Military Review

Nobody goes anywhere. There are no tickets for B-52.

82
The message about bringing the American "oldies" B-52 to combat readiness still continues to irritate our readers. To be honest, I do not understand. Not because there is too much conflicting information in our media. No, I just know a fairly high level of knowledge of colleagues. It is knowledge, not the ability to make assumptions.




I can explain the situation from the point of view of the military. And in the comments, I hope, a lot of things will be clarified by colleagues. But first, let's return to the message from the USA. Two days ago, Defense One reported on the possible bringing B-52 into 24-ready mode. This has not happened since 1991. And by themselves, these "strategists" are more an anachronism than a bomber. But for countries that do not have modern air defense systems such as the latest Russian systems, they will completely disappear.

And the armament of such machines, even in a nuclear-free version, is serious enough. Cruise missiles (up to 20) that this aircraft carries may well cause some trouble for the enemy.

First of all, more precisely, before starting to destroy the American military, it is necessary to discover America. All the messages that the Internet is full of today are at the level of a quacking bird. A duck of pure water. IN aviation the compounds in which the "old men" are located, there was no order to transfer to the corresponding mode. And will not do. The percentage of fools in the American army does not exceed the same percentage in other armies.

So which country can the US use B-52 against? Against Russia? Against China? Against the DPRK?

Russia, as a country that has already “covered” the Far East with its systems, disappears immediately. Variants of successful use of old cars even of this class do not pass initially. Our air defense will remove these aircraft without much difficulty. China will do the same. Moreover, both countries will strike without hesitation. So, the third world ...

It remains a "thorn" in the form of proud Koreans. North Korea will not be able to shoot bombers on the approaches to the country. There are no such systems there. So, we can assume some success of such a blow. The loss of US aviation in this case will be quite within the planned limits.

However, from what is known about the armed forces of North Korea, it follows that the Americans will not do much damage. Koreans have considered protection against such threats.

First, the DPRK army is not based on open ground. Armament and military equipment are protected. Even artillery batteries are hidden in mountain caves. We don’t even need to talk about more serious weapons. Everyone understands everything. Secondly, the few test footage of missiles by North Korea that “accidentally” enter the world media, for an attentive person, give an answer to the question of which forces have priority. Koreans do not build stationary PU. All missiles were launched from mobile launchers.

There is one more fact that is noticeable in the frames of the test chronicles. DPRK rockets are created using a special technology, in which the fuel is in special capsules. Simply put, putting a missile into a combat state does not require the time that other types of missiles require. The time of bringing such a rocket into combat is measured in literally minutes.

From this it is clear that with the use of all the existing B-52 (and this, taking into account the units in storage 63), complete destruction of even Korean nuclear forces will not occur. Not to mention the North Korean army as a whole.

What's next? Does anyone doubt the answer to the DPRK? Does anyone doubt the blow to South Korea? In striking Japan? In strike on the US military bases? Including nuclear weapons. What losses will these countries incur in the event of such a blow?

But I doubt the decision of Washington on the introduction of troops into the territory of North Korea. Similarly, the fact that the troops will enter the Japanese or southerners. The damage that will be inflicted on these countries will cool any hotheads. And the myth of the Western media about the great desire of Koreans to "destroy" the regime of Kim Jong-un, to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality.

Why am I so sure of unreliable information? Maybe the US military is so eager to observe secrecy that we can not see the preparation of strikes? Alas, I will disappoint. A strategic bomber cannot simply be raised and sent somewhere. Even the old B-52 (start of production - 1951 year) - the pleasure is expensive. And to control this plane to anyone they do not trust.

So, it is necessary not only to prepare the crews for strikes, but also to ensure their “flying off”. Provide training flight routes. Simply put, airplanes must fly. And fly on certain routes and in a certain order. That's when we see this, then we can talk about some real steps in preparing some actions.

It seems to me that information about the readiness of B-52 to strike at North Korea is another American "aircraft carrier". From the same series. Let the world see that we are ready, we can. But, on the other hand, in the light of the above, refusing to strike puts the United States in a very awkward position. The country becomes ridiculous in the eyes of others.

A small country, a country without big ambitions, and the Americans will break their “teeth” there.
Author:
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 26 October 2017 05: 31
    +3
    A strategic bomber cannot simply be picked up and shipped anywhere. Even the old B-52s (production started in 1951) are expensive. And they will not trust anyone to fly this plane.


    Well, why anyone?
    A message from the USA recently passed.

    About 3 retired pilots are planned to be called up for active military service for a period of XNUMX years, which will allow shutting down critical positions.
    1. domokl
      26 October 2017 05: 43
      +9
      That's right. I wonder if now to call the soldiers 50 + they tank or BMP will lead? With the move. Like sometime.
      I am not aware of the official titles for such vehicles, but I think the commander should be at least a lieutenant colonel. So, from the reserve there pilots will not land
      1. novel66
        novel66 26 October 2017 09: 31
        15
        I don’t know about the pilots, but I will completely fulfill my technical duties in my 50+
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 26 October 2017 18: 21
          +6
          I’m not going to get a tank in my 50s, I’ll also do aerobatics on it. Although I have never sat inside a tank. Just traveled for my life on all wheels.

          And 3 km run with a gun in 14 minutes I will enter.

          50 years is not age at all. But knowledge, skills, experience are tons.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 26 October 2017 18: 25
            +1
            From the point of view of interests in the existing economic system, it is just and more important to launch a nuclear attack on Japan and South Korea.

            Who does this is not important.

            It is important who benefits.
          2. Dmitry Kuzhilney
            Dmitry Kuzhilney 27 October 2017 08: 04
            +4
            Quote: gladcu2
            And 3 km run with a gun in 14 minutes I will enter.
            50 years is not age at all. But knowledge, skills, experience are tons.
            Knowledge, skills and experience, maybe a ton. And three km. with a gun in 14 minutes you can run. But 50 tons is not 18-19. You can swagger as much as you like, they say, yes, and at 50 we will repeat what we did at 18 ... Yeah, right now. smile To argue - not a question, but day after day, for a year and a half - these are illusions.
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 October 2017 19: 55
          +2
          Quote: novel xnumx
          and I will completely fulfill my technical duties in my 50+

          It's not about age, but about skills. To manage a plane well, you need to not only know which button to press, but also have practical skills, moreover, many years ago, and supported by constant training. And what skills will people who have not seen these B-52s in their eyes for twenty years?
        3. asavchenko59
          asavchenko59 27 October 2017 06: 17
          +2
          I’m watching, and my old woman P-18 (1RL-131) is still in service!
          And I, in my own under 60 will not be disgraced! Homeland was able to teach!
        4. 73bor
          73bor 3 November 2017 18: 10
          0
          Here the problem is not even in the pilots, the newest B-52 is more than 40, besides, the engines have not been produced for them for a long time and the technologies have been lost, the service life of any wire insulation is 10 years, it just gets old even in good conditions!
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN 26 October 2017 13: 44
        +8
        Any pilot with a break in flight for more than 3 months (with us at least) must be restored.
        On 50+ fighter jets, it’s problematic due to health reasons (not everyone’s), but on the strategists of the one who flew them I think it can be restored without any problems (well, taking into account the passage of the VLK) ...
    2. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 26 October 2017 09: 32
      +4
      Next in line .. Iran ????
      He has no nuclear shield from American democracy yet.
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 26 October 2017 16: 47
        +1
        What is not a fact, Mr. Duk!
        God alone knows what Iran has, Sev. Korea, Pakistan. Yes, the same China and Israel ...
        Declarations and intelligence are one thing, and reality is another.
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 26 October 2017 20: 16
      +6
      I think the article is a one-sided proposition.
      From this it is clear that with the use of all the B-52s available today (and this, taking into account the 63 units stored), even the Korean nuclear forces will not be completely destroyed.

