Author Topic: North Korea missiles  (Read 26501 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10665
  • Liked: 2205
  • Likes Given: 1
North Korea missiles
« on: 04/24/2016 08:34 PM »
NK missile technology is advancing across a broad front. This is the latest. Although not space-related, it shows that they're putting money into a bunch of different technologies and having some success.

http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/pictorial/index.html?issue_id=IC20161359&issue_div=all&template=7394?c88b56a0#
« Last Edit: 08/25/2016 03:24 PM by input~2 »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #1 on: 07/12/2016 07:40 AM »
Will Iran’s Simorgh Space Launcher Appear in North Korea?

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/will-irans-simorgh-space-launcher-appear-north-korea/

Quote
Iran has an ambitious space program. But it also has an ambitious missile program as well. Iran is now developing a larger new rocket called the Simorgh, with the goal of placing a new satellite in orbit by February 2017. Many in the United States worry that the Simorgh might also serve as the basis for an ICBM.

Concerns about Iran’s space program arise from the fact that it is largely built on technologies imported from North Korea. The collaboration between Iran and North Korea in developing rockets for civilian space launches or military missions is a subject of frequent concern in the United States. And while that collaboration has largely been seen as North Korean assistance to Iran, there are now indications that the relationship has become more collaborative over time. [1] In some instances, the flow of technology could even be shifting in the other direction, with Iran supplying North Korea with assistance. This may force us to change how we think about addressing the threat from Iran and North Korea’s missile programs.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #2 on: 08/24/2016 06:41 PM »
Preparations for North Korean Missile Test Caught on Satellite Imagery

http://38north.org/2016/08/sinpo082416/


Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #3 on: 08/25/2016 09:07 PM »
North Korea released a propaganda film showing multiple angles of their latest submarine-launched ballistic missile test. It doesn't look like it was the healthiest rocket motor to ever fly (a significant anomaly can be seen 38 seconds into the video), but it seems to have worked.

« Last Edit: 08/25/2016 09:12 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7689
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 4697
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #4 on: 08/25/2016 10:06 PM »
Named "Polaris"... How original... ???
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 384
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #5 on: 08/25/2016 10:31 PM »
Named "Polaris"... How original... ???
That is a rough translation

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7689
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 4697
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #6 on: 08/25/2016 10:46 PM »
Named "Polaris"... How original... ???
That is a rough translation
That is as reported by CNN as translation of "North Star or Pole Star"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Comet

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #7 on: 08/26/2016 11:24 PM »

Offline Comet

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #8 on: 08/26/2016 11:25 PM »

Offline Finn

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #9 on: 10/15/2016 08:34 PM »
Failure reported:

http://us.cnn.com/2016/10/15/asia/failed-north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

Quote
US Strategic Command says its systems detected a failed North Korean ballistic missile launch Saturday evening near the northwestern city of Kusŏng.

Online Phillip Clark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 559
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #10 on: 10/16/2016 01:07 AM »
BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37670035

Not sure why there is the comment about the space programme in the above since this was clearly a missile launch and not a satellite launch attempt: for the last decade North Korea has announced its satellite launch attempts in advance and no such advance warning was given for this launch.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #11 on: 10/17/2016 09:01 AM »
U.S. says N. Korea's launch of Musudan missile ends in failure

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2016/10/16/26/0301000000AEN20161016000254315F.html



« Last Edit: 10/17/2016 09:02 AM by Websorber »

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4251
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1259
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #12 on: 10/20/2016 04:16 AM »
Another North Korea intermediate range missile fails after launch

By Ju-min Park and Eric Walsh, REUTERS   October 19, 2016

https://www.yahoo.com/news/failed-north-korean-ballistic-missile-launch-detected-u-014639456.html?ref=gs
Tony De La Rosa

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #13 on: 10/27/2016 09:42 AM »
Did North Korea just test missiles capable of hitting the U.S.? Maybe.

http://tinyurl.com/hcm6wzg




Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 499
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #14 on: 10/31/2016 05:43 PM »
As the doomsday clock remains at 3 minutes to midnight, its only been closer in 1953 when the Soviets detonated a thermonuclear device within 9 months of a USA fusion test, when the clock was at 2 minutes to midnight.

"Such conditions are inherently DANGEROUS, wars have started this way."
Paul

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #15 on: 11/02/2016 07:58 PM »
An Upcoming Missile Launch by North Korea?

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/an-upcoming-missile-launch-by-north-korea


Fig. 1 The flight path of the successful June 21 Musudan test,
which was launched from Wonsan and traveled on a lofted trajectory to a range of 400 km.



Fig. 2 The path a 3,000 km range test could follow from Kusong

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #16 on: 11/08/2016 10:11 PM »
Flashback to the Past: North Korea’s “New” Extended-Range Scud

http://38north.org/2016/11/scuder110816/

For the full technical analysis here
http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Scud-ER-110816_Schiller_Schmucker.pdf


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #17 on: 12/22/2016 12:41 PM »
North Korea’s Musudan Missile: A Performance Assessment

http://38north.org/2016/12/musudan122016/


Figure 1. BM-25/Musudan test launch claimed on June 21, 2016.


Figure 2. General arrangement of the R-27 and Musudan missiles, with dimensions based on photographs/schematic drawings. The scale was determined by assuming a diameter of 1.5 m.


Figure 3. Estimated Musudan drag coefficients as a function of Mach-number, with and without grid fins.


Table 1. Parameters of the R-27 and derived parameters for the baseline Musudan


Table 2. Musudan models used in the simulations.


Figure 4. Maximum altitude on lofted trajectories over a distance of 400 km as a function of the payload.


Figure 5. Missile range as a function of the payload.


Figure 6. Area covered by the baseline Musudan when launched from Wonsan.

Great in-depth article bij 38north.org


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #18 on: 01/01/2017 10:31 AM »
N.K. missile provocation as Pyongyang hints ICBM test

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/01/01/0200000000AEN20170101003000315.html?input=rss



Quote
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in his New Year's message claimed the country is in the final stage of preparing to launch an ICBM

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #19 on: 01/04/2017 11:02 AM »
North Korean Underground Facility: Probably Not a Ballistic Missile Silo

http://38north.org/2017/01/jsbermudez010316/


Figure 1. Overview of installation at Pumyong-dong.


Figure 2. Construction of the Pumyong-dong installation in November 2002


Figure 3. Construction of the Pumyong-dong installation in March 2011


Figure 4. The support area at Pumyong-dong in November 2002.


Figure 5. The road bridge and power sub-station at Pumyong-dong in November 2002.


Figure 6. Typical North Korean silo covers.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #20 on: 01/13/2017 06:13 AM »
How Might North Korea Test an ICBM?

http://38north.org/2017/01/jschilling011217/

Quote
In his 2017 New Year’s Address, Kim Jong Un mentioned (among many other things) that North Korea had “entered the final stage of preparation for the test launch of intercontinental ballistic missile.” It should be noted that this was neither the focus of his speech—which, for the most part, was a list of last year’s accomplishments—nor was it an announcement that a test would occur any time soon. Quite possibly, it was a signal to the new dealmaker-in-chief of the United States that North Korea might be ready to make a deal: to not conduct the provocative test for the right price. Still, we should consider the possibility that a test may occur in the near future. In which case, how might this happen and what might it mean?




Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #21 on: 01/28/2017 08:14 AM »
Can the US Prevent North Korea from Testing an ICBM?

http://38north.org/2017/01/melleman012717/


Figure 1. The KN-14, which has only two stages, can safely be launched to various ranges without risk of the first stage striking foreign territory.


Figure 2. Launching the three-stage KN-08 to the east risks having the second stage land on Japanese territory. This would likely deter North Korea from choosing the KN-08 for its initial ICBM test launch.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2017 08:15 AM by Websorber »

Offline Olaf

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Germany
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #22 on: 02/12/2017 07:39 AM »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #23 on: 02/12/2017 10:56 AM »
North Korea test-fires modified Musudan missile

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/02/12/0200000000AEN20170212000655315.html?input=rss

Quote
"The missile appears to be a modified intermediate-range Musudan ballistic missile possibly equipped with a solid fuel engine, not a medium-range Rodong missile,"


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #24 on: 02/12/2017 09:40 PM »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #25 on: 02/12/2017 09:42 PM »
North Korea claims successful launch of Pukguksong-2

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/02/13/0200000000AEN20170213001100315.html?input=rss

Quote
The Korean Central News Agency said the Pukguksong-2 strategic weapon system was successfully test-fired Sunday. It added that the missile used solid propellants and a new engine. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was present for the launch.


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #26 on: 02/13/2017 07:48 AM »
Launch of Pukguksong-2


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #27 on: 02/14/2017 04:12 AM »
Looks a land vehicle version of their SLBM. Lots of views of the launch in the video. Exhaust looked pretty clean with almost no sparklers like in previous launches.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2017 04:12 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #28 on: 02/18/2017 10:39 PM »
Finding the Real Site for the Pukguksong-2 Launch

http://38north.org/2017/02/jbermudez021717/




















Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #29 on: 03/06/2017 05:13 AM »
NorthKorea fires four ballistic missiles-three fall in Japanese waters

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/03/06/0200000000AEN20170306001154315.html?input=rss


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #30 on: 03/07/2017 10:51 AM »
North Korea says latest missile launch was training for strike on U.S. bases in Japan


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #31 on: 03/08/2017 04:35 AM »
Here is the North Korean video of the simultaneous launch of four ballistic missiles. Are these Hwasong-7 missiles?

« Last Edit: 03/08/2017 04:37 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #32 on: 03/08/2017 04:47 AM »
Looks like Scud derivatives.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #33 on: 03/08/2017 02:18 PM »
Looks like Scud derivatives.

Missiles launched are ER-SCUD

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #34 on: 03/09/2017 03:08 AM »
Missiles launched are ER-SCUD

These are called Hwasong-7 by North Korea. Also called Scud-D in the West.

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-threat-and-proliferation/todays-missile-threat/north-korea/scud-er/
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #35 on: 03/16/2017 07:24 AM »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #36 on: 03/16/2017 08:33 AM »
The fifth TEL might have simply been a backup in case one of the four main TELs had a problem prior to launch.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lewis007

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1139
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #37 on: 03/23/2017 06:40 AM »
On March 22, North Korea test fired another missile, which ended in failure shortly after launch.

The missile was launched near Kalma in eastern Wonsan province, where North Korea previously attempted to launch its mobile-launched Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile.

See: http://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-launches-test-missiles-south-korean-government/story?id=46290719

« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 06:41 AM by Lewis007 »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #38 on: 03/28/2017 07:45 AM »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #39 on: 04/03/2017 05:51 PM »
Possible Evidence of the Failed March 22 Missile Test

http://38north.org/2017/04/jbermudez040317/


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #40 on: 04/05/2017 06:40 AM »

Offline Satori

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12158
  • Braga - Portugal
    • Em Órbita
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #41 on: 04/16/2017 10:29 AM »
North Korea missile launched from Sinpo at 2120UTC on April 15 failed shortly after launch.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #42 on: 04/16/2017 10:53 AM »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #43 on: 04/16/2017 02:11 PM »
First one is a Russian Topol, used as comparison.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #44 on: 04/19/2017 09:24 PM »
NorthKorea's Missile Launch Why Did It 'Immediately' Blow

« Last Edit: 04/19/2017 09:24 PM by Websorber »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #45 on: 04/21/2017 08:52 PM »
How to Hack and Not Hack a Missile

http://38north.org/2017/04/jschilling042117/


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #46 on: 04/25/2017 05:41 AM »
« Last Edit: 05/01/2017 08:34 AM by Websorber »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #47 on: 04/26/2017 08:46 AM »
A Paradigm Shift in North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Development?

http://38north.org/2017/04/ychang042517/


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #48 on: 04/28/2017 04:35 PM »
North Korean video shows destruction of aircraft carrier and capitol


Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • Liked: 463
  • Likes Given: 8280
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #49 on: 04/28/2017 04:57 PM »
North Korean video shows destruction of aircraft carrier and capitol



LOL -- cute!  Poor doofus has no clue, does he?  Must admit, he's a lot funnier than many of *our* alleged comedians.  Thanks for the chuckle!  ;)

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #50 on: 04/28/2017 09:08 PM »
There is not just an external audience.

The reveal of Pukguksong-1 and later Pukguksong-2 upped the ante. Solid fueled rockets always do.

One analysis says that they might be based on RT-15M 1st and second stages respectively.
Other analysis by 38north came to other, larger diameters, so RT-15M would not be a fit.

Having access to solid fueled Sowjet SLBM plans is a big deal, even if they were never fully developed.
The tracked TEL looks somewhat like the RT-15 (SS-14), biggest difference is that the original was hot launched. [link]

If Norberts size analysis checks out the chance that NK actually has something for their large ICBM canisters rises drastically. SS-13 clone anyone? - Not that they have some, that it looks like they want them to look that way...

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7689
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 4697
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #51 on: 04/28/2017 10:32 PM »
Another launch, another fail...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #52 on: 04/29/2017 09:51 AM »
Go north korea! Missle technology is a right of all countries!
« Last Edit: 04/29/2017 09:53 AM by K210 »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #53 on: 05/01/2017 06:39 PM »
North Korea’s Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Program: Are the Tests Poised to Accelerate?

http://38north.org/2017/05/nampo050117/


Figure 1. Submersible test stand barge seen at the Sinpo South Shipyard.


Figure 2. A second submersible test stand barge seen on same day at the Nampo Naval Shipyard.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #54 on: 05/03/2017 10:50 AM »
New Developments in North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Infrastructure—What Does it Mean for the Future?

http://38north.org/2017/05/missile050217/


Figure 1. Vertical engine test stand at Tae-sung Machine Factory in February 2016.


Figure 2. Renovated Tae-sung Machine Factory in April 2017, with possible new solid rocket engine test stand.


Figure 3. The Iha-ri Driver Training and Test Facility north of Kusong.


