Hacker News Reader

Comment by bane | Hacker News Reader

When you need the absolute best for something, you need to specialize. That's why there have historically been so many different kinds of aircraft, each with relatively discrete missions.

The F-35 is a terrible aircraft, and the procurement is deeply suspect. The South Korean acquisition process leaked some surprising information about the acquisition process and the F-35 failed the relatively modest criteria the Koreans had set and an older aircraft (F-15) to be purchased. At the time there was loads of news about the F-35 failing the acquisition and it even made it into Aviation week. Doing a google search now, it looks like it was a smooth process from RFP to acquisition and I can't find many of the older articles [1]

The rumor is that Lockheed bribed the hell out of the Korean National Assembly and "won" the initial round of acquisition, but the agency in Korea responsible for the acquisition (DAPA) saw right through it and awarded the final contract to Boeing.

The National Assembly got upset, Lockheed got upset and probably some U.S. congressmen got upset and the entire acquisition was tossed out "recompeted" and of course the F-35 won the second time. It's a sad joke and I can't even begin to guess at the acquisition shenanigans that happened in the U.S.

1 - http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130928/DEFREG/309280008...

edit a great movie about this is the movie "Pentagon Wars" which includes this great scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

View on HN

The US also rigged the Norwegian selection of the F-35. It was was pretty much pre-decided that Norway had to go for the F35 for political reasons, even though all the committees preferred the Swedish JAS Gripen. The US gave them a great excuse by denying the export by Raytheon of an important upgrade. All this was revealed by Wikileaks. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/wikile...

The US doesn't want it's allies to get the best equipment for their usage - they want their allies to send them money. With allies like that, who needs enemies?

There is not a single country that exports its latest and greatest technology.

Even if an ally can be trusted with modern aircraft, often their pilots cannot be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cold_War_pilot_defectio...

This is all very old. I don't think modern top aircraft can defect so easily.

There's no real means to stop them defecting, surely? All the pilot has to do is fly over the border and land, while not getting shot down by the country he's defecting to.

Iran got hold of a drone. It's not quite the drone "defecting" but it's somewhat similar.

This is a high end weapon, heavily computerized, loaded with explosives ... I'm not saying there is definitely a self-destruct command, but if I were landing one in China I'd be sweating.

Most of the explosives on a plane are pretty much designed to be easily dropped. While some components may have self destruct capabilities, I doubt a defecting pilot could be easily prevented from defecting.

In the case of the F35, I'd love to see many of them reaching enemy countries.. Attempting to replicate it would send their aerospace industries back decades.

They don't have a self-destruct of any sort. In 2001 an aircraft loaded with state of the art surveillance equipment collided with a Chinese fighter and was forced to make an emergency landing in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident) which must've been an interesting experience for the crew.

They had to destroy as much of that presumably staggeringly expensive equipment as they could to avoid it falling into the wrong hands.

I did not know that instead of the C4 you'd expect to see from movies, they used hot coffee to destroy most of the equipment.

of course we export our advanced weaponry. buying the plane is just part of the process. once you own it, you need to have ground support, computer and communication capabilities, not to mention spare parts, and engineers to support the process - most likely on lease from the manufacturer. pilots are important but just one part of the equation.

selling complicated weaponry like planes is a great way for countries to foster dependency. you would have to be pretty stupid to go to war against the US using American planes. you wouldn't be able to fly them for long without mechanical support (parts etc), engineering support.

Of course they're exporting it... if you buy it as part of the $150 million dollar package that is the F-35. It's still the same customer buying it (Norway)

Same in Netherland. It has to be an American plane, even if it means shrinking the airforce from the original 100 planes to about 30. Everybody is against it, but when the decision has to be made, somehow just enough MPs vote in favour of the F-35.

The worst of it is, the F-35 is a lie. It's not one aircraft with 3 different roles. It's 3 entirely different aircraft sharing some elements. There is only 30% commonality between the different F-35 models.

