South Korean Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

taxiya said:

When getting to specifics in SK, if a missile is outside of atmosphere over Seoul (the highest value area) of SK, where do you think it will land? Maybe southern tip of SK and Japan, that doesn't serve SK much

Click to expand...

Are you implying that there are no other strategic targets in SK besides Seoul?
For your information that nation has a population of over 50 million and has various other cities and ports that would be considered high asset targets.

taxiya said:

I think there are plenty of description of THAAD and PAC-3's mission and capability all over internet, wiki is a good start. In short, THAAD means "Terminal High Altitude Area Defense". PAC is serving the lower altitude. THAAD can and is to intercept missiles while they are still outside of the atmosphere at its descending or ascending part of trajectory, including high atmosphere. After that, PAC takes over till impact. You don't need numbers, their names are good enough to know want purpose they serve.

Click to expand...

I don't need an explanation from Wiki telling me what THAAD means. You asserted that SK does not need THAAD as PAC-3 is sufficient. Do you have some credible reference to support your assertion or not? If you don't have than just say so and then we can move on. Please don't give a convoluted reply as if it is relevant.

taxiya said:

Besides the difference of altitude, is the long range radar that THAAD provides that PAC doesn't. It can see what is going on in China and Russia. PAC can not. What is the point for SK or US to look at them if the sole purpose is to watch NK?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

operational altitude up to 24km

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

highest altitude 150km

Click to expand...

Please don't redirect the issue. You are the one making the assertion. I would remind you what you said recently and practise what you preached.

taxiya said:

4. HONEST, you should not dodge questions. If you make a statement A, Others ask Why, You should answer it, You should not dodge it and respond in the next post with statement B.

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

The big concern for SK is right next to its north, and THAAD is an overkill for its safety, PAC-3 and others are just adequate for that purpose. THAAD is not for SK, it is for U.S. and Japan because of its long range radar which none of the other systems (PAC-3) has.

Click to expand...

Coz altitudes, speed, trajectory of different BM actually necessary have in general one ABM for each type/range of BM and it is the problem.

THAAD range of 200+ km is capable intercept BM with a max range of 3000 km in US Army Battery of 6 TELs, she have right now 3 soon 5 units.

Patriot Pac-3 range 20 km last variant 35 km is capable intercept BM owith a range of 1100 km max.

So THAAD have a ABM range 5 to 10 times superior and vs more big missiles.

A Patriot Battery sometimes designated company have in general 6/8 TEL if equiped with 2 variants about 1/4 to 1/3 of TEL with Pac-3 coz he is quadpacked and one TEL can have 16 Pac-3 against 4 Pac-2 much less capable vs BM, a little but have a long range 160 km vs aircrafts.
For this reasons, differences all Services which have two variants have mixed units.

US Army Batalions of 24 TEL in 4 Battery, 2 Bat of 35 ADA Brigade are stationed in SK, one other Bat to Kadena

But SK have 48 Pac-2 former Germans in 6 batteries and have ordered kits for modernization with Pac-3 missiles.

FORBIN said:

Coz altitudes, speed, trajectory of different BM actually necessary have in general one ABM for each type/range of BM and it is the problem.

THAAD range of 200+ km is capable intercept BM with a max range of 3000 km in US Army Battery of 6 TELs, she have right now 3 soon 5 units.

Patriot Pac-3 range 20 km last variant 35 km is capable intercept BM owith a range of 1100 km max.

So THAAD have a ABM range 5 to 10 times superior and vs more big missiles.

A Patriot Battery sometimes designated company have in general 6/8 TEL if equiped with 2 variants about 1/4 to 1/3 of TEL with Pac-3 coz he is quadpacked and one TEL can have 16 Pac-3 against 4 Pac-2 much less capable vs BM, a little but have a long range 160 km vs aircrafts.
For this reasons, differences all Services which have two variants have mixed units.

US Army Batalions of 24 TEL in 4 Battery, 2 Bat of 35 ADA Brigade are stationed in SK, one other Bat to Kadena

But SK have 48 Pac-2 former Germans in 6 batteries and have ordered kits for modernization with Pac-3 missiles.

Click to expand...

Defense of South Korea against North Korean SRBM and cruise missile threats because of the short burn times, low apogees and short total flight time appear to be best provided by a combination of PAC-3 and THAAD batteries located in-country. (Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives, 3-24 National Academy of Sciences and the Missile Defense Agency).

For defending South Korea and even Guam, it was found that the boost-phase trajectories were so low that only a system like THAAD, with its high endo- and low exoatmospheric capability, based in South Korea might be able to engage hostile missiles during their boost phase. (Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives, 4-6, National Academy of Sciences and the Missile Defense Agency)

Whilst limited intercept testing had been conducted since 2005, results had been positive for THAAD. The most recent was conducted on November 1, 2015. Two intercept attempts by THAAD, both reportedly successful. The first intercept attempt was on a short-range air-launched ballistic missile. This was likely an exo-atmospheric intercept, since it was in part intended to provide a debris field background for a subsequent Aegis SM-3 Intercept attempt. The second target was a MRBM, and both an Aegis BM-3 Block IB TU interceptor and a THAAD interceptor were fired at it. The SM-3 interceptor failed shortly after launch, but the THAAD interceptor successfully intercepted the target.(Missile Defense Agency, “Ballistic Missile Defense System Demonstrates Layered Defense While Conducting Multiple Engagements in Operational Test,” News Release, November 1, 2015; Jason Sherman, “New SM-3 Block IB Variant Fails First Flight Test,” Inside the Pentagon, November 5, 2015.)

