4 ms·

I think Japan's decision to buy F-35s triggered this as well. South Korea needs more airplanes that's capable of air to ground roles, that's able to penetrate d

I think Japan's decision to buy F-35s triggered this as well. South Korea needs more airplanes that's capable of air to ground roles, that's able to penetrate deep into North Korea and drop bunker busters. I still don't get why they have not bothered buying bombers, it would be a strong deterrent against North Korea's backdrop of empty threats.

willvarfar 12y ago
Surely South Korea ought to by cruise missiles?
- danudey 12y ago
  $1.4m per strike probably isn't really cost-effective for smaller countries that aren't spending trillions on their military.
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    Actually, its way cheaper than sending a jet to fly overtop to deliver the 'bunker buster'. And you can hit as many targets as you have missiles.
- notastartup 12y ago
  US doesn't want an arms race in the region so they limited South Korea to 800km range ballistic missiles with a limited payload. So they started developing the Hyunmoo series. The Hyunmoo-3c has a range of 1500km, it is domestically built unlike the previous Hyunmoo missiles which were actually old Nike missiles from 1950s. It's interesting that South Korean engineers added a slot for carrying nuclear warheads (possibly had plans to develop nuclear weapons at some point in the 1970s). Cruise missiles don't give the same power projection like a ballistic missile tipped with nuclear warhead. It can be intercepted which limits it's reach.
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    This doesn't gel with my understanding of the subject. NK is predominantly rocket salvo and shell artillery. This may be basic tech, but its very effective militarily. Cruise missiles are damn difficult to intercept. And for each plane with "bunker buster" dumb bombs, you can buy a salvo of very clever bunker-busting cruise missiles which don't have to bring their pilot home after.

4 ms·

I think Japan's decision to buy F-35s triggered this as well. South Korea needs more airplanes that's capable of air to ground roles, that's able to penetrate d

by notastartup 12y ago

willvarfar 12y ago
Surely South Korea ought to by cruise missiles?
- danudey 12y ago
  $1.4m per strike probably isn't really cost-effective for smaller countries that aren't spending trillions on their military.
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    Actually, its way cheaper than sending a jet to fly overtop to deliver the 'bunker buster'. And you can hit as many targets as you have missiles.
- notastartup 12y ago
  US doesn't want an arms race in the region so they limited South Korea to 800km range ballistic missiles with a limited payload. So they started developing the Hyunmoo series. The Hyunmoo-3c has a range of 1500km, it is domestically built unlike the previous Hyunmoo missiles which were actually old Nike missiles from 1950s. It's interesting that South Korean engineers added a slot for carrying nuclear warheads (possibly had plans to develop nuclear weapons at some point in the 1970s). Cruise missiles don't give the same power projection like a ballistic missile tipped with nuclear warhead. It can be intercepted which limits it's reach.
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    This doesn't gel with my understanding of the subject. NK is predominantly rocket salvo and shell artillery. This may be basic tech, but its very effective militarily. Cruise missiles are damn difficult to intercept. And for each plane with "bunker buster" dumb bombs, you can buy a salvo of very clever bunker-busting cruise missiles which don't have to bring their pilot home after.