MigBuster 2,884 Posted March 15, 2013 VPAF 1971 or North Korea 2013? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb0ZyGOi2ME Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SupGen 79 Posted March 15, 2013 Boy, are they in for a rude awakening. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exhausted 55 Posted March 15, 2013 Save an Eagle, restore the Crusaders back to flying status! MiG-21PFMs, J-6S, MiG-29C, oh MY!!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+whiteknight06604 935 Posted March 15, 2013 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
+Stary 2,428 Posted March 15, 2013 you guys obviously missed one fact... their Fishbeds actually transform themselves into Farmers during takeoff!!! West and South Korea are soo outpowered! ummm, actually I think at IP they transform into Fagots, worry be not 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usafphantom2 19 Posted March 15, 2013 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
Stipe 56 Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) 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 March 15, 2013 by Stipe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Is that the GlobalSecurity.org assessment, Stipe? 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 March 16, 2013 by SayWhatt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exhausted 55 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) 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 March 16, 2013 by exhausted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stipe 56 Posted March 16, 2013 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
Capitaine Vengeur 263 Posted March 16, 2013 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... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exhausted 55 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) 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 March 16, 2013 by exhausted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stipe 56 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) 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 March 16, 2013 by Stipe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exhausted 55 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) 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 March 16, 2013 by exhausted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stipe 56 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) 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 March 16, 2013 by Stipe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thodouras95 25 Posted March 16, 2013 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
exhausted 55 Posted March 17, 2013 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
+Gepard 11,356 Posted March 17, 2013 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
JediMaster 451 Posted March 17, 2013 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
thodouras95 25 Posted March 17, 2013 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