      And what about the marine component of the US strategic nuclear forces with the AJIS? They were not even remembered here, not to mention the carriers of "American democracy" Tomogavki.
      B-52 amid all this will go last, for smoothing the "carpet", as they know how.
      So the article can be challenged!
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 October 2017 07: 09
    +1
    But in Washington’s decision to send troops to North Korea, I doubt it.

    ... the merikatos will not lay his head in the DPRK ... he will send someone, most likely the southerners, because the Ipenians are unlikely to fight on the ground ...
    1. 210ox
      210ox 26 October 2017 10: 51
      +2
      Are you the Australians you mean? So they themselves without support ... pants can not ..
      Quote: aszzz888
      But in Washington’s decision to send troops to North Korea, I doubt it.

      ... the merikatos will not lay his head in the DPRK ... he will send someone, most likely the southerners, because the Ipenians are unlikely to fight on the ground ...
  3. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 26 October 2017 07: 20
    +6
    The author, the article is not bad and the conclusions seem to be correct. But it was embarrassing
    In the aviation units in which the "old men" are no order to transfer to the corresponding regime has been received. And will not do
    Where does the information come from? Alex - Eustace?
    1. domokl
      26 October 2017 07: 58
      +2
      The wind is blowing ... The words are heard ... People are whispering ... bully
      1. thinker
        thinker 26 October 2017 08: 35
        +1
        Duck in nete everything is -
        On October 24, 2017, the U.S. Air Force did not put its Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers on alert, Breaking Defense reports. Thus, the publication refuted the exclusive Defense One.
        https://lenta.ru/news/2017/10/24/b52/
        1. domokl
          26 October 2017 09: 06
          +2
          Well yes. And the fact that a few B-52 transferred to Guam is? But they are already there. not only on two mainland air bases, but also on the island
        2. rotmistr60
          rotmistr60 26 October 2017 12: 03
          +2
          Duck in nete everything is -

          Well, if you live in the hope of authenticity in the internet, then ...
  4. Antianglosax
    Antianglosax 26 October 2017 08: 03
    +4
    The Americans have not once been weakly piled in Korea. The cowardly Yankees will not climb there a second time, they will yap from behind a puddle.
    1. TRex
      TRex 26 October 2017 08: 23
      +8
      Well, to be honest, in Korea they weren’t “piled on” at all, and they practiced there with carte blanche from the UN. If China and the USSR didn’t get involved then there would be no problem with the face of Eun.
      "Bulk" in full in Vietnam ...
      In the event of a real conflict with North Korea today, no one will occupy or conquer the territory of the DPRK. The country's infrastructure will be smashed to smithereens without entering the air defense defeat zones.
      1. Vard
        Vard 26 October 2017 10: 24
        +4
        This is unlikely ... everything is buried there ...
      2. AIR
        AIR 26 October 2017 19: 29
        +3
        Just in Korea heaped! According to sources, for aviation, the dead pilots of the United States about 1200 people. The dead pilots of the USSR about 110 people. Although I understand, the Americans attacked and tried to attack with bombers. And one bomber shot down is about 4 -5 crew members. But still, the data is amazing. Most likely in other types and branches of the troops, the same ratio. So - heaped on them!
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 27 October 2017 10: 19
        0
        Quote: TRex
        now there would be no problem with the face of Eun.

        And there are no problems with Eun.
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 26 October 2017 12: 24
      +3
      Quote: Antianglosaks
      The Americans have not once been weakly piled in Korea. The cowardly Yankees will not climb there a second time, they will yap from behind a puddle.

      Piled up (thrown to the 38th parallel) by the Chinese under the air cover of the Russians. And why does everyone think that the Yankees are cowardly? It’s quite a fight for themselves, a regular army (North Vietnamese, Iraqi) is broken for two or three times, another thing is that their government manages to constantly throw them into the long-term quagmire of the guerilla. But this does not speak of cowardice.
      1. alauda1038
        alauda1038 26 October 2017 19: 09
        0
        You pointed out the obviously weak armies, they would have learned from the Ukrainians that they’ve been fighting with Russia for three years, though the truth itself didn’t come to Russia for war
      2. Strategy
        Strategy 26 October 2017 19: 57
        +3
        Quote: Krasnodar
        It’s quite a fight for themselves, a regular army (North Vietnamese, Iraqi) breaks down two or three times,

        They do not break the army, but the state. One-two-three technology includes 1) creating the image of a "non-democratic state", accusation of crimes against the people (genocide), the presence of WMD, etc., obtaining the UN "mandate", political and economic isolation; 2) bribery of the ruling elite, financing of the opposition, provocation on the regime’s power actions, demoralization of employees of power structures; 3) the creation of a military coalition, known to be several times superior in combat capabilities to the armed forces of the victim state, to imitate "international will in the fight against the" bloody regime ", and only then to destroy the immobilized enemy. So, as we converged face to face with the Germans in The Great Patriotic War, the Yankees and the Anglo-Saxons never fought with anyone, even after the Overlord we pulled them out of shit several times, starting unprepared for the end of the operation (Iasi-Kishinevskaya, Wislo-Oderskaya). “allies”, and out of fear that they, justifying themselves by “unbearable situation and threat of defeat,” will conclude a separate peace with Hitler, which they managed to do, but Stalin quickly put them in a stall.
        1. urman
          urman 29 October 2017 08: 35
          0
          Quote: Strategia
          Vistula-Oder).

          Oh, these warriors.
          It would be at the same time to give to this boom in the face when he tells how the Americans fought in the 2nd MV.
          As they fled from the Germans, and ours rescued them, that mother’s brother died during the Vistula-Oder operation, according to the team’s documents, at that time, more than 100 days did not leave the fighting.
      3. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 26 October 2017 20: 38
        +3
        The Americans didn’t break the North Vietnamese REGULAR army, but suffered such unacceptable losses that they removed from Vietnam in general under the Paris agreements. Soon collapsed and surrendered to the North Vietnamese puppet, but armed to the teeth, the millionth army of South Vietnam. And the Americans corny bought the Iraqi army top and took Iraq with virtually no serious battles. Traitors just surrendered Iraq to the atlantists! With all of our outdated arsenal put there.
      4. GIN
        GIN 27 October 2017 08: 51
        0
        Yes, colored guys, I wanted to say a fact, undermining myself with grenades, a little, but there
  5. Mik13
    Mik13 26 October 2017 08: 05
    23
    And by themselves, these “strategists” are more an anachronism than a bomber. But for countries that do not have modern air defense systems like the latest Russian systems, they will still do.

