Vũ khí Bắc Hàn

CÁC LOẠI VŨ KHÍ CỦA BTT VÀ TẦM BẮN CỦA NÓ
Vũ khí thông thường:

Các loại tên lửa đạn đạo của BTT


Tên lửa tầm ngắn và tầm trung và phạm vi bắn

Tên lửa tầm xa và phạm vi bắn

Nếu BBT xuất khẩu những tên lửa này cho Iran, tầm bắn của chúng sẽ như sau

Được Russianfan sửa chữa / chuyển vào 17:59 ngày 17/12/2008

Đây là bài trả lời của một member trên militaryminds.tribe.net. Thấy hay hay nên copy về cho mọi người cùng xem.
Vì dài quá nên hôm nay mình không có thời gian để dịch. Mọi người chịu khó đọc tiếng Anh vậy nhé
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: NORTH KOREAMon, July 10, 2006 - 5:07 AM
Well, just scanning this article:
I noticed all sorts of direct contradictions of known military science and even simple logic. To begin with:
{ North Korea, which can and is willing to face up to the sole military superpower of the world, cannot be called a weak nation. Nevertheless, Western press and analysts distort the truth and depict North Korea as an "impoverished" nation, starving and on the brink of imminent collapse. An impoverished, starving nation cannot face down a military superpower.}
confuses the issue of capabilities and intentions. It would be _unwise_ for an improverished, starving nation to face down a military superpower, but assuming a sufficiently insane leadership, such a nation might indeed make the attempt. And the fact that America has not yet chosen to fight North Korea over the attempt does not logically imply that we could not defeat them.
The fact that two MiG-21 fighters could have shot down an unarmed, unescorted recon plane does not imply that the North Korean air force enjoys domination of the skies of North Korea. In general, fighters can shoot down such aircraft at will, if the fighters are able to bring them within range of their weapons systems.
{If the US mounts a preemptive strike on North Korea s Yongbyon nuclear plants, North Korea will retaliate with weapons of mass destruction: North Korea will mount strategic nuclear attacks on the US targets. The US war planners know this and have drawn up their own nuclear war plan. In a nuclear exchange, there is no front or rear areas, no defensive positions or attack formations as in conventional warfare. Nuclear weapons are offensive weapons and there is no defense against nuclear attacks except retaliatory nuclear attacks. For this reason, North Korea s war plan is offensive in nature: North Korea s war plan goes beyond repulsing US attackers and calls for destruction of the United States. }
This ignores three main aspects of military reality. The first is that North Korea does not have any nuclear missiles of sufficient range and accuracy to strike any "US targets" save _perhaps_ for overseas military bases (I say "perhaps" because I am far from certain that the North Korean missiles have the range to hit such targets). The second is that America has ballistic missile defenses capable of shooting down at least some of North Korea s missile force, even if that missile force enjoys an un-preempted first strike. The third is that America has a lot _more_ and a lot more accurate nuclear missiles than North Korea does, and once North Korea started such a war America could and would retaliate with a far more effective "total war" of her own, which would effectively remove North Korea from existence (at LEAST as a military Power, possibly as a nation).
{ The US military regards North Korea its main enemy and likewise North Korea regards the US its main enemy. South Korea, too, regards North Korea its main enemy but North Korea does not regard South Korea its main enemy because South Korea is a client state of the United States and has no ability or power to act independent of the US. }
This is not only untrue (North Korea is hardly the "main enemy" of the United States of America), but also gives the game away. Though this article may have appeared in a South Korean newspaper, it was obviously written by a North Korean hand, and presumably represents the fantasies of Kim Jong Il. It does, though, illustrate why we should take the threat from Kim Jong Il very seriously -- he probably really does believe all the nonsense in it.
