Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Share

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  ahmedfire on Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:Wondering if it is hard to jam GPS?

    Chinese embassy Serbia...

    The US government spend an enormous amount on extensive and accurate maps of everywhere, but they used old maps to bomb downtown Serbia?

    I mean that it's harder to jam military GPS than civilian one,,military has some advantages like anti-jamming ,anti spoofing and apowerful signal than civilian GPS,

    BTW,the source of the jamming can quickly be determined on the field.


    look

    http://www.novatel.com/about-us/news-releases/news-releases-2011/first-ever-single-enclosure-gps-anti-jam-antenna-for-military-land-vehicles-announced-at-cansec/

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  Pervius on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:32 pm

    The Chinese Embassy in Serbia was bombed because they got pieces of the F-117 that was shot down and had them in their embassy.

    Bye bye Embassy......boom.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:48 am

    I mean that it's harder to jam military GPS than civilian one,,military has some advantages like anti-jamming ,anti spoofing and apowerful signal than civilian GPS,

    Jamming effectiveness is greatly effected by range, so a jamming signal near a target will always over power a guidance signal from a satellite way up in space.



    BTW,the source of the jamming can quickly be determined on the field.

    And if it is right near the target you are trying to destroy what exactly are you going to do about it? Drop two GPS guided bombs?
    What if it is located on the second story of a 10 story hospital?
    Or how about a school or 1,000 year old church?

    The Chinese Embassy in Serbia was bombed because they got pieces of the F-117 that was shot down and had them in their embassy.

    The F-117 was near the end of March, while the embassy bombing was in May... even if they did send parts to the Chinese I very much doubt they were sitting in the Chinese embassy in Serbia a month after they were given access to them.

    JDAM's are GPS-aided. Jam the GPS signal, and they can still hit within a 30 meter CEP of the initial aimpoint.

    Unless it is a big bomb or a very soft target a 30m miss is a complete miss.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:40 pm

    And if it is right near the target you are trying to destroy what exactly are you going to do about it? Drop two GPS guided bombs?

    you can use other ways to target this location of jamming ,

    US made it in gulf war and destroyes some of GPS jammers that iraq imported from russia,

    the point is jamming atomahawk will not prevent it from hitting it's target ,it can use other arriving techniques to hit the target like TERCOM and DASMAC..

    I have aquestion here:

    It's known that military GPS has aseparate frequencies that differ frome civilian one ,
    ,

    Is there aone jammer that can jam the both civilian and military gps in the same time ?

    in the news above ,N.K want to jam amilitary gps but the reporter said that mobile phones "in S.Korea" that use civilian gps also were affected or jamed ,

    according to my knowlege here, i think using one device that has four signal generators, it can vary it's frequency from one generator to another to jam four frequencies ( CIVILIAN GPS, MILITARY GPS, CIVILIAN GLONASS, AND MILITARY GLONASS ).


    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  SOC on Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:54 am

    GarryB wrote:And if it is right near the target you are trying to destroy what exactly are you going to do about it? Drop two GPS guided bombs?

    Of course not. We'd switch to Mk.82s and saturation bomb the whole area!

    Very Happy

    Or, use the newer laser-guided JDAMs. We've blasted moving targets with those. Granted, it was on a range and I'm not sure they've been employed operationally yet since they frankly haven't really been required, but it gives you a useful fallback if you encounter jamming. Plus, some of the improvements to JDAM incorporated over the years have specifically focused on increasing jamming resistance, like IGAS. AGTFT results showed less than a 7 meter CEP in a high-jamming environment using some of the anti-jamming tech stuck in the back end. One of the fixes was to modify the receiver antenna. They apparently couldn't stop it from acquiring the DoD GPS signal for guidance.

    The F-117 was near the end of March, while the embassy bombing was in May... even if they did send parts to the Chinese I very much doubt they were sitting in the Chinese embassy in Serbia a month after they were given access to them.

    That implies that they gave China access immediately following the shootdown. Serbia had the parts. They could've given access to Russians in-country pretty much immediately (you can still learn a hell of a lot from inspecting RAM), and given access to the Chinese a bit later.

    Unless it is a big bomb or a very soft target a 30m miss is a complete miss.

    30 meters is the "worst case" figure. Plus, there has never been a single confirmed event of jamming causing a JDAM to miss its target.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:24 am

    the point is jamming atomahawk will not prevent it from hitting it's target ,it can use other arriving techniques to hit the target like TERCOM and DASMAC..

    Jamming is one thing... providing false information it another.