    Just as soon as I read it, I immediately understood who the author was.
    Neither the B-52, nor the Tu-95 and even the Tu-160 will intersect anywhere with air defense systems in combat situations. At least with the old, at least with promising ones, like C-500.
    They are used as a carrier for cruise missiles. If the author is too lazy to look at Wikipedia before writing another article, then you can look at the "Corner of the Sky":
    Missile armament consists of 10 strategic cruise missiles AGM-86В (maximum launch range 2500 km) or AGM-129 (3500 km). Such a number of KR is also regulated by Russian-American agreements, but if necessary, after retrofitting, each aircraft can take on board up to 20 KR AGM-86B (12 under the wing and eight in the cargo compartment) or 16 AGM-129 (four in the cargo compartment). Strategic missiles are equipped with the nuclear warhead W80 (200 CT).
    To defeat particularly important targets in a non-nuclear conflict, the B-52Н is equipped with tactical KR AGM-86C (launch range 1200 km). (c) http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b52g.html

    After that, the Author can compare the range of the air defense systems - including modern and promising ones - and be moved non-frantically ...
    Yes, if that - the B-52 is not very older than the Tu-95. In addition, regularly undergoes modernization. And on the same resource you can see what these upgrades are ...
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 26 October 2017 08: 58
      +6
      Quote: Mik13
      If the author is too lazy to look at Wikipedia before writing another article, then you can look at the "Corner of the Sky":

      He is a patriot. Let Wikipedia drop by itself laughing
    2. Reklastik
      Reklastik 26 October 2017 11: 54
      +4
      Well, at least someone of this author, "explaining from the point of view of the military", was restrained))))
    3. mark2
      mark2 26 October 2017 12: 42
      +5
      Let's see, let's reflect on the data from Wikipedia, be it not okay ...
      So we look ... S-500 “Prometheus” [1], 55R6M Triumfator-M - Russian anti-aircraft missile system (SAM; in the terminology of the developer - anti-aircraft missile system), which is being developed by OJSC Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern ” [2] as a new generation of anti-aircraft missile systems, in which it is proposed to apply the principle of separate solution to the tasks of destroying ballistic and aerodynamic targets. It is possible to intercept SLBMs with a launch range of up to 3500 km [3] and, if necessary, ICBMs on the final section of the trajectory and, in certain limits, in the middle section. From these means of destruction, cover should be provided for individual regions, large cities, industrial facilities, and priority strategic goals. (Wikipedia)
      More ... The notorious Tomahawk ... There are many modifications, but not one exceeds a radius of 2500 km. (Wikipedia)
      Conclusion in a first approximation: The B-52 will not be able to reach the target.
      We look further. Hatchet guidance system. Everything possible is by satellite (Block-3), but the range is not increased.
      Those. it turns out that the air defense will sit and wait when the B-52 specifically fly up?
      Following. Let's say a bomber or a missile missed. Well, there is the S-400, S-300, which are less long-armed, but more sharpened for air targets. And there are all kinds of smaller air defense. If this is all planned, it will work in a network environment, then the B-52 can be cut into colormet.
      And do not think that the US is smarter or Russia is dumber. We are different. If it comes to a serious boil, B52 will not be saved.
      My opinion. The author is right that the B52 will land before they embark on a missile launch course.
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 26 October 2017 13: 47
        +4
        Tell me, do you know how to not only read, but also understand what is written?
        The quote you quoted is not a range of interception. These are the characteristics. ballistic missiles that C-500 can intercept.
        And here, as it were, firstly, intercepting ballistic and aerodynamic targets are very different tasks. Especially the interception of the ALCM.
        And secondly, in the same Wikipedia article that you quoted, about C-500 it is absolutely unambiguous that the planned radius of the missiles in the system is 600 km.

        But if you suddenly suddenly remember that Wikipedia as a source is complete nonsense, then here's an article on VO on C-500:
        https://topwar.ru/42435-kak-budet-vyglyadet-s-500
        .html



        By the way, note that even the declared 600 km is the range of interception of high-altitude targets. Because sometimes the interception is somewhat complicated by such an insignificant thing as a radio horizon ...

        So your opinion about the Author’s correctness is that B52 will land before they embark on a missile launch course, unfortunately, it is not possible to confirm with facts.

        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 26 October 2017 20: 48
          +4
          Quote: Mik13
          sometimes interception is somewhat complicated by such an insignificant thing as a radio horizon ...
          A colleague, ams solved this problem: even Abrams can issue an over-the-horizon central control unit for them according to Link -16. (at least they position their global network-centric crap this way).
          I believe that we will also have something similar soon ... Therefore, the C-500 will shoot “beyond the horizon”, well, at least with the use of A-100.
          IMHO.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 27 October 2017 10: 23
            0
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            A colleague, the ames solved this problem: even Abrams can issue an over-the-horizon central control unit for them at Link -16.

            To do this, he must be in direct line of sight from the target?
        2. GIN
          GIN 27 October 2017 08: 57
          0
          Yeah air defense almost any 30 km
      2. Roman 57 rus
        Roman 57 rus 26 October 2017 20: 52
        +1
        There are still no effective means of combating ALCM.
    4. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 26 October 2017 16: 51
      +1
      Excuse me, is aviation not an air defense system?
    5. The brightest
      The brightest 26 October 2017 21: 45
      +2
      Quote: Mik13
      They are used as a carrier for cruise missiles.
      Distill to Guam to strike from Kyrgyzstan, seriously? During the “desert storm”, pin dos dos did not hesitate to hammer them across the squares without any KR, as in the good old Vietnam ... And then suddenly KR, for this you can drive ships with axes, as in Syria. And without intimidation, but quietly and quickly.
      Quote: Mik13

      Yes, if that - the B-52 is not very older than the Tu-95. In addition, regularly undergoes modernization. And on the same resource you can see what these upgrades are ...
      Built approximately the same for 700 ++. Tu-95 went into production in the 56th, the last released in the 92nd.
      The B-52 was produced from 52nd to 63rd. that is, the last cars have 30 years of difference.