Figure 4. Close-up of TEL with launch tube elevated at the Iha-ri facility.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #55 on: 05/05/2017 08:26 AM »
North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard: Activity at the Test Stand

http://38north.org/2017/05/sinpo050417/










Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #56 on: 05/05/2017 09:23 AM »
North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard: Activity at the Test Stand

http://38north.org/2017/05/sinpo050417/

That articles mentions that two April launches were by KN-17. Don't know what the North Korean designation is.

"...two tests of the KN-17 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) on April 5 and 16..."
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #57 on: 05/13/2017 11:46 PM »
North Korea fires ballistic missile, Moon convenes NSC session

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/05/14/0200000000AEN20170514000353315.html?input=rss


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #58 on: 05/14/2017 06:29 AM »
That's a file photo of the 11 February launch of Pukguksong-2. I don't believe photos of the actual launch have been released yet. The range is given as 700 km, so this might be a Hwasong-7 launch.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2017 06:30 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #59 on: 05/14/2017 08:01 AM »
Information is still sparse and subject to change but it does not look like a modified SCUD.
Roughly 700km range but highly lofted, 30 minute flight time, 2000km appogee. First analysis comes to a more conventional range of 4500km. (But beware of GIGO.)

Jeffery Lewis, @armscontrolwonk thinks that it was the KN-08 version shown in the parade. [link to video] It looks like a successfull test so we'll soon know more via NK news.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #60 on: 05/14/2017 08:54 AM »
That's a file photo of the 11 February launch of Pukguksong-2. I don't believe photos of the actual launch have been released yet. The range is given as 700 km, so this might be a Hwasong-7 launch.

I know
but photo came with the article

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #61 on: 05/14/2017 05:32 PM »
North Korea’s Latest Missile Test: Advancing towards an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) While Avoiding US Military Action

http://38north.org/2017/05/jschilling051417/

« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 12:06 PM by Websorber »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #62 on: 05/15/2017 08:41 AM »
DPRK New Ballistic Rocket Hwasong 12 Test launch


Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #63 on: 05/15/2017 03:22 PM »
Hypergolic.  Hopefully they are designing their warheads to be able to survive a "Damascus Incident".

 - Ed Kyle

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 1898
  • Likes Given: 1383
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #64 on: 05/15/2017 03:44 PM »
Hopefully they are designing their warheads to be able to survive a "Damascus Incident".
They are in a rush. Missing obvious steps in development. So likely they skip that too, to save time/cost.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #65 on: 05/15/2017 05:23 PM »
Which is according to Jeffery Lewis one of the big problem the Chinese arms control experts have with NK.
Not so much that NK has the bomb but that they'll fsk up something. Say loosing containment of a test, again.

A much different threat perspective than in the US.

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 1898
  • Likes Given: 1383
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #66 on: 05/15/2017 05:27 PM »
Which is according to Jeffery Lewis one of the big problem the Chinese arms control experts have with NK.
Not so much that NK has the bomb but that they'll fsk up something. Say loosing containment of a test, again.

A much different threat perspective than in the US.

That they've studiously ignored for more than four decades ... that only they can take away. How much longer before it literally explodes in their face, when they then ... can ... no longer ... save face?  ::)

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #67 on: 05/16/2017 10:41 AM »
The engine used on north koreas new hwasong-12 missile is the rocket engine that will be used for their new SLV. It has been tested twice so far in september 2016 and march 2017. The exhaust from the missile is very clear and looks like the exhaust from the combustion of a N204/UDMH hypergolic propellant mixture.

It is very likely that their next generation unha rocket will have a liftoff thrust in the range of 300-400 tons and a payload of 3-5 tons LEO and 1-2 tons GTO.

North korea is clearly making rapid progress in missile/rocket/nuclear technology. I suspect that by 2020 north korea will have a level of capability that we cannot even imagine right now. South korea and japan would best boost their investment in these areas so they do not end up lagging behind north korea.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #68 on: 05/16/2017 06:58 PM »
Who knows what the Chinese think?
They, and just about everyone else in the region, have thei own perspective, much different from than the others.

I'm still more concerned that a certain president decides that removing the (future) threat NK poses to his nation is worth the price the people in the region will have to pay for that. And then proceeds to find a justification to start the war. The drama has been toned down in the last days, but I'm not convinced. After all as long as the timing is right war is a tremendous way to get reelected....


For some reason I doubt that the upcoming 6th(?) nuclear test is a great reason to suddenly be all gung-ho about forcible disarmament. Not that the 7th or 8th test are a better moment.

The Hwasong 12 test and the accompanying propaganda does not help either. Most likely a single stage rocket so a lot of growth potential. By all accounts this is their own engine which removes their need to play rocket lego with knockoff engines.
Lewis thinks the emphasis on a "large and heavy" warhead in the propaganda is not so much about "Guess what, we don't need to miniaturize, we just use a bigger rocket." but rather hinting at a thermonuclear warhead.
I guess we'll find out with the next nuclear test. AFAIK most nuclear weapon states have made that step at this point in testing. - Which of course is not good news either.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #69 on: 05/16/2017 07:00 PM »

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 1898
  • Likes Given: 1383
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #70 on: 05/16/2017 07:25 PM »
Who knows what the Chinese think?
They, and just about everyone else in the region, have thei own perspective, much different from than the others.
China has policy about not allowing threat of any kind on its borders. Recently they've allowed critical views to be aired on the subject, where they never did before. And they have acted on that policy many times.

So already and for decades it has been against their stated interest to have North Korea act this way.

What they have lacked is the will and the initiative to remedy the policy oversight.

Quote
I'm still more concerned that a certain president decides that removing the (future) threat NK poses to his nation is worth the price the people in the region will have to pay for that.

He's an idiot elected by idiots for the benefits of an chosen to be idiotic party, who want idiotic things done. So clearly an idiotic reaction is to be expected. This has nothing to do with China, and there are many other competing idiotic games underway aimed at others. That's unfortunately irrelevant.

Quote
And then proceeds to find a justification to start the war. The drama has been toned down in the last days, but I'm not convinced. After all as long as the timing is right war is a tremendous way to get reelected....
Again, irrelevant. Such will find some stupid justification that the gullible will buy off on. Bread and circuses.

Quote
For some reason I doubt that the upcoming 6th(?) nuclear test is a great reason to suddenly be all gung-ho about forcible disarmament. Not that the 7th or 8th test are a better moment.
Bread and circuses.

Quote
Lewis thinks the emphasis on a "large and heavy" warhead in the propaganda is not so much about "Guess what, we don't need to miniaturize, we just use a bigger rocket." but rather hinting at a thermonuclear warhead.
I guess we'll find out with the next nuclear test. AFAIK most nuclear weapon states have made that step at this point in testing. - Which of course is not good news either.
You look at yield, delivery system specs, and operational deployment/targets. And response to that.

You don't let irrational behavior make you irrational.

The downsides of the current nonsense in DC is that it appears to weaken the US appearance, which invites new issues as many test to see if there's really a response.

The only benefit, weak as it is, is that China has to grow a pair and see that it has far more to lose than the US does. Which, getting back to China's stated long term policy, is exactly the problem, where it's been all along.