{ a) North Korea makes its own weapons
North Korea has annual production capacity for 200,000 AK automatic guns, 3,000 heavy guns, 200 battle tanks, 400 armored cars and amphibious crafts. North Korea makes its own submarines, landing drafts, high-speed missile-boats, and other types of warships. }
Quite possibly true, but considering that these are all knock-off copies of Soviet or Chinese weapons made by a minor Communist Power not well known for its quality of production, one might reasonably wonder about the actual military _capability_ of these weapons. Also, "annual production capacity" is NOT the same thing as "annual production" (capacity is the maximum one _could_ make of the item if it were made a priority). Ad***ionally, all the weapons types listed (save perhaps for AK rifles) must not merely be produced but also _maintained_ if they are not to be junk in fairly short order. Finally, one may doubt North Korea s logistical capability *****pply large mobile forces on the battlefield.
{ Home-made weaponry makes it possible for North Korea to maintain a large military force on a shoestring budget. }
The "shoestring budget" is a giveaway that, in fact, the weapons are probably garbage, either when produced or in short order when they are handed to undersupplied and undertraned peasant conscripts.
{ Several small to medium hydro-power plants serve these plants so that it would be nearly impossible for the US to cut off power to the plants. }
Dam-busting, presumably, being impossible? It s also mentioned that some of the war industries are underground, which _would_ be a problem for us if it weren t for the Dear Leader s brilliant "total war" strategy which would mean that we d be able to use nuclear weapons against them.
{ North Korea is mountainous and its coasts are long and jagged.}
Long jagged coastlines are not an _advantage_ against a foe (like America) with naval supremacy. As the North Koreans found out in the First Korean War.
Mountainous terrain is useful for defense, though. I ll grant that.
{ North Korea has developed its own war plans unique to fighting the US in a unique way. North Korea s military is organized into several independent, totally integrated and self-sufficient fighting units, that are ready for action at any time. }
This is fairly normal for any army since Napoleonic times: the fact that the author finds this worthy of mention implies unhappy things about the organization of the North Korean army. It would be as if an American review praising the US army claimed "The United States Army is organized into fighting units which are linked by a chain of command and can actually fight!" as a _boast!_
{c) North Korean soldiers are well indoctrinated
The US commanders admit that North Korean soldiers are highly motivated and loyal to Kim Jong Il, and that they will fight well in case of war. Karl von Clausewitz said that people s support for war, military commanders ability and power, and the political leadership are the three essentials for winning war. He failed to include the political indoctrination of the soldiers, which is perhaps more important than the other factors cited. }
Going on and on about the _political indoctrination_ of one s soldiers is a tacit admission of their lack of actual _military skills_. Generally speaking, armies that are heavily indoctrinated but poorly trained tend to become hamburger when they face armies that are well-trained and reasonably loyal, because they are brave enough to charge into withering fire but not skilled enough to do so in any coordinated fashion.
{ Iraqi soldiers believed in Allah protecting them and became easy preys to the US military.}
Another giveaway that this was written by a Communist -- note the irrelevant (and false) statement regarding religion (in fact, Saddam s army was a basically secular one, even though the individual soldiers were of course Muslim; its religion was irrelevant to its defeat).
{ North Korean soldiers are taught to fight to the bitter end. In September 1996, a North Korean submarine got stranded at Kangrung, South Korea, and its crew abandoned the ship. Eleven of the crew committed suicide and the rest fought to the last man except one who was captured. In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers. }
A devotee of naval history might draw another lesson from this, namely: North Korean sub crews are severely incompetent (TWO such incidents, in peacetime, within 2 years of each other??!!!). In any case, willingness to die is not the same thing as ability to win, as the Japanese discovered in 1944-45.
}skip the description of a fairly normal Communist military organization as if it were some unique North Korean wonder sprung from the pasty brow of the Dear Leader{
{North Korea s 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world.}
In fact, a 170mm gun is a fairly normal heavy artillery piece, by no means "the most powerful." The most powerful gun ever actually constructed and used in warfare would probably be the Dora 800mm gun, used by Germany on the East Front in World War II; its 32" (!!!) wide shells were capable of demolishing major forts with single hits. The most powerful guns used _recently_ in warfare were the 16" (400mm) guns of the USS Iowa class battleships (retired in the 1990 s). The US Army uses 150mm and 200mm guns as heavy artillery, and unlike the North Korean guns the 150mm ones at least can fire Copperhead laser-guided projectiles with pinpoint accuracy.