      Feel the difference? Let the B-52 fly more, quickly crumble into dust, not long they have left.
      About modernization it is loudly said ... Yes, they are the last horseradish without salt to eat up - total cannibalism, even the engines are no longer supported by the manufacturer! They think - whether to completely write off or pick up another engine.
      P.S. There is nothing to blame the author for.
      1. GIN
        GIN 27 October 2017 09: 03
        0
        Yeah, the engine was replaced with ischo 30 years ago they wanted 4 instead of 8, they didn’t
  6. Pacifist
    Pacifist 26 October 2017 08: 23
    19
    To be honest, I have no doubt for a minute that in case of suspicion of preparing to strike or assuming that the planes that are leaving are about to strike at the DPRK and the PRC, and we will inform the DPRK military leadership about this. Both the PRC and we have early warning systems, and the mess on our borders has not come up against us. My personal opinion, the PRC without hesitation will bring down everything flying up within the reach of air defense systems (I mean the KR), I suspect ours too. Who is who, and we are well aware that Eun, when attacking his country, will definitely press a button. He simply will not have a way out. He clearly knows what flirting is about. His only chance to inflict such unacceptable damage that everyone will see the sky in a sheepskin. They remember very well how the United Nations-led coalition worked out scorched-earth tactics on them, and therefore they have nothing to lose and they will not experience any remorse.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 October 2017 01: 11
      +1
      “The mess on our borders did not fit us” Yes, especially in Ukraine, since 2014 the mess on the border has been going on - our actions - not any actions, the same will happen in the event of a war with the DPRK.
      1. Pacifist
        Pacifist 27 October 2017 08: 53
        +1
        A coup in a country with a mess on its territory by its own inhabitants, albeit with enormous participation from the outside, and a direct attack by one country on another in the immediate vicinity of our borders, all the more with a high probability of a conflict entering the nuclear phase, sorry, two there are big differences, and it’s incorrect to compare the Ukrainian monkey with a nuclear conflict. This is the same as comparing an accident, albeit fatal, with the crash of a passenger plane in kindergarten. Events of a completely different scale.
  7. novel66
    novel66 26 October 2017 09: 34
    +3
    but I’m not sure that the number of fools in their army is comparable to ours. more of them there!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 October 2017 01: 15
      0
      They have the most tactical missiles, bombs and strike UAVs in the world - they will be the first ram in North Korea, and then aviation will go into battle, there B 52 will show themselves in all its glory - whoever it is, and the US Air Force knows how to bomb - 50 years experience and millions of tons of bombs.
      1. lance
        lance 27 October 2017 12: 58
        0
        do not touch tactical missiles, even taking into account the tomahawk, points y, etc. no one can count.
  8. kamski
    kamski 26 October 2017 09: 44
    0
    There are quite advanced simulators for this, the B52 is just an airplane and there is no need to show aerobatics on it. It is not difficult to take this aircraft into the air after some training on simulators.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 26 October 2017 18: 31
      +2
      Quote: kamski
      The B52 is just an airplane and there is no need to show aerobatics on it. It is not difficult to take this aircraft into the air after some training on simulators.

      Oh well. 120 tons, with a scope of more than 56 meters. He only had a run of almost three kilometers. I'm afraid to disappoint you, but an unprepared crew (after the simulator, having no practical flight experience on this model) will die on take-off.
      1. ventel
        ventel 26 October 2017 20: 02
        +1
        That is, you want to say that two crews fly on civilian planes, one takes off and lands a second one. Sorry, of course, but in the USA you can quickly gain a reserve of pilots from both civilian airlines and amateur pilots by spending less time on training.
        1. novobranets
          novobranets 26 October 2017 20: 36
          0
          Quote: ventel
          That is, you want to say that on civilian planes two crews fly, one takes off and shoots out and the second lands.

          No, I want to say that they will crash on takeoff. 52 has many features, for example, "bicycle" chassis, wing chassis (wingtips), etc. A civilian pilot, even having experience in piloting a liner, will not pull the B-52, there are too many specific features. I agree that it is easier to teach an experienced civilian pilot to pilot 52 than a cadet, but nevertheless it will have to be taught, and not for three days.
          1. ventel
            ventel 26 October 2017 20: 49
            0
            Here I agree, but what do you think the experience of the pilot of the airliner, who has several hundred hours of flight a year behind him + simulating abnormal situations in trinores, will require a lot of time for retraining. The problem may turn out to be the use of weapons and communications, as well as the flight crews and crews bombers.
            1. novobranets
              novobranets 27 October 2017 04: 30
              0
              Quote: ventel
              Yes, the problem may turn out to be the use of weapons and communications, as well as the flight of both the crew and the crew of the bombers.

              In addition, the crew of the V-52 has an electronic warfare specialist, a specialty in short supply, and requiring long training. This is to say that on a simulator in a short time it is impossible to prepare a crew capable of performing a combat mission, and not just take off, fly in a circle, land. hi
        2. GIN
          GIN 27 October 2017 09: 06
          0
          Yes, there are 300000 pilots we never dreamed of; we are already migrant workers at the helm
      2. lance
        lance 27 October 2017 13: 01
        +1
        The V-52 is not the Tu-154 landing, and the take-off in the normal mode is performed by the automation in accordance with the load.
  9. Old26
    Old26 26 October 2017 10: 29
    12
    Quote: Mik13
    Just as soon as I read it, I immediately understood who the author was.
    Neither the B-52, nor the Tu-95 and even the Tu-160 will intersect anywhere with air defense systems in combat situations. At least with the old, at least with promising ones, like C-500.

    Yes, the author is recognizable from the first lines, like Oleg Kaptsov, like Evgeny Damantsev and a number of others. On the one hand, this is not bad. Once they know, then they read. But I still do not agree with some conclusions.

    There is one more fact that is noticeable in the frames of the test chronicles. DPRK rockets are created using a special technology, in which the fuel is in special capsules. Simply put, putting a missile into a combat state does not require the time that other types of missiles require. The time of bringing such a rocket into combat is measured in literally minutes.

    What makes the author think that the fuel is in "special capsules"? I understand that he keeps in his mind the ammunized Soviet / Russian missiles, but in addition to photos and video launches, there are still photos where the same rocket in the hangar is fueled before the launches. And that means only one thing - NO "SPECIAL CAPSULES". This means that the rocket refuel in the same way as our R-60 and R-12 refueled in the 16s. And from this we can draw another conclusion, which the author did not. Namely, that the highest degree of readiness of such missiles is extremely small in time. And it can be calculated in a few hours, maxim days, but not weeks or months (I’m not talking about years)

    Second
    From this it is clear that with the use of all the existing B-52 (and this, taking into account the units in storage 63), complete destruction of even Korean nuclear forces will not occur. Not to mention the North Korean army as a whole.

    Sorry, but where did the author get such numbers. The latest full data exchange (and this is July 2017) suggests that the US NAC has 36 “nuclear” bombers designed to work with nuclear weapons among deployed and 10 among non-deployed (which can be deployed in a few days, EMNIP 2 or 3). And also there are 41 bomber designed to work with the WTO. This is already 87. From where the author got 63 - you need to ask him. Further, in the active reserve (the commissioning period is two to three weeks), there are 13 more bombers of this type - the V-52N. And finally, there are 13 more B-52H bombers and 95 B-52G bombers in warehouse storage, of which half can be put into operation. Yes, they do not have cruise missiles, but they are quite suitable for operations on the same North Korea.