Ironically, both China and Russia have played up against a stable US with feints. With the US possible less stable, perhaps they need to act more responsibly like "adults" instead of "kids"? Perhaps we'll see.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #71 on: 05/18/2017 08:28 AM »
Warhead Reentry: What Could North Korea Learn from its Recent Missile Test?

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/warhead-reentry






Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3001
  • Liked: 513
  • Likes Given: 579
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #72 on: 05/18/2017 08:34 AM »
Who knows what the Chinese think?

I sure hope our (Western) intelligence agencies do know what Chinese think.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #73 on: 05/21/2017 09:37 AM »
North Korea seems to have fired another missile: S. Korean military

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2017/05/21/90/0401000000AEN20170521003000315F.html


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #74 on: 05/22/2017 08:40 AM »
Pukguksong-2 launch May 21, 2017


Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #75 on: 05/23/2017 02:55 PM »
Pukguksong 2 Launch - May 21st 2017 (Official KCTV broadcast)


« Last Edit: 05/23/2017 02:55 PM by K210 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #76 on: 05/24/2017 06:54 AM »
Whoa! They carried a camera in the nosecone. Got some great views of the Earth below.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #77 on: 05/24/2017 07:42 AM »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #78 on: 05/25/2017 09:40 PM »
The Pukguksong-2: Lowering the Bar on Combat Readiness?

http://38north.org/2017/05/pukguksong2_052517/


Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 384
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #79 on: 05/28/2017 05:49 PM »
According to observers the missiles fired were of S-300/Buk/HQ-9 equivalent type weapons class. The certification test was for a new not publicly named anti aircraft/missile guided weapons system. The anti aircraft/missile guided weapons system appears to be derivative in operating characteristics to the listed foreign systems above:

Published on May 28, 2017
Kim Jong Un watched the test of new-type anti-aircraft guided weapon system organized by the Academy of National Defence Science.
Full english article: http://exploredprk.com/press/kim-jong-un-watches-test-of-new-type-anti-aircraft-guided-weapon-system/

« Last Edit: 05/28/2017 06:01 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #80 on: 05/29/2017 07:40 AM »
Screen grabs. The video says the flight shows that faults in the system found last year have been fixed. An explosion is shown at the end of the flight, but we don't known if an actual intercept occurred beforehand.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #81 on: 05/29/2017 09:55 AM »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #82 on: 05/29/2017 11:24 AM »
From the article

"The flight distance is around 450 kilometers," Army Col. Roh Jae-cheon, the JCS's spokesman, told reporters. "It flew at an apogee of some 120 km."

This might be a Hwasong-6 (Scud C) which has a range of 500 km. The article says the anti aircraft missile launch was of a Pon'gae-5 (KN-06) and launched on Saturday (27 May).

"The North fired a mid-range missile, known as the Pukguksong-2, on May 21 and conducted a KN-06 surface-to-air guided missile test Saturday."
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #83 on: 05/29/2017 12:05 PM »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #84 on: 05/30/2017 08:40 AM »
KJU Guides latest ballistic missile launch

« Last Edit: 05/31/2017 01:57 PM by Websorber »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #85 on: 05/31/2017 06:05 AM »
The video was deleted by the user. This might be the same video.

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #86 on: 06/03/2017 06:38 PM »
North Korea Tested Its New Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile 3 Times in April 2017

http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/exclusive-north-korea-tested-its-new-intermediate-range-ballistic-missile-3-times-in-april-2017/



Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #87 on: 07/04/2017 06:54 AM »
North Korea claims successful test of intercontinental ballistic missile

Quote
David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said the initial assessments of the flight time and distance suggest the missile might have been launched on a “very highly lofted” trajectory of more than 2,800 km.

The same missile could reach a maximum range of roughly 6,700 km on a standard trajectory, Wright said in a blog post.

“That range would not be enough to reach the lower 48 states or the large islands of Hawaii, but would allow it to reach all of Alaska,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/04/north-korea-launches-ballistic-missile-japans-defence-ministry-says

Quote
The missile, referred to as Hwasong-14 on state TV, flew into waters east of the Korean Peninsula and may have landed in Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline, according to a Japanese defense official.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/03/asia/north-korea-missile-japan-waters/index.html
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 07:09 AM by Star One »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #88 on: 07/04/2017 08:59 AM »
North Korea Fires Inter Continental Ballistic Missile Hwasong 14


Offline dodo

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Germany
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #89 on: 07/04/2017 11:01 AM »
Please excuse the novice question, but an article today in CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/03/asia/north-korea-missile-japan-waters/index.html

claims figures of 930 Km range and 2500 Km altitude... aren't these numbers swapped?

The article keeps speaking of altitudes in the few thousand Km, which seems odd, and I wondered if it's constantly confusing range and altitude figures.

According to Wikipedia ("Flight phases"), a typical ICBM would reach an apogee of 1200 Km (which is 12 times over the Karman line, and still seems pretty high to me).

P.S.: Then again, if the range was 2500 Km, it would have landed in the middle of the Pacific, not in Japan's Economic Zone as claimed.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 11:08 AM by dodo »

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 540
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #90 on: 07/04/2017 11:10 AM »
Please excuse the novice question, but an article today in CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/03/asia/north-korea-missile-japan-waters/index.html

claims figures of 930 Km range and 2500 Km altitude... aren't these numbers swapped?

The article keeps speaking of altitudes in the few thousand Km, which seems odd, and I wondered if it's constantly confusing range and altitude figures.

According to Wikipedia ("Flight phases"), a typical ICBM would reach an apogee of 1200 Km (which is 12 times over the Karman line, and still seems pretty high to me).

Numbers are correct - missiles are sometimes launched on lofted trajectory in order not to openly announce their range for diplomatic reasons

In this case (Hwasong-14) estimated max range puts in into ICBM category

If you are interested in DPRK missile program, https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk posts a lot about DPRK missiles and is a good source
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 11:11 AM by Rebel44 »

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3086
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #91 on: 07/04/2017 07:30 PM »
Numbers are correct - missiles are sometimes launched on lofted trajectory in order not to openly announce their range for diplomatic reasons
IMO the diplomatic reason in this case is to avoid overflying neighbors or being mistaken for a real attack, not to obfuscate the capabilities. DPRK announced this as an ICBM, and they clearly want the world to believe they have that capability.

There may also be technical reasons: It's probably easier for them to track the whole flight, and it can be useful for testing RVs for future longer range missile.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
North Korea missiles
« Reply #92 on: 07/04/2017 08:41 PM »
Quote
If flown in a more typical trajectory, the missile would have easily traveled 4,000 miles, potentially putting all of Alaska within its range, according to former government officials and independent analysts. A missile that exceeds a range of 3,400 miles is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM.

“This is a big deal: It’s an ICBM, not a ‘kind of’ ICBM,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “And there’s no reason to think that this is going to be the maximum range.”

This bit caught my eye as I had been wondering about this.