240mm Pact-style MLRS are not notably accurate weapons. I have no reason to believe that the North Korean versions have been equipped with PGM rockets.
{ These guns can lob shells as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. The big guns are hidden in ****s. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. }
This is a tacit way of admitting that many of them are NOT mounted on rails and are probably almost completely immobile and having only very limited arcs of traverse.
{ They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. }
... assuming a sustained ROF over that hour, which in turn assumes that they survive counterbattery fire _and_ have enough shells to do this task. By the way, how well are these shells being maintained? Explosives and other biochemicals go bad over time ...
{ The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours. }
This is very optimistic from the North Korean POV, based on experience in the World Wars. It is extremely difficult to "obliterate" anything with artillery, unless the guns are very accurate and the fall of their shot well spotted. More commonly, an interdiction / attrition effect is created where the bombardment prevents movement in the open and steadily causes casualties over time. The reason why is that troops under bombardment will take cover, and I would be very surprised if the US army bases being referred to did _not_ have prepared bunker systems, since their builders have known literally for generations that such bombardment was possible.
I do think that the bases could be temporarily neutralized, though.
{ The US army in Korea is equipped with Paladin anti-artillery guns that can trace enemy shells back to the guns and fire shells at the enemy guns with pin-point accuracy. However, it takes for the Paladins about 10 min to locate the enemy guns, during which time the Paladins would be targeted by the enemy guns }
Paladins are highly mobile SPA (self-propelled artillery), and 10 minutes is not a very long time to knock out such targets. By the way, weren t those same North Korean artillery pieces also trying to destroy several American army bases at the same time?
{ ii). Blitz Klieg }
LOL!!!
"I m so wownely, so wownely ..."
What, is this a _South Park_ version of the North Koreans, complete with Kim Jong Il secretly being an alien infiltrator?
{ US tanks are designed to operate in open fields }
All tanks are, in general. They can also operate in other terrain, with decreasing effectiveness as it becomes increasingly close and rugged.
{ American and Western tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains like those of Korea. }
Wishful thinking on the part of the North Koreans. Not only did we originally design our tank force with an eye towards fighting in the close and sometimes rugged terrain of Western Europe, but we train extensively in a variety of terrains, real and simulated. (It s one of the reasons why actual military _training_ beats mere "military indoctrination" any day of the week).
{ Tank battles in Korea will be fought on hilly terrains without any close air cover, because North Korean fighters will engage US planes in close dog fights. }
LOL!!!
_Incredibly_ wishful thinking on the part of the North Koreans, for a couple of reasons. First of all, America will probably gain air supremacy over the battlefield in fairly short order. Secondly, America has standoff weapons capable of both engaging both ground and air targets at a distance.
{ North Korea has developed tanks ideally suited for the many rivers and mountains of Korea. These tanks are called "Chun-ma-ho", which can navigate steep slopes and cross rivers as much as 5.5 m deep. }
Oh, you mean "light amphibious AFV s?" Every army has those, and has had them since World War II.
{ North Korea s main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour.}
This is half truth and half severe delusion.
The T-62 is an old Soviet design from the early 1960 s. The original gun was a 115mm (not 155mm). The North Korean variant is the Chonma ho, and I do not know what its gun is. I will point out that if the North Koreans have stuck a 155mm gun on a turret ring originally designed to carry a 115mm gun, it will have been at significant cost in terms of ammo load and rate of fire.
The M1 Abrams is an American design introduced in the 1980 s. It originally had a 105mm gun but has since been uprated to the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore (at some cost in ammo load. The M1 Abrams is rated at 45 _miles per hour_ which is around 75 (not 55) kilometers per hour.