Also, the F-35 was sold as being worthwhile because it was cheaper and easier. In reality it has been vastly more expensive and vastly less capable than alternatives, with far more maintenance per hour spent flying than most other aircraft.

If there was a hint of sanity in the USAF they'd shit-can the F-35 program and start a new round of competitive procurement for separate fighters for each role. It's worth remembering that some of the best aircraft in history have come about as responses to failed development programs. The F-14 grew out of the failed F-111B program, for example.

> It's not one aircraft with 3 different roles. It's 3 entirely different aircraft sharing some elements.

And yet each design is to some extent compromised by the needs of the other two. I totally understand that VTOL is cool, but why does a VTOL fighter have to have anything at all in common with two non-VTOL planes? Make it a separate program.

>When you need the absolute best for something, you need to specialize.

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the engineer in the video on the F/A-18. From what I've read about the Joint Strike Fighter project, from which the F-35 was borne, it seems like they were trying to recreate and expand upon the success and versatility of the F/A-18. I've always heard that the F/A-18 is one of the most useful planes in our arsenal, but it isn't highly specialized to one specific purpose.

As far as the F-35 goes, it seems like its yet another example where America is perfectly capable of building something better* than the rest of the world has, if it weren't for all of the corrupt politicians that are willing to trade real progress for personal gain.

*not that we are inherently better than everyone, its just that we poured an enormous amount of resources into this project

Agreed. He was pretty down on the F15, which has proved pretty effective (if expensive). The F18 isn't VTOL, or "stealth", and isn't touted as an A10 replacement, so it's not completely insane.

That said, it's hard to measure the effectiveness of most US aircraft because they've never been operated in truly competitive conditions (the best measure is of aircraft which the israeli's use, since israel has often fought russian proxies such as Syria with late model aircraft and "advisors". By that measure, the F15 and F16 are unparalelled. The israelis don't use the F18 iirc, which says something.

The F16 cost about 1/2 what an F15 cost. In the end the F16 allowed the F15 to be more focused which was a huge net win.

The crazy thing is the close air support and bomber roles are much better suited for drone aircraft so at least one of it's missions is pure BS from the start.

I don't think CAS stuff is well suited for drones (at least not the current stuff). You want lots of ordnance and you want the forward observer on the ground to not have to talk to someone possibly 100's of miles away right?

Also, I don't know that I buy that the drone pilot has the same local/situational awareness that a pilot sitting in an A-10/Apache does.

Why? The drone pilot has been flying around that area for much longer than the A10. He is a fully trained pilot as well, except he has fantastic cameras and doesn't really have to worry about dying. I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of remotely piloted aircraft.

You could definitely be right. Whats the latency like for drone control? Is latency low enough that fast low altitude/tight terrain flight isn't a problem?

Guess you could always turn something like a AC-130 into a drone too.

Also, isn't that one of the yet unrealized capabilities of a drone? You can have a control unit embedded with the forward observer so they can directly control the drone. Depending on their design you could have them land at the nearest FOB or directly at the line and re-arm it as desired.

Honestly, I'm not sure why drones aren't considered better for air superiority as well - better power to weight ratio, no human-imposed G limits, probably better maneuverability due to better wing area to weight ratio, potential for 360 degree vision, and without needing to worried about losing highly trained pilots, you could also explore making many more cheap drones that are individually inferior but collectively superior.

What about EMPs or communication attacks?

Why would a normal jet fare any better in an EMP attack than a drone? Communication attacks, maybe, but there's no reason you couldn't have some limited level of autonomy to bring it back home automatically in the event of a comms failure.

Because if your enemy can simply ground your fighter fleet with a communication attack, you are just asking for a Pearl Harbor 2

The dirty little secret in the USAF is that everyone knows drones are superior for fighters because of the human imposed G limit being removed, but its an organization run by former pilots and they hate the idea.

This is also why they require drone operators to be actual pilots despite the fact that there is zero need for that level of training. Its just a way to protect their idols.

Hm, that's frustrating. I wonder if that's true in all countries.