Quote
While U.S. intelligence officials have sought, with some success, to disrupt North Korea’s progress, Pyongyang has achieved breakthroughs in multiple areas, including the development of solid-fuel rocket engines and mobile-launch capabilities, including rockets that can be fired from submarines. Early analysis suggests that the Hwasong-14 uses a new kind of indigenously built ballistic-missile engine, one that North Korea unveiled with fanfare on March 18. Nearly all the country’s ballistic missiles up until now used engines based on modifications of older, Soviet-era technology.

“It’s not a copy of a crappy Soviet engine, and it’s not a pair of Soviet engines kludged together — it’s the real thing,” Lewis said. “When they first unveiled the engine on March 18, they said that the ‘world would soon see what this means.’ I think we’re now seeing them take that basic engine design and execute it for an ICBM.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/experts-north-koreas-missile-was-a-real-icbm--and-a-grave-milestone/2017/07/04/554bb81e-60da-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_missile-explainer-145pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2703387024ce
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 08:43 PM by Star One »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #93 on: 07/04/2017 11:52 PM »
I have not seen any reference to staging, so this may have been a test of an ICBM first stage, albeit a small one.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #94 on: 07/04/2017 11:54 PM »
I have not seen any reference to staging, so this may have been a test of an ICBM first stage, albeit a small one.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to say a 6700 kilometer ICBM is a small one.

Online hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3086
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #95 on: 07/05/2017 02:46 AM »
I have not seen any reference to staging, so this may have been a test of an ICBM first stage, albeit a small one.
It pretty clearly looks like a two stage vehicle, likely closely related to the Hwasong-12 with an upper stage. See https://twitter.com/DaveSchmerler/status/882314478645166080

Another observer suggested 3 stages https://twitter.com/inbarspace/status/882328562463907842 but IMO the intertank explanation suggested in the replies makes much more sense.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2106
  • Canada
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 403
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #96 on: 07/05/2017 03:51 AM »
I have not seen any reference to staging, so this may have been a test of an ICBM first stage, albeit a small one.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to say a 6700 kilometer ICBM is a small one.

Think small as in the payload mass. Somewhat like the Minuteman is a small ICBM with 3 low yield precision warheads.

For the DPRK, a circular error radius of the warhead impact point of a few dozen kilometers is all that is needed. Enough for even a low yield air burst fission warhead as a city-buster over a large metropolitan area. They are not developing a counter-force weapon.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #97 on: 07/05/2017 04:32 AM »
Screen grabs of the 4 July flight of Hwasong-14. The last photo shows the engine configuration, a fixed large engine with four small verniers surrounding it.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 04:34 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lewis007

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1139
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #98 on: 07/05/2017 07:02 AM »
The same pics in better (although low-res) quality) from the KCNA website.

Offline ethan829

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #99 on: 07/05/2017 10:32 AM »
A few high-res shots from Ankit Panda on twitter https://twitter.com/nktpnd

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7689
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 4697
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #100 on: 07/05/2017 02:56 PM »
From Kim with his 4th of July wishes: "A gift for the American bastards"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/05/a-gift-for-the-american-bastards-north-koreas-kim-fires-back-at-trump

Hey Kim, don't set-up your desk in the middle of the road... Just sayin'
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 540
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #101 on: 07/05/2017 03:33 PM »
Video of launch:


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #102 on: 07/05/2017 08:41 PM »
Some analysis here.

North Korea Finally Tests an ICBM

Quote
As with most of North Korea’s recent long-range missile tests, this one used a so-called “lofted” trajectory to keep the missile from overflying neighboring countries while still demonstrating high performance. If the data is correct, preliminary trajectory reconstructions indicate that if the missile were fired on a more efficient trajectory it would reach a range of anywhere from 6,700 to 8,000 km. David Wright, who provided the 6,700 km figure, acknowledges that his early analysis did not include the effect of the Earth’s rotation and the performance would probably be higher if the missile were launched in an easterly direction. The United States, of course, is to the east of North Korea. By any standard, this is the performance of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.

Quote
Another key difference is that the upper stage and particularly the reentry vehicle have been reshaped. The original blunt reentry vehicle of the KN-14 has either been redesigned, or enclosed in a hollow payload fairing. A payload fairing would modestly improve the aerodynamics of the missile in early flight, giving a small increase in performance. Payload fairings on ICBMs are also used to cover multiple warheads and/or decoys and other penetration aids, but this missile does not have the performance to carry multiple warheads or more than a very minimal set of decoys.

Quote
It is probably reasonable to consider this missile a variant of the previously-displayed KN-14, rather than an entirely new missile. At a minimum, it is part of a common family with the KN-14 and KN-17. We can speculate on whether this test was successful or partially successful. It was probably at least partially successful. But we don’t know whether the North Koreans were hoping to reach a greater range. If their propaganda threats reflect their targeting plan, then they still can’t reach places like the US naval base in San Diego and certainly can’t come anywhere near the East Coast of the United States—at least not with this missile in its current form.

If it was only partially successful, that may mean the North Koreans have other homework to do, particularly if the missile didn’t reach its expected degree of accuracy. A missile needs to shut down its engine in a precisely-controlled fashion to hit even as large a target as a naval base or a city, and that needs to be tested. If instead the missile runs out of fuel even a few seconds early, another test is required. Irregular performance of the heat shield on the reentry vehicle is also common in early ICBM testing; it is rare for the warhead to actually burn up, but common for it to be thrown far off course. It will probably require additional testing to correct for that. If, in addition to a warhead, North Korea hopes to include even a minimal system of decoys and penetration aids, those will likely need a very extensive test program and may not be available in the first operational version of the missile.

Finally, a single test cannot demonstrate a missile’s reliability. And it isn’t just the missile’s reliability that needs to be demonstrated. The launch crews will need to demonstrate that they can reliably launch the missile on short notice, under combat conditions and possibly with US or South Korean missiles already on the way. They will need to train and practice operating the missile’s transporter and associated support systems at remote sites and conduct very hazardous propellant loading operations without the facilities of a missile test range. Having done this with some degree of success, once, under ideal conditions, doesn’t mean they can do it in the middle of a war tomorrow.

Quote
But it probably won’t take them more than a year or two to learn how to operate this missile reliably and accurately in combat, and to incorporate whatever design modifications or performance enhancements this test may call for. We had thought that we would have until perhaps early 2020 to prepare for a North Korean ICBM capability, but it turns out they were working on a different timetable. That has serious strategic, diplomatic and political implications for the very near future. For instance, starting today, US military commanders cannot be 100 percent certain that a war on the Korean peninsula won’t stretch at least as far as Hawaii or Alaska. Soon, US allies will wonder if this is going to affect US commitments to defense and stability in the region. And the US political leadership is going to have to figure out what to do about that.

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #103 on: 07/06/2017 07:41 AM »
Inside from North Korea
How the North Koreans experienced the ICBM launch



Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #104 on: 07/06/2017 04:41 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2004
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #105 on: 07/06/2017 04:51 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle

Using it as a development step and certainly propaganda!

