Mission Killing the 7th Fleet

[edrotondaro]

Hi:

This topic could become politically charged so I will strive to avoid anything of that nature. My goal is to see how the USN will operate in a potentially nuclear war theater.

As we know there has been a tremendous amount of threatening words from North Korea along with multiple tests of various ICBMs. Now I personally am not convinced that Korean can reach the continental US with any missile, but Guam, South Korea or Japan are all within its capabilities. As tensions escalate, the USN in the form of the 7th Fleet will be the first line of defense or retaliation. My biggest fear is not a launch against a city, but rather a launch against our fleet.

I haven't taken the time to do a detailed work up of the composition of the 7th Fleet, but let's just assume that a Carrier Battle Group is the target. A generic carrier battle group would consist of a Nimitz class CVN with escorts and support ships. So add in a pair of Arleigh Burke class DDGs and possible one or two Tico class CCGs. Probably have at least one Oliver Hazard Perry FFG if they are still in service? Bound to be a Los Angeles class attack sub or a Virginia class nearby. Don't know if there would be a Marine Expeditionary Force attached but if so add in an Amphibious assault ship and some more support vessels.

So what happens if the North Koreans fire a missile designed to detonate above the carrier battle group? The ships are probably hardened to take the EMP pulse, but there will be the blast effect, hard gamma radiation and fallout. The ships could move away from the immediate fallout zone assuming the crews are still alive so this could reduce fallout exposure. There are decontamination procedures for the ships and hopefully we have learned from the Bikini nuclear tests what to expect (Old pop's dad was there so he may have some insights. Dennis that is, not his Dad) Most likely a North Korean nuke would be smaller than the one used for that iconic test. Still the entire battle group would be a mission kill under the best of circumstances unless the USN's anti-missile capabilities are better than what they have let the general public know (most likely).

Just some food for thought and possible discussion.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 28, 2017 10:49:35 GMT -6 edrotondaro said:

Hi:

This topic could become politically charged so I will strive to avoid anything of that nature. My goal is to see how the USN will operate in a potentially nuclear war theater.

As we know there has been a tremendous amount of threatening words from North Korea along with multiple tests of various ICBMs. Now I personally am not convinced that Korean can reach the continental US with any missile, but Guam, South Korea or Japan are all within its capabilities. As tensions escalate, the USN in the form of the 7th Fleet will be the first line of defense or retaliation. My biggest fear is not a launch against a city, but rather a launch against our fleet.

I haven't taken the time to do a detailed work up of the composition of the 7th Fleet, but let's just assume that a Carrier Battle Group is the target. A generic carrier battle group would consist of a Nimitz class CVN with escorts and support ships. So add in a pair of Arleigh Burke class DDGs and possible one or two Tico class CCGs. Probably have at least one Oliver Hazard Perry FFG if they are still in service? Bound to be a Los Angeles class attack sub or a Virginia class nearby. Don't know if there would be a Marine Expeditionary Force attached but if so add in an Amphibious assault ship and some more support vessels.

So what happens if the North Koreans fire a missile designed to detonate above the carrier battle group? The ships are probably hardened to take the EMP pulse, but there will be the blast effect, hard gamma radiation and fallout. The ships could move away from the immediate fallout zone assuming the crews are still alive so this could reduce fallout exposure. There are decontamination procedures for the ships and hopefully we have learned from the Bikini nuclear tests what to expect (Old pop's dad was there so he may have some insights. Dennis that is, not his Dad) Most likely a North Korean nuke would be smaller than the one used for that iconic test. Still the entire battle group would be a mission kill under the best of circumstances unless the USN's anti-missile capabilities are better than what they have let the general public know (most likely).

Just some food for thought and possible discussion.

Hi Ed:

First, as to the composition, here is a link which details the ships and their location for the 7th  Fleet Task Forces.  www.c7f.navy.mil/

Now, the procedures for removing radioactive debris from the ships has changed but most likely it would consist of spraying the ships with water to wash the contaminants off of the ship. You would also hand out meters for all personnel and they would be monitored. I know my dad was tested many times in his life for any possible effects of radiation by the Naval Hospital so I hope procedures have strengthen since then.

Now as to how to prevent this type of action to occur? The US policy has always been to not fire first, but to respond. This puts us on the side of the righteous which is where we like to be. Unfortunately in this situation, that is not healthy. We have a layered defensive system starting in South Korea and working back to the 7th Fleet, however this is not a fool proof system. So, we may have to forget that position and be less righteous but survive.   In other words, shoot first and pick the bodies out later. Like Curtis Lemay said " We'll bomb them back to the stone age".