The F/A-18 is designed by Boeing. The F-35 as well as the F-22 are designed by Lockheed.

It's built by Boeing.

It was designed jointly by McDonnel Douglas and Northrop and is an evolution of the earlier Northrop YF-17 which competed against the F-16 in the Lightweight Fighter Program.

The YF-17, in turn, was actually an evolution of the even earlier Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter.

Not trying to be a pedant, honestly. The F/A-18 just has a fairly interesting design heritage, and that heritage is pretty much entirely outside of Boeing. They're just the ones that ended up with the production after industry consolidation.

As a former F/A-18 pilot, we were the jack-of-all-trades master-of-none. It does make some sense on an aircraft carrier with a limited number of planes, but even then there was talk of having two of the four squadrons specialize in air-to-air and two in air-to-ground. The problem: who doesn't want to fly combat missions into Iraq and Afghanistan?

At the end of the day, I generally recognized that the F-15C pilot was going to be better at air-to-air, the A-10 or F-15E pilots better at air-to-ground. The F-16 pilots more jack-of-all-trade types (excluding CJs) with a slightly better aircraft that can't land on the boat. And the F-14 pilots better at drinking in the bar.

I also think the general consensus when I left a couple years back was that the F35 is a turd. Probably a better turd then anything else out there (excluding maybe the F-22), but not worth the price, and riddled with flaws. General's and Admiral's, however, put pressure on anyone who even thought of speaking negatively about the program.

If the saying goes: "Arm-chair generals study tactics, real generals study logistics," then our current crop of General's and Admiral's forgot the part about only "morons putting all their eggs in one basket." This is exactly what the JSF is: a basketful of eggs ready to break.

Unfortunately, the defense industry has gotten so totally out of control that we can't afford anything it provides. Pretty soon we will have 1 super tank, plane, submarine weapon thingy. The exit from senior military positions into the defense industry has created an awful supplier of tools to the troops. Our own leaders are so self-interested that they can't even recognize a problem: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/12/26/defe...

But the problem of this implicit corruption extends way beyond defense, just look at the banks and the treasury. We need some sort of '5 year hiatus', where after serving in a senior position of government, individuals can't join a corporation that does over X revenue with the branch of government that person just left for 5 years. No more hiring for the roledex or as payback for deeds done while in government. Serve in government to serve, not for the payday afterwards

We need some sort of '5 year hiatus'

That's sadly unlikely to help, as can be seen in countries where such regulations are in place. The culprits simply delay the payment or move to alternate forms of compensation (e.g. arranging for a well-compensated 'job' for a close family member...).

>where after serving in a senior position of government, individuals can't join a corporation that does over X revenue with the branch of government that person just left for 5 years.

Do $100K speaker fees count as "join[ing] a corporation"? It's a more direct payment than putting someone on the board.

We need some leader in the US to fight for this kind of stuff. Shame Obama didn't go for it. Hillary perhaps?

L. O. L. Politicians at that level are so bought and paid for. The only thing that would end our industrial military complex would be if every citizen read Orwell's 1984 and then voted 3rd party. I mean Jesus fuck, how would fighter X, Y, or Z get us anywhere in Iraq and Syria right now???

Hilary Clinton only cares about two things, power and control. I really doubt that she has anyone's interests in mind other than her own. I say this as a moderate conservative who would have voted for her husband to serve a 3rd term against any of the republican candidates from the last two elections.

First of all, thank you for your insight into the F/A-18.

>We need some sort of '5 year hiatus

I was under the impression that it was already illegal whenever a conflict of interest exists, and that the laws were simply being ignored.

Before I started my current position, I spent a couple of years as a defense contractor doing entry and intermediate level IT work. Whenever I applied for a job, as a low level employee, I had to fill out questionnaires that asked dozens of questions about whether or not I had been a senior leader in a government organization that could have impacted the decision making process for government contracts. I assumed that these questions were designed to filter out any applicants that might present a conflict of interest, but I frequently hear stories about Colonels and Generals jumping right into executive positions at the same companies they negotiated government contracts with just a few months earlier. IMO, the people who are doing this AND the people who are knowingly hiring them should end up in federal prison.