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #106 on: 07/06/2017 04:52 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle

I read it as the measurement of North Korea's ballistic missile progress; everyone knows that the end goal is to reach the whole of the Continental United States.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #107 on: 07/06/2017 04:58 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle
It's a stepping stone. Think of how useless Apollo 8 was as a stand-alone mission but how vital it was in the context of the entire program and Space Race.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #108 on: 07/06/2017 05:34 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle

I read it as the measurement of North Korea's ballistic missile progress; everyone knows that the end goal is to reach the whole of the Continental United States.
I'm not sure I would say "everyone".  The general news media has long reported that North Korea might one day be able to target California, maybe (implying that the rest of the U.S. would be safe).  The general public is thus misinformed.  How many know that in the end it will be their own town or city under the gun? 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
North Korea missiles
« Reply #109 on: 07/06/2017 05:49 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle

I read it as the measurement of North Korea's ballistic missile progress; everyone knows that the end goal is to reach the whole of the Continental United States.
I'm not sure I would say "everyone".  The general news media has long reported that North Korea might one day be able to target California, maybe (implying that the rest of the U.S. would be safe).  The general public is thus misinformed.  How many know that in the end it will be their own town or city under the gun? 

 - Ed Kyle

If memory serves that article I posted actually answers your question by saying it's a developmental step.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2017 05:49 PM by Star One »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #110 on: 07/06/2017 05:57 PM »
I'm not sure I would say "everyone".  The general news media has long reported that North Korea might one day be able to target California, maybe (implying that the rest of the U.S. would be safe).  The general public is thus misinformed.  How many know that in the end it will be their own town or city under the gun? 

 - Ed Kyle

That's a fair point, and it sounds accurate based on the typical responses I've seen to each successive test. The General Public doesn't seem to have a good impression of the End Goal. 38 North has been making some progress towards giving an accurate assessment of the situation though.

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 914
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #111 on: 07/06/2017 05:57 PM »
Quote
Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.
http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/
This analysis, or something like it, has been repeated on all media.  I understand it is based on an analysis of the test flight trajectory, but it still makes absolutely no sense.  Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

 - Ed Kyle

I read it as the measurement of North Korea's ballistic missile progress; everyone knows that the end goal is to reach the whole of the Continental United States.
I'm not sure I would say "everyone".  The general news media has long reported that North Korea might one day be able to target California, maybe (implying that the rest of the U.S. would be safe).  The general public is thus misinformed.  How many know that in the end it will be their own town or city under the gun? 

 - Ed Kyle

For North Korea to have an effective nuclear deterrence against the United States they need to be able to hit at least one city. Anchorage, Alaska has a population of nearly 300,000. That's a suitable target. So, this latest missile is good enough once North Korea develops a warhead small enough to fit on it. It's possible they could hit Hawaii too.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #112 on: 07/06/2017 05:59 PM »
Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"?
Symbol/gesture of defiance/desperation. To bloody something of America. Still fighting the armistice. Megalomania.

A free hand to utilize its economy and conventional forces with greater flexibility; North Korea has a lot less to lose, and any reaction to North Korean aggression risks escalating to nuclear war. Putin calls the strategy "nuclear de-escalation."

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3210
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #113 on: 07/06/2017 06:13 PM »
A free hand to utilize its economy and conventional forces with greater flexibility; North Korea has a lot less to lose, and any reaction to North Korean aggression risks escalating to nuclear war. Putin calls the strategy "nuclear de-escalation."
But isn't the converse also true, that any North Korean aggression, or even a hint of potential aggression, risks escalating to nuclear war?  As far as I can see, that is now the end game for any conflict on the peninsula, no matter who starts the fight. 

That's all I'm going to say about this today.  It's bumming me out!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/06/2017 06:15 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #114 on: 07/06/2017 06:23 PM »
A free hand to utilize its economy and conventional forces with greater flexibility; North Korea has a lot less to lose, and any reaction to North Korean aggression risks escalating to nuclear war. Putin calls the strategy "nuclear de-escalation."
But isn't the converse also true, that any North Korean aggression, or even a hint of potential aggression, risks escalating to nuclear war?  As far as I can see, that is now the end game for any conflict on the peninsula, no matter who starts the fight. 

That's all I'm going to say about this today.  It's bumming me out!

 - Ed Kyle

No worries, it's a depressing subject.  :(

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #115 on: 07/06/2017 06:50 PM »
Is it me or does this article make a howler of an error by failing to note that the Hwasong-14 uses a new first stage engine or have I misread it?

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/this-is-not-the-icbm-you-are-looking-for-detailed-analysis-of-north-korean-missile/

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 712
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #116 on: 07/06/2017 07:23 PM »
Is it me or does this article make a howler of an error by failing to note that the Hwasong-14 uses a new first stage engine or have I misread it?

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/this-is-not-the-icbm-you-are-looking-for-detailed-analysis-of-north-korean-missile/

I think you're right. The article makes no reference to the new engine. He seems fairly dead set on saying this missile's development is not significant.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #117 on: 07/06/2017 07:25 PM »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #118 on: 07/06/2017 08:26 PM »
Is it me or does this article make a howler of an error by failing to note that the Hwasong-14 uses a new first stage engine or have I misread it?

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/this-is-not-the-icbm-you-are-looking-for-detailed-analysis-of-north-korean-missile/

The entire point of the article is that the first stage is not actually new, but rather the same engine as Hwasong 10 with two additional verniers. Moreover, using the Russian R-27 missile for comparison, he argues that the missile is only capable of launching a very small payload, and the payload cannot reach Hawaii.

My opinion is that if you assume use of the 4D10 engine in the first stage, albeit it with 4 verniers, then everything fits. I would assume the small upper stage would use a cluster of those same verniers, as Scud technology is too inefficient (low ISP). I believe that the Iranians also cluster the same verniers in one of their upper stages. My dim recollection is that the Iranian satellite launcher is probably a clone of this NK ICBM.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2017 08:45 PM by Danderman »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #119 on: 07/06/2017 08:28 PM »
North Korea’s Hwasong-14 Missile Launch Site Identified: The Panghyon Aircraft Factory

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/panghyon070617/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29

I'd say his argument is nonsense as has been explained in other articles it clearly does have a new engine.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #120 on: 07/06/2017 08:34 PM »
Why would North Korea expend so much national treasure developing a missile that can only reach "Alaska"? 

Another step in a series of increasingly potent missiles that got revealed so far. This missile was not in the parade. Even if we say it was represented by one of the containers that leaves one more mystery missile.

The usual armscontrolwonk suspects are currently modeling the missile from the footage. Looks like the first stage is not just a Hwasong-12, it is larger in diameter. They are trying to calculate the maximum range which seems to be higher than demonstrated. If their model pans out that would be interesting.
Another aspect is the RV design, this one used a shroud which was not expected. I'm not exactly sure what the implications of that are.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7689
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 4697
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #121 on: 07/06/2017 09:26 PM »
Folks shouldn't get too fixated on the range of the missile in that can "only" hit Alaska/Canada which would devastating enough. This is a weapon of terror and thus serves a purpose to Kim. That aside, a threat that gets little attention is the damage caused by a high attitude detonation via EMP to satellites and other sensitive electronics... It "may" also explain the unusual trajectory of extreme altitude vs downrange in test... In other words taking-out "communications, eyes and ears"...
« Last Edit: 07/07/2017 03:37 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online Torlek

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #122 on: 07/07/2017 03:07 AM »
The usual armscontrolwonk suspects are currently modeling the missile from the footage. Looks like the first stage is not just a Hwasong-12, it is larger in diameter. They are trying to calculate the maximum range which seems to be higher than demonstrated. If their model pans out that would be interesting.
Another aspect is the RV design, this one used a shroud which was not expected. I'm not exactly sure what the implications of that are.
The most obvious implication of this one having a payload shroud would be that it could have a countermeasure suite of some kind (maybe along the lines of the British Chevaline system).