    If a weapon uses GPS to improve its accuracy then it makes sense for the target of such weapons to remove that improvement through jamming or other techniques.

    according to my knowlege here, i think using one device that has four signal generators, it can vary it's frequency from one generator to another to jam four frequencies ( CIVILIAN GPS, MILITARY GPS, CIVILIAN GLONASS, AND MILITARY GLONASS ).

    As far as I know both Glonass and Navstar have lots of frequencies some of them civilian and most military. If you can jam one then it shouldn't be that hard to jam them all, but the distance you can jam them to is the hard part...

    Of course not. We'd switch to Mk.82s and saturation bomb the whole area!

    If the old stuff fails... go back to old school... Cool

    Or, use the newer laser-guided JDAMs.

    I heard some JDAMs failed in Afghanistan because of the mountains blocking the signals...
    Of course the American solution is add laser guidance to JDAMs... spend more money... the Russian solution would be to go back to laser guided bombs...

    ...would love to see a laser guided KAB-9000. Smile

    That implies that they gave China access immediately following the shootdown. Serbia had the parts. They could've given access to Russians in-country pretty much immediately (you can still learn a hell of a lot from inspecting RAM), and given access to the Chinese a bit later.

    I would suspect the Russians would be more interested in the electronics on board like the IRST system and its enclosure to allow it to work while remaining stealthy, plus of course the engine intake shielding material.
    For the Chinese... they would probably be interested in everything from the engines to the skin.

    30 meters is the "worst case" figure. Plus, there has never been a single confirmed event of jamming causing a JDAM to miss its target.

    JDAMs have been used in lots of situations where it is not possible to confirm the precise location of impact points, so that is like saying I never miss with my machine gun... everything it fires at it hits... Twisted Evil

    Or talking about old school bombing... they always hit their targets because their "targets" were cities.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  SOC on Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:19 pm

    Of course the American solution is add laser guidance to JDAMs... spend more money... the Russian solution would be to go back to laser guided bombs...

    It makes sense. JDAMs aren't all that expensive in the grand military scheme of things, and while a laser-guided bomb might seem like a viable alternative, their use is restricted by environmental considerations such as cloud cover, smog, etc. Having a laser head on a JDAM lets you use the capability when you need it, and fall back on the INS/GPS guidance if it isn't viable. If an Su-27SM takes off and heads to a target 60 minutes away with a load of LGBs, and finds the target covered in clouds that moved in, he's SOL. If an F-16CG takes off and heads out in the same situation, the laser-guided JDAM is still useable.

    I would suspect the Russians would be more interested in the electronics on board like the IRST system and its enclosure to allow it to work while remaining stealthy, plus of course the engine intake shielding material.

    The engine shielding is far less complicated than you might think it is. The metal grill acts as a flat panel, with the openings too small for current FCS radars to get a beam through and find a return off of the compressor face.

    JDAMs have been used in lots of situations where it is not possible to confirm the precise location of impact points

    What area have they been used in that is immune to overhead reconnaissance or satellite coverage for BDA?

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:05 am


    As far as I know both Glonass and Navstar have lots of frequencies some of them civilian and most military. If you can jam one then it shouldn't be that hard to jam them all, but the distance you can jam them to is the hard part...

    Just send your powerful noise in the same frequency that your enemy use

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:45 am

    It makes sense. JDAMs aren't all that expensive in the grand military scheme of things, and while a laser-guided bomb might seem like a viable alternative, their use is restricted by environmental considerations such as cloud cover, smog, etc.

    JDAMs aren't very expensive, but adding laser guidance makes them more expensive, which kinda makes them more expensive than a laser guided bomb doesn't it?

    I mean if the point of JDAM is cheap, then why make them more expensive with laser if laser is so flaky?


    If an Su-27SM takes off and heads to a target 60 minutes away with a load of LGBs, and finds the target covered in clouds that moved in, he's SOL. If an F-16CG takes off and heads out in the same situation, the laser-guided JDAM is still useable.

    60 minutes away the Su-27SM could take off with most of its internal fuel tanks empty, and even carrying a few AAMs will have room for plenty of satellite and laser and TV guided bombs to cover all options. BTW if they can't predict the weather in 60 minutes time then they shouldn't be in a position to drop bombs on people because they are clearly incompetent.
    ... and further more... 60 minutes flight time means they should be using Iskander anyway...

    Just send your powerful noise in the same frequency that your enemy use

    With a directional antenna you can ignore even very strong signals that are coming from the ground...