I've always heard that the F/A-18 is one of the most useful planes in our arsenal, but it isn't highly specialized to one specific purpose.

The original design came from the same competition that gave us the F-16. High manuverability, high thrust aircraft are fundamentally versatile, especially when you put advanced avionics in them.

They certainly have a lot of experience with bribes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals#West_...

The F35 is a dog and I suspect as a Brit we are going to get stuck with the thing when everyone else pulls out.

It is rather reminiscent of the Skybolt affair from the 1960s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt

Edit: Even more like the fantastic idea to cancel the wonderful TSR-2 in favour of the F-111 - a decision which was then cancelled later on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

""All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

Also the Black Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

Still the only sovereign nation to give up satellite launching capability after acquiring it...

"Prior to the cancellation of Black Arrow, NASA had offered to launch British payloads for free; however, this offer was withdrawn following the decision to cancel Black Arrow."

Always liked that little bit of history :).

Ironically, the F-111 was the only model/mission of the TFX development effort to survive. The TFX was the '60s version of the F-35, except it also tried for the air superiority role the F-22 now fills.

Nominal peacetime is when the bureaucrats try to save money with a single weapon system that "can do everything" ... but it seldom does more than one thing well. The M14 rifle is another '50s example.

And meanwhile a few miles up the road from here the UK is building huge aircraft carriers (at least by UK standards) specifically to carry the F35.

Nominal peacetime is when the bureaucrats try to save money with a single weapon system that can do everything ... but it seldom does more than one thing well.

Clueless German higher-ups were asking that every aircraft also be able to dive-bomb, causing design compromises and delays. Yes, they even did that with their revolutionary jet aircraft! (The fighter and the high speed bomber!)

Dive bomb, or just bomb?

At a certain point in the war, the utility of the fighter-bomber was very well established, the Germans even had their own name for it, Jäger-Bomber I think it was, or Jabo. (I'd recommend the Wikipedia article, but it claims the P-38 was a poor fighter (!!!)).

In general Nazi procurement was extremely subpar at this level. One might think Arthur C. Clarke's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story) was based on them.

Dive bomb, or just bomb?

Dive bomb. There were attempts to get both the Me-262 and the Arado bomber to do this!

The Luftwaffe had an obsession with dive bombing after the initial success of the Stuka. However, making every aircraft design capable of dive bombing wasn't a good idea (fortunately):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#Dive-bombing

No don't worry. Australia is cutting every single welfare, education and science funding program but by golly are we going to buy us some F-35s so Tony Abbott can have more photo ops in them!

Considering how lethal that thing is to it's own side that might be a good thing, $200 million dollars to get rid of Abbott sounds like a reasonable RoI (this is a joke, I don't want the man to die in a horrible fireball...merely to go away).

I don't think your lousy explanation will fool anyone. The alarm bells in these concrete buildings are already ringing

Don't worry, as long as the Conservatives have control here in Canada, we'll be stuck right alongside you.

Is Garth Turner likely to get back into parliament?

The Liberals are actually the ones who got us into the JSF program.

Every opposition government ever opposes whatever large military procurement is proposed: It's easy to find negatives, and there is no real downside to be negative. Occasionally the rhetoric can get so over the top that it needs action (see the Liberals cancelling the EH-101, and then having to effective re-order it at a much higher price tag for less hardware), but generally it just quietly continues.

And the overwhelming reason Canada wants the F-35 has little to do with the aircraft, and everything to do with manufacturing partnership agreements that would see many billions of that order going to facilities in Canada, invigorating the aerospace industry.

Not saying it's a good purchase, because it isn't, but I wouldn't pin it on the Conservatives.

You think the US won't buy them? Our military bought and paid for hundreds of F-111s, the last plane we designed to do everything for everyone, with the result that it wasn't useful anyplace. (Yes, we've tried this trick before.) And that was in the 1960s and '70s; if anything, the military procurement process has gotten a whole lot more corrupt.