What this matchup doesn t take into account is fire control The M1 Abrams has one of the world s most advanced fire control systems for its main gun, with the ability to fight using Thermal Imaging and Ambient Light Enhancement in totally obscuring smoke or complete darkness. It is highly improbable that even the Chonma ho (which is North Korea s _best_ tank, and they only have around 1400 of them) has equivalent sensors. In battle against similar tanks in Iraq, units equipped with Abrams tanks were normally able to completely annihilate enemy formations sometimes without taking _any_ hits in return, for this reason.
One other thing:
{ North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin. }
M1 Abrams have Chobham composite armor which can shed most enemy weapons, including ATGM s, hitting from the front save at point-blank range, while a 125mm APFDS (Armor Piercing, Fin, Discarding Sabot) round can go through that 700mm of steel like a hot knife through butter, out to several kilometers range. This is the _other_ reason why Abrams generally killed Pact tanks without suffering any losses in reply.
còn tiếp...

{ As shown in the recent Iraq war, Apaches are fragile and can be easily shot down even with rifles. }
ROFLMAO!!!
As shown in the recent Iraq war, Apaches are very tough helicopters in terms of armor protection (the only tougher ones in the world are probably some of the armored Hind variants), and it usually takes concentrated point-blank _machine-gun_ (not "rifle") fire to shoot them down.
{ North Korea has about 15,000 shoulder-fired anti-air missiles ("wha-sung") and Apaches will be easy targets for wha-sung missiles. }
... if it weren t for the fact that Apaches have extensive defenses against precisely this threat, including but not limited to stocks of decoy flares and electromagnetic jammers.
{ On December 17, 1994, a wha-sung missile brought down an American OH-58C spy helicopter which strayed north of the DMZ. }
An OH-58C is a lighly armed and armored recon helicopter, not an attack helicopter, and this was in _peacetime_ (so nobody was shooting at the troops with the ISAM s).
{ The US army has A-10 attack planes to counter North Korea s mechanized units. In case of war, the skies over Korea will be filled with fighters in close dog-fights and the A-10s would be ineffective. }
If the fighters are "in close dogfights" (presumably with other fighters) why are the A-10 s ineffective? For that matter, even though the A-10 is a ground attack plane, it s highly maneuverable at low altitudes and I d give it pretty good odds in a "close dogfight" at those altitudes with most North Korean _fighters_. A fighter would be well-advised to attack such a target with AAM, not duel it with guns.
As for tunnel warfare, I ll grant the writer everything he s saying except to note that given that
{It is believed that North Korea has built about 20 large tunnels near the DMZ. A large tunnel can transport 15,000 troops per hour across the DMZ and place them behind the US troops. }
it is likely that we are aware of these tunnels, have factored them into our war plan, and have plans of our own to collapse said tunnels if necessary. Keep in mind that a communications tunnel is also a strategic _choke point_ and very vulnerable to destruction (at the mouth) by airstrike or anywhere along its length by combat engineers.
{ North Korea has the largest special forces, 120,000 troops, in the world. These troops are grouped into light infantry brigades, attack brigades, air-borne brigades, and sea-born brigades - 25 brigades in total. These troops will be tasked to attack US military installations in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam. }
I am dubious about the ability of the North Koreans to effectively project their combat power into Japan, Okinawa and Guam, though of course they might be able to effect small raids largely for propaganda purposes. Note that if they land in Japan or at Okinawa, they have probably just dragged Japan into the war against them, which is indicative of Kim Jong Il s overall level of sanity.
{ Western experts pooh-pooh North Korea s ancient AN-2 transport planes as 1948 relics, but AN-2 planes can fly low beneath US radars and deliver up to 10 troops at 160 km per hour. }
Or, to be more accurate, they can fly low beneath US air search radars, be easily seen by US _surface search radars_, and deliver up to 10 troops at 160 km per hour up until the point when American fighters, helicopters, and pretty much any and everything carrying a machine gun shoots them down, at which point they "deliver" their 10 unfortunate troops rather violently into the ground. 160 km per hour is slower than most modern military _helicopters_!