    Further, his passage (the author) about the fact that our air defense will remove these machines "at a time." I would like to believe, but the experience of the war in Vietnam, and it will be most indicative of the war in North Korea, suggests that the number of B-52s shot down in battles in Vietnam is not so great. It was a difficult target even for Soviet-made anti-aircraft missiles. That's just the North Korean air defense system (S-75) - this is the one that shot down the first modifications of the "fifty second", but the "fifty second" themselves are completely different. And not the fact that this machine will be "tough" to the North Koreans, taking into account their high-quality air defense composition. Is not a fact.

    However, from what is known about the armed forces of North Korea, it follows that the Americans will not do much damage. Koreans have considered protection against such threats.

    First, the DPRK army is not based on open terrain. Armament and military equipment are protected. Even artillery batteries are hidden in mountain caves. Talking about more serious weapons is not even necessary.
    Everything may be tarnished, but here is a question. And how to operate with air defense systems? Are radars also in mountain caves? Yes, they will probably remain intact there, but then the meaning is in these radars. And they cannot be "quickly rolled out" of the cave, shoot and back. The radar MUST survey the surrounding area. And this alone makes him vulnerable both against strike weapons and against electronic warfare equipment. Yes, and launchers, too, do not immediately roll out of the caves and "shoot". As part of the battery (division), these parts of the complex (radar, launchers) are interconnected, so that they will have to be "in sight"
    As for the DPRK air defense, it is significant in quantity and very weak in quality. I won’t name the exact numbers now, but the DPRK has about 170 launchers of the S-75 complex.
    There are about the same number of S-125 launch complexes. And this is not a long range complex. The most serious is about 150-170 launches of their KN-06 complex with a range of about 150 km.

    So here it is not so simple. Well, what about the call of "senior citizens". They lack 1000 pilots. And how many? A year ago, Shoigu spoke of a catastrophic shortage due to the closure of military schools. And I think that some of the "young military pennies" would not mind returning to service, if it is still available to him ...
    1. Sharansky
      Sharansky 26 October 2017 10: 59
      0
      Quote: Old26
      They lack 1000 pilots.

      1000 out of a total of 20000 is 5%. Everything is relative.
    2. NN52
      NN52 26 October 2017 16: 37
      +7
      Maybe there is a desire, maybe there is .....
      But the point is not even the desire to return to aviation, but the problem is to go through the VLK (medical board) ....
      I had a classmate two years ago with this, but returned to flying work with a teacher ..
  10. Yulaevich
    Yulaevich 26 October 2017 10: 45
    +7
    “Yes, and these“ strategists ”themselves are more an anachronism than a bomber. But for countries that do not have modern air defense systems like the latest Russian systems, they’ll come down.” - if the canned B-52 with jet engines is an anachronism, then our flying TU -95 with screw engines what? Both aircraft are capable of fulfilling their tasks and 63 units of the B-52 will allow any country to slip
  11. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 26 October 2017 11: 16
    +7
    Quote: TRex
    Well, to be honest, in Korea they weren’t “piled on” at all, and they practiced there with carte blanche from the UN. If China and the USSR didn’t get involved then there would be no problem with the face of Eun.
    "Bulk" in full in Vietnam ...
    In the event of a real conflict with North Korea today, no one will occupy or conquer the territory of the DPRK. The country's infrastructure will be smashed to smithereens without entering the air defense defeat zones.

    1. In Korea, the United States "piled on" more than in Vietnam. Their losses in 3 years in Korea and in Vietnam in 13 years. In Korea, real ground operations of regular army across the whole territory of Korea were beaten, and in Vietnam, American ground troops fought only in the South against partisans (until 1973). If they were fed occupying North Vietnam then they had to meet Chinese troops bi as in Korea.
    2. Demolition of the DPRK infrastructure was not so easy in 1950-53, and now even more so. Now they will have to destroy the underground infrastructure in a mountainous country created for more than 60 years.
    3. At least US missiles and bombs must enter the air defense strike zone. If an underground structure needs to be smashed to pieces, bombs and missiles must not only go as deep as possible under the ground, but also get as accurately as possible, and for this, reconnaissance should establish where this structure is located as accurately as possible.
    4. This time, as repeatedly warned from Pyongyang, there will be retaliatory strikes on the territory of the United States.
  12. antiexpert
    antiexpert 26 October 2017 11: 34
    +4
    Remains a "splinter" in the form of proud Koreans. DPRK will not be able to shoot bombers on the outskirts of the country. There are no such systems there. So, we can assume some success of such a blow. The loss of US aviation in this case will be completely within the framework of the planned.


    and who will allow such planes to their borders? RF or China? After all, the DPRK borders on both of these countries, and this space is closed by air defense and China and the Russian Federation)))
  13. Nitarius
    Nitarius 26 October 2017 12: 05
    0
    But for countries that do not have modern air defense systems like the latest Russian systems, they’ll still come down.
    1) The author .. Illusions that we have new and everywhere .. Nonsense .. better to know the real situation! in fact a lot of unfinished business! like everywhere!
    The second! with regards to the pilots .... but for what in your USA withdraws from the reserve 1000 pilots! also to just like that?
  14. dDYHA
    dDYHA 26 October 2017 13: 22
    0
    A version of cannon fodder? And do they really enter the air defense coverage area when rockets are launched?
    1. domokl
      26 October 2017 17: 26
      0
      Interestingly, and aviation is included in the country's air defense?
  15. exo
    exo 26 October 2017 16: 35
    +2
    Here it is worth splitting into two questions:
    1. Will they be able to? Knowing the potential of the Americans, I think that YES. Not everything is measured only by the economy. A political decision is enough. Again, many reservists are active pilots of civil aviation. So with their health, all is not bad. It is enough to recall that the reservists were called up to the national guard during the war with Iraq. And on combat aircraft. If I am not mistaken, on the A7 Corsair.
    2.Will it be? Here, it’s hard to answer. A very controversial decision in a conflict with the Russian Federation. And in North Korea, there are enough available forces.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 26 October 2017 22: 15
      0
      Quote: exo
      So with their health, all is not bad

      Interesting. And what will happen if all the pilots do not pass the medical examination? And then the war. Will planes stand aside or spit on the medical board? In a hot environment, who will listen to the doctors?
  16. misti1973
    misti1973 26 October 2017 16: 43
    0
    And why are there strategists? There you can send a couple of AUG- and the issue is resolved! All ballistic missiles of the DPRK will be shot down without any problems by the very same SM-3s. Then Tomahawks can be thrown. And then bombing from carrier-based aircraft. The truth is, I hardly understand why this is the United States. It will cost a lot of money, and the consequences will certainly affect the South Korea. Is it that they want to shake their fists in front of China? Other reasons seem far-fetched.
  17. Old26
    Old26 26 October 2017 17: 32
    +3
    Quote: Kostadinov
    1. In Korea, the United States "piled on" more than in Vietnam. Their losses in 3 years in Korea and in Vietnam in 13 years. In Korea, real ground operations of regular army across the whole territory of Korea were beaten, and in Vietnam, American ground troops fought only in the South against partisans (until 1973). If they were fed occupying North Vietnam then they had to meet Chinese troops bi as in Korea.