Australia is replacing its retired F-111 fleet with the F-35 so we may end up sole user in end...again. The F-111 at least had use in a long-range anti-shipping role once it was upgraded for the Harpoon.

Being cynical here, but maybe we have to consider whether alienating the US military-industrial complex (and their coterie of owned congresspersons) by purchasing a non-US warplane would be _worse_ for Australia's long-term security than sucking it up and overspending on the F-35.

I certainly believe we'd be far more secure, with greater chances of a peaceful future, if Australia determined we needed an independent strategy, without USA war bases and without tagging along to whatever big dumb war the emperor might dream up next. Our own analysts say there is no credible threat; we're not at war now; so why aid the military empire in their unnecessary and unhelpful expansion in our region?

Australia's defence needs are the same as the UKs - you must absolutely be able to secure your shipping lanes, first and foremost. Anything else is the icing on the cake. This is something the UK has lost sight of. We need SSNs and destroyers, not white elephant aircraft carriers. And certainly not Eurofighters or F35s.

Australia mostly needs aircraft with a long-range, decent loiter-time and an anti-shipping capability.

They have it half right purchasing the Boeing P-8A Poseidon and evaluating Reaper drones.

But like the UK we don't need aircraft carriers, but it seems that's what Tony now wants the new Canberra class ships to be.

The F-111 was actually good for Australia, though the purchase was sort of a 'mistake' at the time - it's extremely long range suited our northern defence, where the airstrips are few and far between. One defence person said in an aside to me 'The F-111 has enough range to get from Darwin to Jakarta and back without refueling'...

Menzies said as much quite openly after the confrontation with Indonesia following the Malaysian Independence.

If you're near Caloundra they have an open cockpit weekend coming up.

http://www.qam.com.au/ocw/ocw.htm

> tried this trick before

The Littoral Combat Ship is the exact same trick being played right now! It's pretty much useless as a naval war fighting platform against a serious enemy, but some thin claims that it's a multi-mission platform got it the go-ahead.

It's not completely useless, it can do Dump & Burn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpPEdOMSIgQ

I think you Brits are stuck with the F-35 because of the new carriers. Both are designed for VTOL aircraft. There were plans to build at least the second one with a CATOBAR configuration. But this was turned down due to the high costs. So if the F-35 fails the two new carriers wouldn't have any fixed wing aircraft and require expensive changes.

(Not a weapons expert by any means. So please correct me if I'm wrong)

It should be possible to update the harriers. While they are as un-stealth as a plane can be, they still could still be a viable option.

They are out of service in the British forces though. That should make reactivating them a bit more difficult.

You can always build a newer batch with more modern avionics.

That clip from Pentagon Wars is amazing.

Having seen it, is there still any reason to see the movie? Or is that the gist of it? Because from looking at Wikipedia, that looks like the gist of it.

Absolutely; this montage captures the essence of the plot, but watching it unfold is still quite entertaining.

Edit: The clip is really more of a flashback -- the rest of the film deals with the young officer trying to ensure the vehicle receives a live fire test.

You'll miss the goats, the burning mannequins, rockets being thrown of a lift onto a crane on a tank, the toaster bolted onto a tank and the grand finale.

Also you'll miss the fact that everyone except the guy that said what would happen got promoted and he retired prematurely.

LATE EDIT: It's sheeps not goats, rockets being thrown off a crane onto a tank.

The "Pentagon Wars" scene reminds me strongly of software development in many companies I have worked for.

I remember reading something along the lines that several models were being discontinued (the first ones that come to mind are the A-10 and the F117) in favor of this plane since it was going to be able to do everything.

However, he loses a lot of respectability when he says that stealth is a scam. All you have to do is ask the multitude of the F117 pilots who flew over Baghdad during the invasion, if stealth technology helped them avoid Iraqi radar.

His claim is that stealth only works against radars in a particular frequency band, and that long-wave radars designed to defeat it can do so easily. Saddam Hussein didn't have those; the point is that the F-35's adversaries (anyone with an air defense system designed after the F-117 went public) likely do.