{ North Korea makes AN-2s and has about 300 in place. }
Which means that if they sent all 300 of them on a suicide ... I mean raiding mission, they would doom about 3000 unfortunate troops to an early grave. That s not a very large force, even for airmobile warfare.
{ North Korea s special forces will attack US targets in Japan, Okinawa, and Guam as well. Japan s self defense units are being reorganized to counter this threat. }
This reorganization does not bode well for the success of the North Korean missions.
{ Dr. Kim Myong Chul, an expert on Kim Jong Il s war plans, has recently confirmed that North Korea has more than 100 nukes including hydrogen bombs.}
This is probably sheer fantasy. It s more likely that the North Koreans have only a few nuclear warheads so far, _not_ including hydrogen bombs.
{ North Korea can produce about 100 missiles a year. It began to make missiles in 1980 ... }
Note the lack of specificity of _type_ of missiles. Most are SRBM s with ranges of at most a few hundred miles.
{ At present, the US has no fool-proof defense against North Korean missiles ... }
No defense against _anything_ is "fool-proof."
{ ... and in case of war, North Korean missiles can do serious damages: several hundreds of thousands of US troops will die, and scores of US bases and carrier battle groups will be destroyed.}
This is serious wishful thinking even assuming 100 North Korean nuclear missiles, for the simple reason that the most troops that the North Koreans could possibly kill would be _all_ of those within range of their missiles. But there are not "several hundreds of thousands of US troops" within range of their missiles. As for carrier battle groups, those are mobile and well-defended targets.
{ In the May 1994 nuclear crisis, Perry warned North Korea that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons if North Korea used chemical weapons on US troops.
North Korean troops and citizens are well-prepared for bio-chemical attacks. }
Ok, what about nuclear attacks? The author seems to have forgotten in one paragraph what he said in the last one!
And the statement, by the way, is almost certainly untrue. North Korea is a terribly poor country; I doubt that they even have a working _gas-mask_ in place for every citizen. Let alone a full MOP suit or nerve gas antidotes.
{ North Korea began to build fortifications in 1960s. All key military facilities are built underground to withstand American bunker-buster bombs. North Korea has 8,236 underground facilities that are linked by 547 km of tunnels. Beneath Pyongyang are a huge underground stadium and other facilities. About 1.2 million tons of food, 1.46 million tons of fuel, and 1.67 million tons of ammunition are stored in underground storage areas for wartime use.}
How well would these facilities survive direct atomic bombardment, which is exactly what they would be getting given Kim s declared war plan?
{ North Korea has six ground-to-ship missile bases. North Korea has anti-ship missiles of 95km range, and of 160km range. The latter are for hitting US carrier battle groups over the horizon.}
Too bad for the North Koreans that US carrier battle groups both have powerful missile defenses and would be considerably farther than 160 km from their missile bases, then.
{ North Korea has two fleets - the West Fleet and the East Fleet. The West Fleet has 6 squadrons of 320 ships and the East Fleet has 10 squadron of 460 ships. The navy has a total manpower of 46,000. North Korean ships are sheltered from US attacks in about 20 bunkers of 200-900 m longs and 14-22 m wide. North Korean ships are small and agile, designed for coastal defense. North Korean ships carry 46km range ship-to-ship missiles and 22-channel multiple rocket launchers. }
The term for a force like this, in serious naval combat, is "fish food." The 780 "ships" described are in fact small missile boats, with virtually no defense against air attack. They would mostly provide US Naval aviation with a live fire exercise; they would be lucky to get close enough to US forces to even launch their pathetically-short-ranged SSM s.
I assume that the MRLS are intended to engage submarines; they would be totally ineffective against surface naval targets at anything but point-blank range.
{ The main enemy of the North Korean navy will be US carrier task forces. The Russian navy has developed a tactic to deal with US carriers task forces: massive simultaneous missile attacks. In ad***ion, Russia has developed the anti-carrier missile, "jun-gal", that can destroy a carrier. }
Yes. Unfortunately for Kim s fantasies, the Soviets also deployed a large and powerful naval air force to deliver such attacks, rather than counting on glorious death rides by missile boats into the teeth of US naval aviation. The Soviet plan was _realistic_, the North Korean one makes Japanese kamikaze tactics look well thought out by comparison.