In order to present a different strategy, here is link that opposing strategy from US Naval Institute Proceedings - www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-09/united-states-should-not-punch-first-korea?utm_source=U.S.+Naval+Institute&utm_campaign=4fcf88aaef-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adee2c2162-4fcf88aaef-222986389&mc_cid=4fcf88aaef&mc_eid=bf62da9435

[Enderminion]

if we are just talking about fallout and radiation pulse, with the yield of the Korean bombs if you can get killed by the radiation burst your ship is already sinking, as to fallout, most fusion weapons are rather low in fallout, unless they use (low yield) fission weapons or thermonuclear salted bombs, but using a salted bomb would kill millions of people over the next few decades. Submarines would have to be surfaced to kill. A big thing with fusion weapons is neutron embitterment, the ship would both be radioactive and weaker, and not the radiation you can hose off but the structure of the ship would be radioactive (it would heal over time). ERW would create troops who would have days to act, before a painful death, perfect suicide bombers

also I am pretty sure that Virginia class ships have been retired (yes they were retired in '98) and the last OHP was retired, from american service, in 2015 (IIRC still mostly intact)

[oldpop2000]

Here is a quick reminder about North Korea. We are still at war with North Korea. The Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty.

"an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time; a truce."


The key is that neither side has to send a declaration of war, just shoot. Then the truce is over.

[Enderminion]

we have nothing to gain by NOT shooting first, so why haven't we? North Korea has nothing to gain by letting us shoot first, so why haven't they?

[oldpop2000]

Sept 29, 2017 14:05:13 GMT -6 Enderminion said:

we have nothing to gain by NOT shooting first, so why haven't we? North Korea has nothing to gain by letting us shoot first, so why haven't they?

Well, a simple answer. We are a civilized nation and we don't shoot first. The Korean's are not, but they know if they do, its over. We will make North Korea uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years. The North Korean's know this, they are not stupid.

[steel selachian]

There's also the fact that nukes or not, North Korea has enough tube and rocket artillery within firing range of Seoul to inflict massive civilian casualties. A resumption of the Korean War, even if limited to conventional weapons, would be a very bloody affair for all involved.

With most dictatorships, the name of the game is survival. In extreme cases such as North Korea, that boils down to the survival of the guy up top - he might be a certifiable maniac, but he wants to keep his life and job perks. Nukes and ballistic missiles are a means to make that guy too much trouble for even a superpower to bump off; while North Korea would certainly come out on the short end of a nuclear exchange no US President is going to trade Honolulu or Seattle for the complete destruction of North Korea. Conversely, if North Korea were to fire a nuclear weapon at a US target, it would not appreciably affect our capability to turn them into a "glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot" in response; all they could hope for would be that the concern of fallout affecting South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan would limit the amount of nukes used.

On the original question - remember, targeting a carrier group is not an easy job. If an hour passes between the sighting and the weapon's arrival, the carrier group can be 20-30 miles away from the aim point in any direction. Ballistic missiles are primarily intended to hit fixed targets; while the PRC has been working on several antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) projects there's been little evidence of them testing those weapons against anything other than stationary mockup targets on land. The Soviets had a bear (pun intended) of a job tracking our carrier groups during the Cold War with satellites, nuclear subs, and long-range maritime patrol aircraft - resources the North Koreans lack.

[Enderminion]

Sept 30, 2017 0:13:26 GMT -6 steel selachian said:

There's also the fact that nukes or not, North Korea has enough tube and rocket artillery within firing range of Seoul to inflict massive civilian casualties. A resumption of the Korean War, even if limited to conventional weapons, would be a very bloody affair for all involved.

With most dictatorships, the name of the game is survival. In extreme cases such as North Korea, that boils down to the survival of the guy up top - he might be a certifiable maniac, but he wants to keep his life and job perks. Nukes and ballistic missiles are a means to make that guy too much trouble for even a superpower to bump off; while North Korea would certainly come out on the short end of a nuclear exchange no US President is going to trade Honolulu or Seattle for the complete destruction of North Korea. Conversely, if North Korea were to fire a nuclear weapon at a US target, it would not appreciably affect our capability to turn them into a "glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot" in response; all they could hope for would be that the concern of fallout affecting South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan would limit the amount of nukes used.

On the original question - remember, targeting a carrier group is not an easy job. If an hour passes between the sighting and the weapon's arrival, the carrier group can be 20-30 miles away from the aim point in any direction. Ballistic missiles are primarily intended to hit fixed targets; while the PRC has been working on several antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) projects there's been little evidence of them testing those weapons against anything other than stationary mockup targets on land. The Soviets had a bear (pun intended) of a job tracking our carrier groups during the Cold War with satellites, nuclear subs, and long-range maritime patrol aircraft - resources the North Koreans lack.

