Also it is worth nothing the Musadan has over a 80% failure rate whereas both HS-12 and HS-14 flew without any issues. This adds further weight to the theory that HS-12 and HS-14 use a completely new engine that is more reliable than the R-27 engine in the musadan.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/17/2017 01:44 amHow could Hwasong 14 fly so far compared to Hwasong 10 (Musudan)?Let me introduce you to the concept of a "second stage". In this case, a very small upper stage, designed to carry a tiny payload a great distance to provide the appearance of an ICBM.The definition of an ICBM is demonstrated range over 5,500 km, but it has to be carrying a useful payload. Otherwise Unha 3 could be considered an ICBM.You seem dead set on the notion that NK used Musadan technology to build this icbm. Care to share why? Anyway if what your saying is true that NK used the 25 ton thrust engine of the musadan to power this icbm then a second stage would not be possible due to insufficient thrust in the first stage. Furthermore more why would they test a whole new engine and claim that it is made "in their own way" only to reuse tech from the musadan?Also it is worth nothing the Musadan has over a 80% failure rate whereas both HS-12 and HS-14 flew without any issues. This adds further weight to the theory that HS-12 and HS-14 use a completely new engine that is more reliable than the R-27 engine in the musadan.
How could Hwasong 14 fly so far compared to Hwasong 10 (Musudan)?Let me introduce you to the concept of a "second stage". In this case, a very small upper stage, designed to carry a tiny payload a great distance to provide the appearance of an ICBM.The definition of an ICBM is demonstrated range over 5,500 km, but it has to be carrying a useful payload. Otherwise Unha 3 could be considered an ICBM.
Quote from: K210 on 07/17/2017 06:10 amAlso it is worth nothing the Musadan has over a 80% failure rate whereas both HS-12 and HS-14 flew without any issues. This adds further weight to the theory that HS-12 and HS-14 use a completely new engine that is more reliable than the R-27 engine in the musadan. The recent NK presentation on their test history shows at least one failed HS-12 launch, (there's one shown by the coast, the successful launch was inland) and according to Ankit Panda the current US gov position is there were two failed launches. Still, that's a much better success rate then Musudan, and there's no evidenice of any prior HS-14 tests.
Quote from: Kryten on 07/17/2017 08:37 am The recent NK presentation on their test history shows at least one failed HS-12 launch, (there's one shown by the coast, the successful launch was inland) and according to Ankit Panda the current US gov position is there were two failed launches. Still, that's a much better success rate then Musudan, and there's no evidence of any prior HS-14 tests.This is all explainable by their adding verniers to the HS10 and calling it HS12, after teething pains with HS10, they now have a more mature engine. It also explains their confidence in putting a small second stage on HS12 after only 2 tests.
The recent NK presentation on their test history shows at least one failed HS-12 launch, (there's one shown by the coast, the successful launch was inland) and according to Ankit Panda the current US gov position is there were two failed launches. Still, that's a much better success rate then Musudan, and there's no evidence of any prior HS-14 tests.
I'm no image analyst, I look at what others figured out and then try to find out if it's plausible or not.Both the armscontrolwonks and Norbert Brügge arrived at similar conclusions in their analysis.A diameter of 1.8-1.9m for the HS-14. That is HS-13 tooling, not HS-10 (RS-27 1.5m). 45 and 47 tons takeoff thrust. The bigger diameter has more thrust, no problems there.Where is the evidence that the HS-14 is smaller than that? Both for physical size and thrust please.
Quote from: Chasm on 07/17/2017 03:00 pmI'm no image analyst, I look at what others figured out and then try to find out if it's plausible or not.Both the armscontrolwonks and Norbert Brügge arrived at similar conclusions in their analysis.A diameter of 1.8-1.9m for the HS-14. That is HS-13 tooling, not HS-10 (RS-27 1.5m). 45 and 47 tons takeoff thrust. The bigger diameter has more thrust, no problems there.Where is the evidence that the HS-14 is smaller than that? Both for physical size and thrust please.They could be right, and, if so, then North Korea is developing two different long range missile systems, using different tooling and different engines. Or, their estimates could be off a bit, and it's all one program. I am still looking for more than just assertions that HS10 and HS12 are significantly different systems.http://www.38north.org/2017/05/hwasong051917/This article says that Hwasong 10 and 12 use the same TEL, and basically the same engine.
If HS-10 is a stretched R-27, wouldn't it already have four verniers?
The latest missile was launched at 23:41 North Korea time (15:41 GMT) from Jagang province in the north of the country, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported. ...Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the missile flew for about 45 minutes - some six minutes longer than the ICBM tested in early July.
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?