{ A US carrier task force of Nimitz class has 6,000 men, 70 planes, and a price tag of 4.5 billion dollars. Destroying even a single career task force will be traumatic. }
It certainly would be bad for the _career_ of whoever lost that task force!
{ A carrier is protected by a shield of 6 Aegis destroyers and nuclear attack submarines. An Aegis destroyer has an AN/SPY-1 high-capacity radar system that can track more than 100 targets at the same time. An Aegis can fire about 20 anti-missile missiles at the same time. Thus, a career force can track a total of 600 targets at a time and fire 120 anti-missile missiles at the same time. The anti-missile missiles have about 50% success under ideal con***ions. In actual battle situations, the hit rate will be much lower and the best estimate is that the Aegis shield can intercept at most 55 incoming missiles. Therefore, a volley of about 60 missiles and rockets will penetrate the Aegis shield and hit the career. }
Ok, first of all the expected hit rate of the Standard 2 under ideal con***ions is more like 95 percent and under battlefield con***ions closer to 80 percent. This assumes either very small or surface skimming missiles; if both then I d give it around 75 percent. So the Ticonderoga-class cruiser would be more likely to kill about 90 missiles of a volley. And it s not the only unit in the task force shooting. However ...
Even granted the North Korean assumptions, the enemy still has to get that volley of "about 60 missiles and rockets" fired _from roughly the same range at the same time_ in order to achieve effective simultaneity. And the North Korean SSM s, by their own admission, have ranges of only 45 km (about 30 miles). How are they getting their ships into range in an environment dominated by American naval airpower? Add to this that the American Harpoons have ranges varying from around 90 to 150 km, and the Tomahawks around 450 km, and it is obvious that the North Korean tactical plan requires serious American overconfidence and tactical errors to have any chance of success.
{ In ad***ion, North Korea has about 300 speed boats, 200 torpedo boats and 170 other gunboats. In case of war, North Korea s small crafts and submarines will swarm around US career task forces and destroy them. }
This is more sheer fantasy. Speed boats, torpedo boats, and "other gunboats" (whatever that means) would have to close to point-blank range to attack, and on the way in they would be vulnerable to everything all the way down to sailors in Zodiacs with rifles. What would probably happen is that this force would be annihilated without even getting close enough to fire a shot at an actual warship -- I would imagine most of the killing would be done by helicopter gunships.
{ North Korea has 35 submarines and 65 submersibles. These crafts are equipped with torpedoes and will be used to attack US careers. They will also lay mines and block enemy harbors. North Korea has a large supply of mines. North Korean submarines are small but they are equipped with 8km rocket launchers and 70km anti-ship missiles, and they could do some serious damage to US careers.. }
This is a real threat (the only one so far mentioned) and if an American commander was careless with his ASW defense posture it could indeed do serious damage to his career.
{ It is said that North Korea s planes are obsolete and no match for US planes. }
And it is said with good reason.
{North Korea s fighter planes are ill-equipped for air-to-air combats at long distances. but they can hold their own in close-quarter air combats.}
Too bad for the North Koreans that they would have few opportunities for such "close-quarter air combats," since the American fighter force is both faster and has longer-ranged weapons than they do.
{ Korea is 100 km wide and 125 km long, and so US air-to-air missiles would be of limited use and effectiveness, because North Korean MiGs would approach the US planes in close proximity and commingle with US planes, and air-to-air missiles will become useless and machines guns will have to be used. MiG19s have 30mm guns, MiG21s have 23mm guns, and F-14s have 20mm Valkans. North Korean pilots are trained to hug the enemy planes so that air-to-air missiles cannot be used. In contrast, US pilots are trained to lock on the enemy at long distance with radar and fire missiles. US planes are heavily armed with electronics and less agile than the light, lean MiGs that can climb and turn faster than the US planes. }
First of all, this statement of the dimensions of North Korea is wrong. Secondly, the combat zone is not limited to North Korea, but includes South Korea and the waters around both Koreas. Thirdly, this assumes that the American planes don t shoot the North Korean ones down _before_ they can "commingle." Finally, the electronics and weapons carried by the American fighters are hardly dead weight; they are the _reason_ why the Americans would have the ability to shoot without reply in the early stages of any such air battle.