Long wave radars are fine for early warning. (e.g. HEY! There's some thing out there!) But they can't help you figure out where it is exactly. (e.g. guide an anti-aircraft missile to intercept).

Disclaimer: I think the F-35 is total scam. But this is about stealth

You can also reduce your effective cross section to long-wave radars by splitting the hull into non electrically connected areas. If there is no electrical contact there is no resonance effect for that particular frequency. Who knows, maybe some aircraft eventually will use it.

Stealth as a generic concept is not ruined by long wave radars, the current designs might be. It's traditional arms race.

You've just fallen prey to a logical fallacy.

Just because SOME radars cannot detect stealth aircraft it does not immediately follow that NO radars can detect stealth aircraft.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Limitations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar

Provided that you're willing to invest a minute or so (I spent 5 min finding links) you can discover that in fact he does know what he's talking about. This is established science and not at all contentious.

What is the logical fallacy in saying "stealth has been credited with protecting aircraft over Iraq, so it's not a scam"? The OP did not say that stealth made an aircraft invisible to radar, just that it 'helped avoid Iraqi radar'. Creating a straw man out of the OP's argument doesn't turn the original words into a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy, but the F117A is a poor argument for stealth.

Military weapon systems are a war unto themselves: each side learning about the other's and creating new systems to remove those advantages. Basically, once the F117A became common knowledge, it was only a matter of years before modern radar systems were developed that mitigated that advantage.

I have little doubt that Russia put a lot of effort into making the S400 effective against stealth aircraft. Having a low radar profile still helps, but we won't see the advantage the F117A had over Baghdad.

You mean during Desert Storm? Stealth was very new (I think the F117 had been used in Panama for the first time though). 8 years later the Serbs were able to track and shoot down an F117. The Russians and Chinese and probably every other defence company aren't sitting still.

Afghanistan had no serious air defence network anyway. The Iraqi air defence network was heavily outdated and under sanctions for over 10 years in 2003. The Libyan air defences hadn't been updated since the 80s when the US managed to bomb Libya with the loss of one aircraft.

The Israelis managed time and time again to overcome the Syrian air defence network. Which is, although not build to its full capacity due to Russia holding back the S300 and now heavily impacted by the civil war, more modern and better designed than anything the US encountered in her recent conflicts. And the Israelis have no stealth aircraft and used their F-15.

I thought the Serbs tracked the F117 they shot mostly by sight? They had a bunch of observers with cell phones. This got them a close enough fix to target it. Not really an argument against keeping a low radar cross section.

Well fortunately we can ask him. The F-117 was downed by Colonel Zoltan Dani, former commander of the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade in Belgrade, on March 27, 1999.

Question: "How did you manage to spot the stealth fighter?"

Zoltan Dani: "To that end, we used the Soviet-made P18 meter band radar which is capable of tracking any warplane irrespective of the configuration of its fuselage. The radar started to emit and we discovered a target at a distance of 15 kilometers – something that our operators were distinctly seeing on a display. I was quick to order the launch of a missile which destroyed the target."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoltán_Dani

http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_03_24/69369732/

Do you not remember the F117 that was shot down?

Stealth isn't a scam, but it's very much oversold, especially with regard to the F35. Ultimately the stealth of the F35 is not enough of an advantage to make up for the downsides of the aircraft. In any force on force engadgment the F35 will run out of missiles and run low on fuel before the enemies, and then it will be forced to run away. A condition where the vehicle is less stealthy and also where it's slower speed is a huge disadvantage, so it'll just get shot out of the sky. This has been the consistent result of many simulations and wargames with the F35 against contemporary fighter aircraft.

He also seems to have a business selling high-end audiophile gear, which is difficult to square with his apparent engineering expertise.

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.

Surely South Korea ought to by cruise missiles?

$1.4m per strike probably isn't really cost-effective for smaller countries that aren't spending trillions on their military.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com