    Why would they invade North Korea in this case? For this, first of all there are South Koreans. And it is unlikely that even the South Koreans will be at the beginning of the conflict. The Americans will methodically knock out North Korean infrastructure, and will try, as they say, to “bomb North Korea into the Stone Age”. And only then, perhaps they will take offensive actions. At the first stage, the southerners will have to conduct defensive battles against the troops of the northerners.

    Quote: Kostadinov
    2. Demolition of the DPRK infrastructure was not so easy in 1950-53, and now even more so.

    Just right now it’s easier to do than in 50-53 years. The armament of the aircraft has changed. And if before, in order to hit a target, a bomber had to appear above the target, now this is not necessary. there is a huge range of ammunition with a flight range of tens and hundreds of kilometers.

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Now they will have to destroy the underground infrastructure in a mountainous country created for more than 60 years.

    What for? Why bomb bomb shelters with people? What is the sacred meaning of this? As for the underground infrastructure, there is more likely a propaganda effect than reality. What can be removed underground in mountain caves? Warehouses, for example.
    You can base your rocket forces in the caves below. But. The location of such "grand caves" is well known. There is no need to break through the thickness of the mountain when there are more effective means.

    What else can be placed? Factories, for example. the same situation. There is no need to break through a mountain when there are other ways.
    Air defense in the cave does not place. Just because the specificity of these funds is such that they can only be stored in the cave, and not act from it. What else? Shore guns? Yes, here these guns will be more protected than in the open. But this does not guarantee that they will not be destroyed with precision weapons.

    Quote: Kostadinov
    . All the same, the US must enter the air defense strike zone, at least missiles and bombs. If an underground structure needs to be smashed to pieces, bombs and missiles must not only go as deep as possible under the ground, but also get as accurately as possible, and for this, intelligence should establish where the structure is located as accurately as possible ..

    And the Koreans have a network of air defense systems that can shoot down bombs and missiles? Do not share what exactly they have? And what about intelligence? Do you seriously believe that these underground structures are not mapped by the same Americans ??

    Quote: Kostadinov
    .4. This time, as repeatedly warned from Pyongyang, there will be retaliatory strikes on the territory of the United States.

    Three hundred and thirty-third Korean warning? But is there anything to strike at the US territory? Something proven?

    Quote: mark2
    My opinion. The author is right that the B52 will land before they embark on a missile launch course.

    For twenty-twenty years, Americans have not relied on bombers in a conflict with the USSR (Russia). Maximum, as a means of a second blow and stripping. Otherwise, the contracts would not have the position that is now. Namely, that one bomber counts as one charge, despite the fact that he can carry them much more. When TBs were considered the means of a first strike along with missiles, their load was very clearly limited. The maximum allowed number of CRs was early 28. In the overall standings, the first 150-180 with the same parameters were considered, the subsequent ones with slightly smaller ones. Now one bomber - one discharger, does this mean something?

    Quote: Mik13
    And here, as it were, firstly, intercepting ballistic and aerodynamic targets are very different tasks. Especially the interception of the ALCM.
    And secondly, in the same Wikipedia article that you quoted, about C-500 it is absolutely unambiguous that the planned radius of the missiles in the system is 600 km.

    And thirdly, this system does not exist yet. And I have never seen something in the last 5-6 years that the S-400 system had any other containers besides the standard ones under 48N6. It was not visible containers under 9M96, as well as under 40N6. According to the last, Shoigu said in the spring that she was completing the tests. About the missile defense that will be in the S-500 system and not heard. And tests would have passed, our "sworn friends" would have shouted about this for a long time ...

    Quote: mark2
    Conclusion in a first approximation: The B-52 will not be able to reach the target.

    Why is that? Do we have a continuous air defense system? What religion does forbid to approach the territory of Russia from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? And shoot back a hundred kilometers from the coast? Or the requirement that he go solely from the direction where the S-300 / S-400 complexes are deployed? It may not be the weapon of the first strike, but it can also cause considerable harm. It is foolish to think that he will be set a goal to attack, for example, Irkutsk.

    Quote: mark2
    We look further. Hatchet guidance system. Everything possible is by satellite (Block-3), but the range is not increased.
    Those. it turns out that the air defense will sit and wait when the B-52 specifically fly up?

    What connects your two sentences? Guidance system and the question, will air defense systems wait?

    Quote: mark2
    Following. Let's say a bomber or a missile missed. Well, there is the S-400, S-300, which are less long-armed, but more sharpened for air targets. And there are all kinds of smaller air defense. If this is all planned, it will work in a network environment, then the B-52 can be cut into colormet.

    That's just where the positions of the S-400 and S-300 are located. The adversary knows quite well. And it is unlikely that he will plan the passage "ahead of schedule". A smaller air defense? There is it. It’s just that the same Strela-10 or Tor air defense missile system will be made with a machine that will pass 50 km from them, or at an altitude out of their reach. Nobody will say how all this will work in network interaction during a conflict. But I'm afraid it will work very badly. And there are details that point to this.
    Seven years ago, at the Kapustin Yar training ground, Alexander Alekseevich Lemansky, the creator of the S-300PMU-1, S-300PMU-2 and S-400, died of a heart attack. He died during the exercises. And as the "evil tongues" say, the reason for the attack was that the "red" air defense system was not able to repel the "blue" raid. None of the complexes (and they were, as you know on the network) could shoot at the attacking "blue" aircraft. And only when the level of interference was reduced, “Tor” shot back. And the rest could not. So there are no guarantees that they will work on the network. In addition, experience suggests that the adversary usually applies a level of interference that is several times greater than those at which the system "hangs". It is foolish to think that in such a situation they will go without covering EW aircraft. So not everything is clear

    Quote: mark2
    And do not think that the US is smarter or Russia is dumber. We are different. If it comes to a serious boil, B52 will not be saved.

    In fact, nowhere has the author said that an attack is being prepared on Russia. Rather, the thought flickers that all this is for the DPRK
    1. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 26 October 2017 20: 55
      +1
      Older experienced reserve pilots mobilized by Trump now are very good. a strong reserve also because for now they are active pilots on liners of private airlines, which will also be mobilized in the event of a "Big War" with the Russian Federation and China. Well, on the B-52 and US Air Force transporters, this thousand pilots is quite suitable. So everything is seriously developing towards the Great War FOR TWO FRONTS.
  18. cedar
    cedar 26 October 2017 18: 38
    0
    "So, against which country can the US use the B-52? Against Russia? Against China? Against the DPRK?"