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  SOC on Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:12 am

    I mean if the point of JDAM is cheap, then why make them more expensive with laser if laser is so flaky?

    The ability to hit moving targets is one big plus. And sometimes you just need the extra bit of accuracy an LGB can provide. Besides, not all of them are going to be laser JDAMs. I want to say we bought either 400 or 4,000 of the kits, I can't remember which.

    60 minutes away the Su-27SM could take off with most of its internal fuel tanks empty, and even carrying a few AAMs will have room for plenty of satellite and laser and TV guided bombs to cover all options. BTW if they can't predict the weather in 60 minutes time then they shouldn't be in a position to drop bombs on people because they are clearly incompetent.
    ... and further more... 60 minutes flight time means they should be using Iskander anyway...

    Stop nitpicking, you! Razz It was just an example to illustrate a point-LGBs aren't going to be useable 24/7/365.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:54 am

    I will let it go, but I think ignoring the LGBs in the arsenal and redesigning JDAMs to have laser guidance defeats the purpose.

    The whole point of JDAMs was to be cheap and simple. How can laser JDAMs remain cheaper than laser beam homing LGBs when it is a LGB and a JDAM... unless laser guidance got cheaper... in which case why bother with JDAMS... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    With the level of accuracy both weapons offer why not just carry one of each as a standard with a rope tying them together... if it is a monsoon and the LGB is useless then drop them both with the LGBs guidance turned off and let the JDAM drag it onto its target. If it is a clear sky all the way to the ground then turn off the JDAMs guidance and let the LGBs guidance drag the JDAM onto the target.

    Use 250kg bombs where you would normally use a 500kg bomb and everything is sweet... and the taxpayer doesn't have to fork out for something you already have. Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:08 am

    I am sure SOC will find this amusing, though it is slightly off topic...

    This weapon was revealed this year at MAKS2011:



    It looks very big... and it is... but it is actually a KAB-250.

    The reason it is so long is that it is aerodynamically shaped to glide.

    It is also a HE blast weapon which means no thick heavy metal shell... HE is much lower density than steel so 250kgs of HE takes up more volume than 250kgs of steel.

    The third thing that makes it so big is that it has thermal guidance in addition to INS and GLONASS guidance. Because of the accuracy of Glonass which pretty much guarantees getting the weapon to within 20m of its target they have been able to use a simpler and cheaper thermal sight with a detection range of only about 3km.

    The way it works is that the weapon is given an IR image of the target and its GPS coordinates and the weapon is then released to glide towards the target while the launch platform turns and flys away. When the weapon gets within about 3km it starts looking for the target and when it finds it it homes in on that target with a CEP of less than 5m.

    Because it is thermal it is all weather day and night capable and with the Glonass guidance it can be much longer range than it could be with thermal guidance alone.

    The weapon is totally fire and forget and does not need third party lasing of the target, and while the thermal camera makes the weapon more accurate than it would have been using GPS alone, the GPS means a cheaper and simpler thermal camera can be used for the terminal guidance making the weapon cheaper yet still capable.

    BTW it is designed for the PAK FA but other new Russian aircraft will be able to use it... would be a powerful new weapon for the Su-25SM I suspect.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  SOC on Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:20 am

    Impressive (but I found the RVV-BD far more amusing!). I wonder if this was thought up with the FULCRUM, FLANKER, and PAK-FA in mind? Can it take targeting inputs from the IRST, or do they want to use an actual thermal imaging sensor in an external pod?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:43 am

    I would expect the thermal image of the target might be captured by another platform or perhaps they are intending to use Damocles or updated equivalent, but the Su-34 is the primary strike aircraft, while the PAK FA is fully multirole too.

    The PAK FA has been shown with an external guidance pod and this weapon is optimised internal carriage.

    Considering its length... which seems quite big it is also possible it might have a rocket motor to boost standoff range...!??!?!

    BTW the RVV-BD is just an export model R-37, do you agree?
    AFAIK the R-37M has a solid rocket booster and longer range in the 400km range for the domestic anti AWACS/JSTARS/anything that annoys them role.

    Edit, just read a PiBu article that explained that the RVV-BD is based on a revived R-37 missile so it is called R-37M. Have you heard anything about the reported two stage R-37 if it ever existed at all?