I think the Idea behind ASbMs is that the hypersonic (mach 5+) glide vehicles will be terminally guided

[steel selachian]

From what I've read, the RV currently on the DF-21D appears similar to the one on the US Army's scrapped Pershing II MRBM, which was equipped with control fins and an active radar terminal guidance system. The Pershing RV would enter the atmosphere and pull up into a Mach 8 glide for about 35 miles before pitching over into its terminal dive. The active radar guidance on the Pershing II RV however was meant for matching to previously-generated radar maps of the target area to allow it to hit within 100 ft of a fixed aim point - not for tracking and hitting a moving target employing countermeasures.

Terminally guided or not, you still have to get the RV (or any weapon with terminal guidance) close enough to the target that a) its onboard seeker can pick up the target and b) it can maneuver to hit the target (the RV might be able to glide out past the initial aim point, but the physics of reentry and hypersonic flight would probably preclude sharp turns). One would think we would have seen a PRC test of this capability on a target at sea by now; as far as I know they've just tested it against stationary mockup targets in the desert.

As far as the North Koreans, at this point they seem to still be working on getting their missile guidance systems to accurately hit fixed targets. Unless they aim one right at Yokosuka when the 7th Fleet is in port, hitting ships is not an option.

[oldpop2000]

Here is a link which provides some information on a threat to the fleet that is probably something to worry about.

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/north-koreas-submarine-fleet-big-threat-or-big-joke-20300


There are multiple threats to the fleet, depending on how close they get to the Korean Peninsula. Those submarines are really littoral zone subs so if the fleet stays out to sea, it might be safer.

[ksbearski]

No one thinks China will see US action as a "threat" to their sovereignty due to proximity and jump in the game?

Also, where does NK get it's rocket fuel, China or USSR...er. excuse my Cold War nomenclature, Russia.....?

[oldpop2000]

Jan 15, 2018 19:48:55 GMT -6 ksbearski said:

No one thinks China will see US action as a "threat" to their sovereignty due to proximity and jump in the game?

Also, where does NK get it's rocket fuel, China or USSR...er. excuse my Cold War nomenclature, Russia.....?

It does not come from either one, it is made locally using the Hydrogenation of nitrogen developed by Haber-Bosch. It creates ammonia and that can be chemically transformed into Dimethylhydrazine or UDMH. The hydrogenation process uses coal, which they have plenty of. They have anthracite. North Korea's mining and trade with China is based on this "cash cow" of various resources including gold. Her shipments of coal to China represent 40% of all of the payroll to North Korea. The ammonia can also be used as a fertilizer.

BTW, the Bosch in this process name is Carl, not Robert his brother. Robert developed the spark plug. Auschwitz Death Camp was situated near the Haber-Bosch processing plant to provide slave labor. The other person was Fritz Haber. The process patents were sold to Standard Oil of Ohio prior to the war for the rights to Ethyl. This allowed German aircraft fuels to have higher octane and more speed. BTW, Standard Oil still owns the rights but the process is very expensive and oil is cheaper. You can produce synthetic oil as the German's did from this process. It is actually a fixation process.

There is another process called the Fischer-Tropisch which essentially does the same thing and is highly considered because it creates low sulfur fuel. They could be using that process also or both.

Enjoy

[Enderminion]

simpler rocket fuels consist of LOX and either LH2 or Methane, the really 'splody stuff is ClF3 and whatever touches it

[oldpop2000]

Jan 15, 2018 22:08:54 GMT -6 Enderminion said:

simpler rocket fuels consist of LOX and either LH2 or Methane, the really 'splody stuff is ClF3 and whatever touches it

I agree but they do have restrictions and the ammonia based is also good for other things. I am certain that they are exploring those better fuels already. They might even have them in production.

[director]

It is not as easy to drop a nuke on a fleet as you might think. You have to have fairly exact information as to its location, course and speed, and you have to have a mechanically reliable and accurate delivery system (which NK likely does not have). Assuming you did take out the carrier, the US would then have the moral right to turn North Korea into a glass parking lot. The problem with North Korea isn't North Korea, it is how China reacts to what you want to do to North Korea. If NK launches an unprovoked nuclear strike (or a rocket-and-artillery strike on Seoul), I think the Chinese would assume the present regime had become unstable and outlived its usefulness.

Assuming the US did not respond with nuclear weapons on civilian targets, we would probably empty our ordinance stores of cruise missiles, guided bombs and such like. In either case the present regime would not continue in power, but China would get the final say on what replaced it - no reunification of North and South.