    But what if Amers transform the B-52 into sixth-generation planes of the Fi-635 ... You can make eight ultra-modern invisibles from one eight motor old man and attack the DPRK with them, and at the same time China and Russia ...
    Cheap and cheerful.
  19. voron770247
    voron770247 26 October 2017 18: 40
    +3
    In this style, as I recall, they wrote about Iraq ... They say the United States will not dare to attack that there will be big losses in the cities ... That Israel can get pretty much ... Well, we know the result.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Old26
    Old26 26 October 2017 23: 18
    +3
    Quote: Polkan
    Opinion of the next couch anal-itic. What does it mean "The order to transfer to the appropriate regime has not been received at the aviation units in which the" old men "are located?" Does the author of this nonsense report to the USA wing commanders regularly report on receiving orders? Yes, to the general development of this “academician” the peer of our Tu-95 B-52 is NOT an “anachronism” AND MORE THAN 700 carriers of combat load of 30 tons of any nomenclature (including thermonuclear CU), they take what they deliver to ANY point of the globe. And I’m afraid to disappoint the author - to bring the B52 to war is not the only USA argument, i.e. the old people will not be sent to the tip of the strike, but turning into a lunar landscape any territory devoid of adequate air defense means (say after practicing with the same tomahawks) is only a matter of time for them. As well as for servicemen of any NORMAL armies, they would be assigned a similar combat mission.

    Alas, many of the writers here will disagree with you. For them, this is "rusty crap," "anochranism." And only because it is americana a machine. And just as many people think that they are “gouging” North Korean air defense, and he will not be able to do anything, because everything is underground there and he won’t do anything. And so on.

    I agree with you in almost everything. except one
    Quote: Polkan
    And MORE THAN 700 carriers of combat load of 30 tons of any nomenclature (including thermonuclear warheads), which they undertake to deliver to ANY point of the globe ..

    Americans now no longer 700 carriers with a 30-ton load, i.e. B-52.
    In service now they have 36 "nuclear" deployed and 10 non-deployed type machines 52Н. A plus 41 non-nuclear vehicle for the use of the WTO. Yet 13 cars in active reserve. AND 13-14 machines of this modification in storage. Plus in storage 95 type machines 52G of which the Americans, in which case, plan to restore 51. That is, Americans can put everything 208 machines. 208, not 700

    I hope that I will not have to present the numbers of these machines here, when they arrived at the storage and on what sites are they now? wassat
  24. turcom
    turcom 27 October 2017 07: 28
    0
    Quote: novel xnumx
    I don’t know about the pilots, but I will completely fulfill my technical duties in my 50+

    Similarly, I am mine.
  25. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 27 October 2017 13: 48
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    Just right now it’s easier to do than in 50-53 years. The armament of the aircraft has changed. And if before, in order to hit a target, a bomber had to appear above the target, now this is not necessary. there is a huge range of ammunition with a flight range of tens and hundreds of kilometers.

    The means of delivery of ammunition to the target have changed, but the power of the ammunition itself has not changed much. And all delivery vehicles, missile krillatiya, guided bombs, freely falling bombs (B-61), ballistic missiles, despite how many kilometers their range should in the end not only appear above the target but also hit the same target, with great accuracy and stick to the ground.
    At the same time, the DPRK infrastructure has changed by orders of magnitude more than the power of ammunition.
    Therefore, just now, it is incomparably more difficult to do.
    Quote: Old26
    You can base your rocket forces in the caves below. But. The location of such "grand caves" is well known. There is no need to break through the thickness of the mountain when there are more effective means. What else can be placed? Factories, for example. the same situation. There is no need to break through a mountain when there are other ways.

    You certainly know, but do the Americans know? Ten thousand large and medium underground structures link 1000 kilometers of tunnels. Effective means and ways to do something are always there, but there are other effective ways to make these ways ineffective. This is always the case in war. In 1950-53, the Americans tried the same then the primitive underground structure destroyed in a variety of ways with absolute dominance in the air and did not succeed. So prolamivat will still have to.
    Quote: Old26
    And the Koreans have a network of air defense systems that can shoot down bombs and missiles? Do not share what exactly they have? And what about intelligence? Do you seriously believe that these underground structures are not mapped by the same Americans ??

    And what is needed, what extraterrestrial means are needed to bring down krillat missiles or guided bombs 1 km or 200 or 100 meters from the target? This is quite enough to protect the underground structure. For this, there is enough mine on the ground. By the way, Koreans used such anti-aircraft mini back in the 1950-53 war.
    See the same what kind of intelligence the Americans have for drawing on the maps of underground structures. Maybe they used this opit when they shrieked a primitive underground structure in Mosul or Raqqa? Or maybe Israel has a bit of some successful experience from Ghazia?
    Quote: Old26
    Three hundred and thirty-third Korean warning? But is there anything to strike at the US territory? Something proven?

    1. The first DPRK satellite successfully flew in December 2012. 58 months have passed since that day. The Inha rocket is 30 meters long and is capable of delivering 800 kg. payload to Washington (this is not what I calculated). She has fuel like the Soviet UR-100 and sheltered in the mine is not a big problem. The DPRK does not have an agreement with the United States on the exchange of information on the whereabouts of silos. They can endow them as many as you want - real from missiles, deaf from missiles, real without missiles, and so on. How many such missiles does the DPRK have 30-40-50?
    2. Then the DPRK has a hundred submarines. Of these, at least 30 can reach the US coast with BR or KR. They are not easily intercepted (see the fate of the South Korean anti-submarine corvette Chonan).
    3. There are other ways to reach the USA about which I can only guess but it will be enough.
  26. core
    core 27 October 2017 14: 21
    +1
    military expert? we will take off these planes on the way, the question is, what will fly to us with a poster. "WE ARE NOW EXPANDING YOU" or the author thinks. that we will first officially declare war. and then they’ll fly to bomb? Are you seriously? this bomber will fly with suspensions of cruise missiles along the borders, and we have no right to touch it. interception and escort is everything! and he blows his winged points on air defense or prom. areas of the Kyrgyz Republic with nuclear weapons. Do not underestimate the enemy, if these bombers were not of real use, they were long written off.
  27. Vadim Sh.
    Vadim Sh. 27 October 2017 15: 44
    0
    I have no doubt - from the B-52 they will make the color even before the bomber enters the combat course of launching missiles.
  28. Old26
    Old26 28 October 2017 00: 26
    +2
    [quote = Kostadinov] The means of delivery of ammunition to the target have changed, but the power of the ammunition itself has not changed much. And all delivery vehicles, missile krillatiya, guided bombs, freely falling bombs (B-61), ballistic missiles, despite how many kilometers their range should in the end not only appear above the target but also hit the same target, with great accuracy and stick to the ground. [/ quote]
    The power of ammunition has not changed since the Korean War? Are you joking? Look, the nomenclature of the ammunition that lifted the B-29. The most powerful land mine was already weighing 1,8 tons. Mostly it was 45, 113, 227 and 454 kg. The B-52 has a significantly larger range. Including and bombs that can fly 60-70 km. And at the same time they get thanks to GPS for sure. More precisely than the bombs of the 50s. and anti-bunker is. What was not in the 50s