However I suspect some... talking about mainly Policy matters again ! but no bias

The ABM matter is difficult as Master Brumby demonstrate with her quote, different ABM types necessaries vs different BM : SRBM, MRMB, IRBM and ICBM ouf

Brumby said:

I don't need an explanation from Wiki telling me what THAAD means. You asserted that SK does not need THAAD as PAC-3 is sufficient. Do you have some credible reference to support your assertion or not? If you don't have than just say so and then we can move on. Please don't give a convoluted reply as if it is relevant.


Please don't redirect the issue. You are the one making the assertion. I would remind you what you said recently and practise what you preached.

Click to expand...

Besides the difference of the range and radar between THAAD and PAC-3, what else "credible reference" do you need? Aren't these numbers credible reference? Aren't they relevant? You seem to close your ears and insist whatever numbers I provided to you as not credible and not relevant. That looks like argue in order to argue, instead of getting an answer.

The last time I said to you (my preaching?) in this forum was "please start a separate post of your own to make yourself heard instead of replying to my post". While this time around it was you quoted my post FIRST, so I replied directly. I think I practiced what I preached that I don't initiate a direct conversation with you. It is you who does the opposite (to my preaching?) again. So please remind yourself.

SamuraiBlue said:

Are you implying that there are no other strategic targets in SK besides Seoul?
For your information that nation has a population of over 50 million and has various other cities and ports that would be considered high asset targets.

Click to expand...

I am not implying "there are no other". I am saying Seoul and its surrounding area is a critical target that makes the difference of life and death.

Metropolitan Seoul alone has 20% of the total SK population as of 2016. If we include the other area close to the 38 line, what percentage would it be? The other major city I know of is Pusan at the south-most tip. Now if Seoul as the capital and its surrounding area (30 to 40% of the total population?) is lost, what else is left to defend?

The table here will help you to understand what I meant.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

taxiya said:

Besides the difference of the range and radar between THAAD and PAC-3, what else "credible reference" do you need? Aren't these numbers credible reference? Aren't they relevant?

Click to expand...

Seriously how does the fact that you provided the difference in range and radar between THAAD and PAC-3 supports your assertion that PAC-3 is sufficient for SK and THAAD is not needed? If such basic reasoning escapes you, I am at a loss on how to raise your comprehension level.

taxiya said:

The last time I said to you (my preaching?) in this forum was "please start a separate post of your own to make yourself heard instead of replying to my post".

Click to expand...

As I previously replied, you don't make the rules. If you wish to make unsound assertions, you should be prepared to be questioned. If you have a problem with my post, I suggest you complain to a moderator.

Brumby said:

Seriously how does the fact that you provided the difference in range and radar between THAAD and PAC-3 supports your assertion that PAC-3 is sufficient for SK and THAAD is not needed? If such basic reasoning escapes you, I am at a loss on how to raise your comprehension level.

Click to expand...

If you have problems in deducing the effective operational range of difference missiles to understand their primary purpose, nobody can help, not even a genius.

Take this as an analoge, if NK deploy a SRBM of less than 1000km, it is adequate to target SK and Japan, but if NK made an ICBM able to reach north America but claims to target only SK, do you still say it is not overkill for its stated mission? Now apply the same thinking to THAAD and PAC-3, what do you say?

As I previously replied, you don't make the rules. If you wish to make unsound assertions, you should be prepared to be questioned. If you have a problem with my post, I suggest you complain to a moderator.

Click to expand...

Then why did you remind my "preaching" whatever you mean by that?

No, I don't have problem with your post, that is why I replied your post (that was to question me) and I will continue to do so as long as you keep on pressing the "Reply" button on my post.

As you said "I don't make rules", I take that you mean you will keep on pressing the "Reply" button on my post. I assure you that I will do exactly as you since apparently you enjoy picking a "fight".

Satisfied?

taxiya said:

If you have problems in deducing the effective operational range of difference missiles to understand their primary purpose, nobody can help, not even a genius.

Click to expand...

Effective operational range is not equivalent to kill probability, a point that seems to conveniently escapes you. Making deduction about operational range as effectiveness either shows that you are completely ignorant of the nature of ballistic missile defense or worst you are incapable of putting together a cogent case in support of your own argument.

taxiya said:

Take this as an analoge, if NK deploy a SRBM of less than 1000km, it is adequate to target SK and Japan, but if NK made an ICBM able to reach north America but claims to target only SK, do you still say it is not overkill for its stated mission? Now apply the same thinking to THAAD and PAC-3, what do you say?

Click to expand...

You obviously have no basic understanding to the nature of BMD. There are essentially three phases of intercept in the ballistic missile trajectory. The US has a multi layered defence concept and the vehicle and choice of intercept is designed around certain ABM capabilities and the phase in the intercept. THAAD's kill zone is somewhere between mid course and terminal phase.



As I mentioned in an earlier post, due to the proximity of NK to SK, the THAAD is suited to a high endo and low exo atmospheric missile trajectory profile as likely with NK ballistic missiles.

For defending South Korea and even Guam, it was found that the boost-phase trajectories were so low that only a system like THAAD, with its high endo- and low exoatmospheric capability, based in South Korea might be able to engage hostile missiles during their boost phase. (Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives, 4-6, National Academy of Sciences and the Missile Defense Agency)

Click to expand...

taxiya said:

Then why did you remind my "preaching" whatever you mean by that?

Click to expand...

.... because for the reason that you are redirecting the questions instead of answering it.