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #123 on: 07/07/2017 07:11 AM »
North Korea’s Hwasong-14 Missile Launch Site Identified: The Panghyon Aircraft Factory

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/panghyon070617/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29

I'd say his argument is nonsense as has been explained in other articles it clearly does have a new engine.

Other than images of engine tests of a 4 vernier engine, what proof is there that this is not a re-work of the 4D10 engine?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #124 on: 07/07/2017 07:16 AM »
The article mentioned above makes a fairly compelling argument that the flight profile described for the test fits a R-27 derived first stage and a second stage that masses about the same as what R-27 could carry.

More to the point, the 2nd stage shown in the launch images is tiny in comparison to the first stage, such a configuration lends itself to high range, low payload flights, as typified by Atlas F-Burner missions. The question is why the mismatch between stages if the intent is to develop an ICBM?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2017 10:14 PM by Danderman »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #125 on: 07/07/2017 11:11 AM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #126 on: 07/07/2017 12:44 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....

Is it possible assistance has been given the area of engine development?

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #127 on: 07/07/2017 03:40 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....

Is it possible assistance has been given the area of engine development?

Maybe. Without any verified specs it is impossible to tell.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #128 on: 07/07/2017 10:05 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

« Last Edit: 07/07/2017 10:13 PM by Danderman »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #129 on: 07/08/2017 05:00 PM »
Hwasong 14 Contributors Arrive to Pyongyang


Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #130 on: 07/08/2017 06:37 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).

North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #131 on: 07/08/2017 09:47 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).

North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.

Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.

You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.

The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.

One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
North Korea missiles
« Reply #132 on: 07/08/2017 10:22 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).

North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.

Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.

You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.

The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.

One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.

That's a bit of a poor argument as it can easily be turned round and asked of you what evidence do you have for certain that they don't have a new engine. All you're presenting above is suppositions which are no better than what you are accusing the OP of.

It's effectively you saying my guesswork is better than yours.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2017 10:26 PM by Star One »

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Member
  • Posts: 80
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #133 on: 07/08/2017 11:01 PM »
And most of Europe is in range. don't forget that. Personally, I think his few bombs would be most effective at striking Moscow and other Russian cities, maybe Bejing too. Why? Because in the chaos that follows Russia might let loose in every direction.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #134 on: 07/08/2017 11:42 PM »
On the contrary. It is commonly agreed that Hwasong 10 uses R-27 technology for its engine. R-27 has a 25 ton class engine.

It is fairly obvious from photos that Hwasong 14 is comparable to Hwasong 10, as they seem to share a TEL.

That tells us that Hwasong 14 uses the same class engine as Hwasong 14, albeit with minor modifications.

Still waiting for proof of that 80 ton class engine.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #135 on: 07/08/2017 11:43 PM »
With a throw weight of 650 kg, including the mass of the second stage, not so much.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #136 on: 07/09/2017 04:48 AM »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #137 on: 07/09/2017 12:25 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).

North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.

Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.

You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.

The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.

One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.

In September 2016 North Korea claimed they had tested a 80 ton thrust rocket engine. Analysis of the blast scar at the test stand showed that the engine was indeed significantly more powerful than anything NK had tested before. Here is a link to a report by a expert: http://www.38north.org/2016/09/jschilling092116/

I have doubts that a 25 ton thrust engine could be used to power a icbm given the fact that the 1000 Km range Rodong missile is powered by a less efficient but more powerful 27 ton thrust engine. It is likely NK used the experience gained from the R-27 engine to build their own engines based on a more simpler gas generator cycle.

Also it is worth noting that iran may also be involved either through direct technical assistance or financing as they  recently have alluded to a new family of rockets powered by a 80 ton thrust engine.

Either way it is impossible for anyone outside north korea to say with 100% confidence what NK is up to. All we can do is study information avaliable and come to our own conclusions.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #138 on: 07/09/2017 12:33 PM »
On the contrary. It is commonly agreed that Hwasong 10 uses R-27 technology for its engine. R-27 has a 25 ton class engine.

It is fairly obvious from photos that Hwasong 14 is comparable to Hwasong 10, as they seem to share a TEL.

That tells us that Hwasong 14 uses the same class engine as Hwasong 14, albeit with minor modifications.

Still waiting for proof of that 80 ton class engine.

Hwasong-14 is quite a bit taller and wider than hwasong-10. Hwasong-14 also seems to have provision for MIRV capability according to onboard camera footage realised by NK. My guess is they have taken the hwasong-10 design and improved upon it with new engines and a second stage to create a entry level icbm. Also if NK's claim of being able to carry a "heavy nuclear warhead" is true then it is possible they have increased the payload to 1-2 tons like most other icbms.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
North Korea missiles
« Reply #139 on: 07/09/2017 05:31 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).

North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.

Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.

You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.

The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.

One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.

In September 2016 North Korea claimed they had tested a 80 ton thrust rocket engine. Analysis of the blast scar at the test stand showed that the engine was indeed significantly more powerful than anything NK had tested before. Here is a link to a report by a expert: http://www.38north.org/2016/09/jschilling092116/

I have doubts that a 25 ton thrust engine could be used to power a icbm given the fact that the 1000 Km range Rodong missile is powered by a less efficient but more powerful 27 ton thrust engine. It is likely NK used the experience gained from the R-27 engine to build their own engines based on a more simpler gas generator cycle.

Also it is worth noting that iran may also be involved either through direct technical assistance or financing as they  recently have alluded to a new family of rockets powered by a 80 ton thrust engine.

Either way it is impossible for anyone outside north korea to say with 100% confidence what NK is up to. All we can do is study information avaliable and come to our own conclusions.

Your third paragraph is the key here as I wouldn't be surprised if assistance hadn't been given considering how they've managed to catch the world out with this missile.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2017 05:32 PM by Star One »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #140 on: 07/09/2017 07:29 PM »
On the contrary. It is commonly agreed that Hwasong 10 uses R-27 technology for its engine. R-27 has a 25 ton class engine.

It is fairly obvious from photos that Hwasong 14 is comparable to Hwasong 10, as they seem to share a TEL.

That tells us that Hwasong 14 uses the same class engine as Hwasong 14, albeit with minor modifications.

Still waiting for proof of that 80 ton class engine.

Hwasong-14 is quite a bit taller and wider than hwasong-10. Hwasong-14 also seems to have provision for MIRV capability according to onboard camera footage realised by NK. My guess is they have taken the hwasong-10 design and improved upon it with new engines and a second stage to create a entry level icbm. Also if NK's claim of being able to carry a "heavy nuclear warhead" is true then it is possible they have increased the payload to 1-2 tons like most other icbms.