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:24 am; edited 1 time in total

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  SOC on Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:56 am

    RVV-BD is an export R-37, yes. It's likely not the baseline R-37 but a newer variant, as the R-37 is old news at this point. Yes, the R-37M was often quoted as having a booster stage to get the range from 250-300 km to 400 km, but it also never appeared anywhere so it may have been a paper project which succumbed to a lack of funding post-1991. The domestic RVV-BD (R-37M1? R-37-2?) appears to be a perfectly suitable R-33/R-33S replacement for the MiG-31BM, finally giving the operational FOXHOUND something possessing range and lacking archaic SARH seeker technology.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:33 am

    Ahh, you were too quick for my edit.

    According to PiBu the RVV-BD has been shown on Mig-35s and is intended for all sorts of upgraded Russian aircraft.

    Of course when fitted with AESA radars the Mig-35 and Su-35 and PAK FA will have many of the features of the Mig-31, except sustained speed.

    Shame the Mig-31BM hasn't retained the belly configuration of the Mig-31M to allow 6 missiles to be carried there instead of 4.

    Perhaps the two stage stuff was actually confusion with the KS-172 which does have a solid rocket booster, or perhaps the two stage R-37 might still be in the works using an extreme high altitude flight profile for long range surprise attacks on JSTARS and AWACS type platforms...

    The guy in charge of the Almaz-Antey said the future of ABM systems is aircraft based missiles... perhaps multi stage missiles with rocket boosters and scramjet motors... well I am wandering there aren't I... Smile

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  SOC on Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:00 am

    Fitting it on upgraded legacy platforms makes sense, it makes the upgrade packages more attractive to export customers. In the RusAF I'd assume it will arm the MiG-31BM at the least (the missile displayed at MAKS pretty much proves this point), with the PAK-FA likely and the Su-35 possible. However, given the work that's been done with the AAM-L and the FLANKER airframe, particularly recently with regards to a potential Indian AF sale, I wonder if they haven't done anything with the RVV-BD/FLANKER combination yet.

    Why stick something like this on the MiG-29 though? At combat weight the FULCRUM is a true Hornet equivalent: great weapons systems, excellent ACM performance (if you pop off the heavy stuff to turn and burn), but very lacking in legs. Sticking heavy AAMs like this on the FULCRUM greatly expands its reach, but yanks away one of its true assets: the ablity to go into a HOBS engagement out-turning the competition. FLANKER, I can understand. You can hang a heavy load on it and at combat weight it doesn't care much and will still dominate the WVR fight. The most overlooked airshow routine of all time was the Su-30MK at Paris or Farnborough in the early/mid 90s: Western "experts" shouted that the FLANKER wasn't going to be nearly as impressive with a full warload. Russia's response? Load out the Su-30MK, fly routine, laugh.

    I've always heard of both the R-37M and the AAM-L, I don't think there was any confusion there regarding who has the booster stage. The R-37M/AAM-L were likely intended to be the armament for the MiG 7.01, you weren't fitting a booster-equipped R-37M underneath a FOXHOUND-M.

    Airborne ABMs are relatively pointless. Until the US comes up with a sensible arms reduction concept, I.E. one that includes the PRC AND Russia, relying on airborne systems is a great way to get yourself glassed. It's a good concept for a theater role against a limited threat like Iran or Syria, but not against a serious threat like Russia or the PRC where there are considerably more weapons to deal with.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:14 am

    In the RusAF I'd assume it will arm the MiG-31BM at the least (the missile displayed at MAKS pretty much proves this point), with the PAK-FA likely and the Su-35 possible.

    I would think it will be the new standard missile for the Foxhound, but I also think most of the Foxhounds will likely move from the Russian AF to the Russian Space and Air Defence Forces, along with a few upgraded Flankers and lots of other platforms.

    I think in the next few years (2013-2016) we will see all new short, medium, and long range missiles designed specifically for the PAK FA to be revealed, but I rather suspect that the same effect on the Mig-29K vs Su-33 will apply with the R-37 vs KS-172 and that the 35 Flanker will be carrying this missile too.

    However, given the work that's been done with the AAM-L and the FLANKER airframe, particularly recently with regards to a potential Indian AF sale, I wonder if they haven't done anything with the RVV-BD/FLANKER combination yet.

    It will likely come down to whether the Indians want to spend the money to develop it.
    The fact that the RVV-BD is now likely available perhaps that might kill suggestions of funding the KS-172.

    Why stick something like this on the MiG-29 though? At combat weight the FULCRUM is a true Hornet equivalent: great weapons systems, excellent ACM performance (if you pop off the heavy stuff to turn and burn), but very lacking in legs.