{ In a war game conducted in 1991 by US war planners, North Korea came out the victor with and without nuclear weapons.}
Perhaps, and if so I would expect that as a result we have changed our tactics since 1991.
{ Kim Jong Il has no doubt that his army can beat the US army. }
Sadly for North Korea s likely future, I have no doubt that Kim Jong Il has no doubt. A LOT of North Koreans are likely to die for his delusion.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Ai có lòng dịch ra tiếng Anh dùm anh em, dịch tóm tắt cũng được. Dài lằng ngoằn mà bằng tiếnh Anh là vi phạm nội quy

BTT CÓ THIẾT BỊ GÂY NHIỄU CÁC VŨ KHÍ DẪN ĐƯỜNG BẰNG HỆ THỐNG ĐỊNH VỊ TÒAN CẦU GPS
Nguồn: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20080603.aspx
Tình báo Hàn Quốc đang cố gắng để đoạt được thiết bị gây nhiễu định vị toàn cầu (GPS jammer) mới của BTT. Thiết bị này được sử dụng để làm chệch hướng bom và tên lửa dẫn đường bằng hệ thống GPS. Mỹ, Nato, Israel và vài nức ở Trung Đông (thân Mỹ) là các nước sử dụng chủ yếu những vũ khí dạng này.
Thiết bị này của BTT đang được rao bán cho các nứơc Trung Đông như Iran, Syria và lực lượng Hizbollah với giá rẻ hơn thiết bị của Nga. Nó được chào là vượt trội hệ thống của Nga, được Iraq sử dụng không mấy thành công năm 2003. Nga kể từ lúc đó đã và đang tiến hành cải tiến kỹ thuật này tuy nhiên Mỹ tin rằng, khả năng chống chống gây nhiễu của Mỹ đủ sức đối đầu với các thiết bị gây nhiễu thế hệ mới của Nga.
Tuy nhiên không ai dám chắc điều này trừ khi tiến hành một cuộc thử nghiệm giữa thiết bị gây nhiễu và thiết bị chống-gây nhiễu. Vì thế lực lượng không quân Mỹ rất muốn có thiết bị này của BTT trong tay để tiến hành thử nghiệm và phân tích. Nhiều chuyên gia trong lĩnh vực GPS nghi ngờ rằng hệ thống gây nhiễu của BTT thực sự tồn tại bởi BTT chưa bao giờ tỏ ra là có nhiều chuyên gia giỏi trong lĩnh vực này
Nếu thực sự BTT có thiết bị này và có năng lực gây nhiễu các vũ khí Mỹ thì đây sẽ là tin rất không vui cho các lực lượng Mỹ đóng ở Hàn, Nhật và Guam. Ai cũng biết là Quân đội Mỹ nói chung, không quân Mỹ nói riêng sử dụng rất nhiều vũ khí chính xác dẫn đường bằng hệ thống GPS như bom, tên lửa A-2-G, tên lửa hành trình Tomahaw, ... Hàn cũng đang đặt mua 900 bom JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition GPS-based) sử dụng GPS dự kíên giao hàng vào năm 2012. Nếu BTT có và sử dụng thành công thiết bị này, có lẽ Mỹ sẽ phải sửa đổi lại kịch bản tấn công BTT rất nhiều.

Được Russianfan sửa chữa / chuyển vào 15:06 ngày 19/12/2008

lâu lâu làm mấy cái

Một bộ ảnh Kim con với quân đội, qua đó có thể thấy quân BTT có các công sự ngầm vững chắc, tinh thần chiến đấu cao và một số khí tài QS
Tiếc là tớ không biết tiếng Hàn