    [quote = Kostadinov] Of course you know, but do the Americans know? Ten thousand large and medium underground structures link 1000 kilometers of tunnels. Effective means and ways to do something are always there, but there are other effective ways to make these ways ineffective. This is always the case in war. In 1950-53, the Americans tried the same then the primitive underground structure destroyed in a variety of ways with absolute dominance in the air and did not succeed. So prolamivat will still have to. [/ quote]
    I don’t need to know this. I am not involved in planning an attack on the DPRK. This is primarily known to the Americans. Ten thousand large and small underground structures, especially connected by a 1000 km tunnel? Do you have any idea how much mining is needed? Your 1000 km tunnel alone is about 30-40 million cubic meters of rock.. And all these underground structures are not hundreds of millions, but billions of cubic meters of rock.
    How many years did they make this one tunnel? Do you know such a term - DEMASING SIGN. Here the unmasking sign will be the construction of these tunnels. Access roads that will roll over the years. Concrete block in the area of ​​the "entrances". Ducts (conclusions) to the surface. Power line supplying energy to these underground structures? Or do you think that American intelligence has not accumulated satellite images of this territory for years? I'm afraid to disappoint you. There are optical images, both radar and multispectral images made by remote sensing satellites.
    And what will happen to these structures when infrared-guided ammunition strikes air ducts, ammunition strikes power lines and power plants, and concrete-piercing ammunition collapses the entrances to these grandiose underground structures? Even if not all, but only the main ones. And these underground structures can become a grave.

    [quote = Kostadinov] And what is needed, what extraterrestrial means are needed to bring down krillat missiles or guided bombs 1 km or 200 or 100 meters from the target? This is quite enough to protect the underground structure. For this, there is enough mine on the ground. By the way, Koreans used such anti-aircraft mini back in the 1950-53 war.
    See the same what kind of intelligence the Americans have for drawing on the maps of underground structures. Maybe they used this opit when they shrieked a primitive underground structure in Mosul or Raqqa? Or maybe Israel has a bit of some successful experience from Ghazia? [/ quote]
    Extraterrestrial means? These are those that the North Koreans do not have. These are complexes like our Thor or armor. Well, anti-aircraft mines - this is of course cool. Will bombing be an anti-aircraft mine? Will the Korean hero be controlled manually? Or will it be a remote control and radio fuses? Do you know that there are ways to pre-detonate mines without entering the minefield with a conventional radio pulse?
    The methods I described above. And they revealed something in Mosul or Raqqi - this is a question for them. But enough satellite information has been accumulated to open these tunnels ... And you should not confuse a tunnel dug in the ground at a depth of 2-3 meters with those monster-shaped structures that you describe

    [quote = Kostadinov] 1. The first DPRK satellite successfully flew in December 2012. 58 months have passed since that day. / Quote]
    Yes, at least 10 years will pass, which of this. The life of this Korean satellite is two years. launched on 12.12.2012 at the end of 2014, it ceased its active existence. And it may very well be that this 100 kg dead blank revolves around the earth.

    [quote = Kostadinov] Inha missile is 30 meters long and is capable of delivering 800 kg. payload to Washington (this is not what I calculated). She has fuel like the Soviet UR-100 and sheltered in the mine is not a big problem. The DPRK does not have an agreement with the United States on the exchange of information on the whereabouts of silos. They can endow them as many as you want - real from missiles, deaf from missiles, real without missiles, and so on. How many such missiles does the DPRK have 30-40-50? [/ quote]
    For some reason, we believe that if a rocket launched a satellite weighing 100 kg into orbit, then it will certainly deliver as much as 800 kg of payload to Washington. Yes, do not be shy, write that it will deliver 8 tons
    So what, what is it fuel like UR-100? Unlike the UR-100, it is not amputated. It is launched from the launch pad at the western spaceport. One such table is available. The Koreans have not yet reached such a technology to make mines for such huge missiles. Especially the "deaf". The USSR did not even master them. But what, the creation of such a structure - mines under Eunha-3, is this a matter of 10-15 minutes? Or do you think that Eun will order and the next day there will be a mine? The USSR built them for months. A simple remake for another complex takes 4-5 months. Or at the same time, American satellites over Korea will stop flying. Honestly - some kind of babble about Korean secret rocket mines

    [quote = Kostadinov] 2. Then the DPRK has a hundred submarines. Of these, at least 30 can reach the US coast with BR or KR. They are not so easily intercepted (see the fate of the South Korean anti-submarine corvette Chonan). [/ Quote]
    North Koreans Seventy-Six Submarines. With a missile (one, I emphasize), one (there were rumors that the second appeared. EVERYTHING. They have NO other boats with ballistic or cruise missiles.
    DPRK TWENTY Project 033 boats, which theoretically can reach the US Pacific coast. But EXCLUSIVELY IN A FULL POSITION. They will not have enough autonomy to reach the North American continent underwater

    [quote = Kostadinov] 3. There are other ways to reach the USA about which I can only guess but they are enough. [/ quote]
    You can guess about anything. It just does not have any real possibilities. here, many have already written about the delivery of nuclear charge on board the ship to the main base of the North Korean Pacific aircraft. True, many forget (or do not know) that DPRK has scheduled flights. Read clensy and fantasize

    And dear Kostadinov! It would be nice when you trump numbers and data to at least have minimal information on this topic. Do not force others to correct your fantasies for you
  29. intuzazist
    intuzazist 29 October 2017 15: 43
    0
    Quote: domokl
    That's right. I wonder if now to call the soldiers 50 + they tank or BMP will lead? With the move. Like sometime.

    I doubt that such a soldier will "slip" into the hatch .............................
  30. Barey
    Barey 29 October 2017 17: 36
    0
    I haven’t read much, but it seems that the author is not a military man. Alexander, why should Russia support the Tu-95? Yes, even upgrade them to MS? Not wondering? They, even with electronic warfare, will also not pass the defense of either China or America. However, the Bear is afraid, in the same America, the whole strategy is spelled out, about hitting their place of basing in the event of an escalation of the conflict with the Russian Federation. It's funny to read your article.
  31. ver_
    ver_ 30 October 2017 08: 10
    0
    Quote: Vlad.by
    What is not a fact, Mr. Duk!
    God alone knows what Iran has, Sev. Korea, Pakistan. Yes, the same China and Israel ...
    Declarations and intelligence are one thing, and reality is another.

    ..what to be surprised - with Svidomo in sheds and three-inch times of the time of the world’s perches seized ..