    Legasy Fulcrums might be difficult to justify, but remember this missile can engage targets pulling 8g so it is not just for use against large aircraft anymore... with its folding wing a Super Hornet is an 8g aircraft...
    If you can get information from other platforms about Australian F-18s coming to attack, perhaps a ground based long wave radar or something then firing a couple of missiles to a projected intercept point might be a useful way to disrupt a potential attack.

    What better time to justify upgrading older Fulcrums with a new 5 pylon wing, new radar and new SMT conformal fuel... the savings in operating costs alone would pay for itself in 3-4 years while the improved performance with the RVV range of new missiles will greatly enhance performance.

    Sticking heavy AAMs like this on the FULCRUM greatly expands its reach, but yanks away one of its true assets: the ablity to go into a HOBS engagement out-turning the competition.

    You don't need to carry more than two per aircraft, and while 500kgs is heavy for an AAM you need to keep in mind it would normally carry R-27s which at 350kgs each are not lightweights either.

    For a short range interception, which would be normal for a Fulcrum it is unlikely they would carry them, but for longer range interception it would enable the Fulcrum to let the missile extend its range instead of using fuel tanks.

    A flight of 4 old model Fulcrums with 2 RVV-BDs and 4 R-73s each operating with an Su-30Mxx which uses its radar to detect targets at long range and passes target info to the Migs is pretty much simulating two Foxhounds in terms of long range missiles.

    The Migs could climb and accelerate and fire their long range missiles while the Flanker monitors the targets and sends updates to the missiles.

    Reasonable chance of a kill with minimal exposure using old aircraft.

    The most overlooked airshow routine of all time was the Su-30MK at Paris or Farnborough in the early/mid 90s: Western "experts" shouted that the FLANKER wasn't going to be nearly as impressive with a full warload. Russia's response? Load out the Su-30MK, fly routine, laugh.

    I remember that... not just a heavy load, but bombs on MERs so it was draggy too...

    The R-37M/AAM-L were likely intended to be the armament for the MiG 7.01, you weren't fitting a booster-equipped R-37M underneath a FOXHOUND-M.

    I remember reading somewhere that the booster equipped R-37M was wing pylon mounted or two on the belly... In the ground attack role with 1,500kg guided bombs the Mig-31 was supposed to have the same configuration... 6 x 1,500kg bombs with two on the belly and one under each of 4 wing pylons for a total of 9 ton payload. It was the Mig-25RB equivalent or something.

    Airborne ABMs are relatively pointless. Until the US comes up with a sensible arms reduction concept, I.E. one that includes the PRC AND Russia, relying on airborne systems is a great way to get yourself glassed. It's a good concept for a theater role against a limited threat like Iran or Syria, but not against a serious threat like Russia or the PRC where there are considerably more weapons to deal with.

    I think perhaps you are thinking airplanes... and I think they are thinking high flying airships and other more exotic things including within their new Space and Air Defence Force structure satellite based radar etc.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  George1 on Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:49 pm

    North Korea threatens US with Juche military strategy, unprecedented methods of warfare

    According to Pyongyang, in a confrontation with the US North Korea may use precision and diversified nuclear striking means, ground, naval, underwater, air and cyber warfare means

    PYONGYANG, February 4. /TASS/. North Korea could use the most firm countermeasures in response to hostile actions of US President Barack Obama administration, the country’s National Defense Commission said in a statement published on Wednesday.

    Pyongyang is ready to "counter the United States in any war, including a nuclear one," the statement by the commission, North Korea’s supreme leadership body, reads.

    The people and the army of North Korea "have neither need nor willingness to sit at the negotiating table with the US that seeks to trample the republic’s ideology and bring down its social system," it says.

    Washington should be aware, the commission said, that in a confrontation with the US, North Korea may use precision and diversified nuclear striking means, ground, naval, underwater, air and cyber warfare means.

    The National Defense Commission, led by North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, stresses that the people’s army will use a Juche strategy and tactics and also the unprecedented methods of military actions.

    The statement comes as President Obama has announced plans to introduce more sanctions on North Korea and also amid persistent calls of the US political and military leadership to step up the blockade of the country.

    The commission also notes the dangerous character of the upcoming military drills between the US and South Korea known as Key Resolve" and "Foal Eagle" which usually begin in March.

    Last month, North Korea announced it was ready to introduce a moratorium on nuclear tests should the US and South Korea shelve their plan for joint military exercises. However, the US government rejected the offer.

    Sponsored content

    Re: The North Korea-US Confrontation

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:21 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:21 pm