough to hurt Seoul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what Saddam did. He at first tried to use his AF, but quickly realized that was futile and instead started firing Scuds at Israel and Saudi Arabia....because he realized the best way to hurt the US was indirectly. Likewise NK will attack soft SK targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says they won't take off? The West knows it can hand N Korea its own ass quickly, unless NK has another intervention by China. With logic, I can reasonably acertain that it may be BENEFICIAL to let N Korean jets take off en masse so there is no question of their intent at the UN. With no question to their intent the USA can gather a powerful and diverse coalition so it doesn't fight the war alone with the South Koreans. Another war is likely to drag the US economy down again and it only makes sense that since the UN fought united against the North until the cease fire was signed, that they will fight again once the cease fire is violated.

 

Believe me, when the time comes that the states are going to decide to attack a fearless nuclear power indirectly backed by China, well that's going to man that North Korean intentions are pretty damn clear already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..