Is Hwasong 14 so much taller and wider than Hwasong 10 that it represents an increase from a 25 ton class to an 80 ton missile?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #141 on: 07/09/2017 07:32 PM »
It is highly likely the first stage engine used on Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-12 is a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine north korea tested in september 2016. Furthermore by studying the launch images you can see the second stage is rather small. It is possible north korea may stretch the upper stage down the track and achieve greater payload/range. If some improvements are made to the design the hwasong-14 could easily be made into a 10,000 Km class icbm which would put pretty much the entire world into range.

Given the rapid progress NK has made with rocket engine technology i think the world is in for quite a surprise when they reveal their new LV.....


Is there any proof that this engine has 80 tons of thrust? Could you compare this engine with that used by Hwasong 10? Is that also an 80 ton thrust engine?

For comparison, the R-27 engine (4D10) is a 25 ton engine.  The alleged ICBM tested a few days ago is clearly close to R-27 in dimensions; if it were equipped with an 80 ton engine, it would have accelerated much more quickly than the videos indicate.

Do you have better estimates of the size and mass of Hwasong-14?

My view is that the many years that have passed since the introduction of R-27 technology into the NK missile program tells us that their progress has been slow.

The engine used on the hwasong-12 and hwasong-14 is probably a derivative of the 80 ton thrust engine they are developing for their new SLV. For ICBM application they have probably lowered the thrust to 40-60 tons level and added some steering engines. It is likely NK has scrapped the R-27 engines completely at this point given how unreliable they have proven (90% of tests were failures in 2016).

North korea seems to be moving beyond using left overs from the soviet union and developing their own tech from the ground up. At least that is what it looks like from the outside.

Again, you are asserting that NK has an 80 ton thrust engine with no proof. I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot accept an analysis based on a feeling.

You do seem to admit that the Hwasong 10 uses the 4D10 derived engine, which is a 25 ton class engine. Therefore, you should understand that it is unlikely that Hwasong 12 and 14 have an engine that is significantly more powerful, since all three missiles are roughly the same size.

The more likely scenario is that the Hwasong 10 failures were symptoms of teething pains for R-27 based technology, and as time passes and more tests were conducted, the technicians fixed some of the problems.

One further note: the much larger Unha satellite launcher uses 4 Scud class engines clustered in the first stage. NK is probably going to have to either cluster the R-27 engine or seriously upgrade it to generate an ICBM with a usable payload and usable range.

In September 2016 North Korea claimed they had tested a 80 ton thrust rocket engine. Analysis of the blast scar at the test stand showed that the engine was indeed significantly more powerful than anything NK had tested before. Here is a link to a report by a expert: http://www.38north.org/2016/09/jschilling092116/

I have doubts that a 25 ton thrust engine could be used to power a icbm given the fact that the 1000 Km range Rodong missile is powered by a less efficient but more powerful 27 ton thrust engine. It is likely NK used the experience gained from the R-27 engine to build their own engines based on a more simpler gas generator cycle.

Also it is worth noting that iran may also be involved either through direct technical assistance or financing as they  recently have alluded to a new family of rockets powered by a 80 ton thrust engine.

Either way it is impossible for anyone outside north korea to say with 100% confidence what NK is up to. All we can do is study information avaliable and come to our own conclusions.

The alleged 80 ton engine test fired by NK did not have verniers, whereas Hwasong 14 has 4. Clearly not the same engine.


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11346
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2470
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #142 on: 07/10/2017 08:11 AM »
The alleged 80 ton engine test fired by NK did not have verniers, whereas Hwasong 14 has 4. Clearly not the same engine.

The engine tested last March clearly has verniers. I'm not sure which "80 ton" (785 kN) engine test fire you are referring to.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/28/asia-pacific/north-korea-carried-another-rocket-engine-test-possibly-icbm-u-s-officials/
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #143 on: 07/11/2017 06:51 AM »
What is True and Not True About North Korea’s Hwasong-14 ICBM: A Technical Evaluation

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling071017/


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #144 on: 07/11/2017 10:10 AM »
The alleged 80 ton engine test fired by NK did not have verniers, whereas Hwasong 14 has 4. Clearly not the same engine.

The engine tested last March clearly has verniers. I'm not sure which "80 ton" (785 kN) engine test fire you are referring to.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/28/asia-pacific/north-korea-carried-another-rocket-engine-test-possibly-icbm-u-s-officials/

I am looking at the left  image from the 38 North article

« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 10:11 AM by Danderman »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #145 on: 07/11/2017 10:24 AM »
The drawing of Hwasong 14 shows the first stage to essentially have the same dimensions as Hwasong 10, which is a poor copy of R-27.

More to the point, having a tiny upper stage tells us that this is not intended as an ICBM, but rather a missile capable of long range, with a small payload. ICBMs, with few exceptions, are designed so that the second stage has a significant fraction of the mass of the first stage. On the other hand, two stage satellite launchers designed for GTO missions typically have a large first stage and relatively small upper stage, which provides max range/velocity.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #146 on: 07/11/2017 10:26 AM »
https://www.rt.com/news/395791-north-korea-russia-un/

Russia claims they monitored the launch, and it was not an ICBM.  Rather than hand wave away their data, it may be the case that they only "saw" the first stage, so what is in the chart is first stage performance.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2017 10:29 AM by Danderman »

Offline RLA

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #147 on: 07/11/2017 06:57 PM »
On the contrary. It is commonly agreed that Hwasong 10 uses R-27 technology for its engine. R-27 has a 25 ton class engine.

It is fairly obvious from photos that Hwasong 14 is comparable to Hwasong 10, as they seem to share a TEL.

That tells us that Hwasong 14 uses the same class engine as Hwasong 14, albeit with minor modifications.

Still waiting for proof of that 80 ton class engine.
I'm very skeptical about the whole R-27 theory about the first stage main engine, not only it would having not enough trust for building a serious ICBM, but also with the key fact North Korea can't make the first stage of the R-27 reliable.

We can't proof it 100% but I still hold on the realistic possibility that North Korea is having it's own spin-off of the RD-250 engine, besides it can deliver 80 tons of trust, it would also being an improvement in performance if they using UDMH - N2O4

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #148 on: 07/12/2017 05:36 AM »
What is clear is that Hwasong 14 is comprised of Hwasong 12 as a first stage, with Hwasong 13 as a tiny second stage. And Hwasong 12 is Hwasong 10 with 2 extra verniers.

A claim that NK has access to RD-250 class engines would have to be accompanied by evidence that EnergoMash is doing business with NK.

Offline RLA

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #149 on: 07/13/2017 07:03 PM »
What is clear is that Hwasong 14 is comprised of Hwasong 12 as a first stage, with Hwasong 13 as a tiny second stage. And Hwasong 12 is Hwasong 10 with 2 extra verniers.

A claim that NK has access to RD-250 class engines would have to be accompanied by evidence that EnergoMash is doing business with NK.
Very interesting, do you have some sources where there is a link between Energomash and NK?

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2004
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #150 on: 07/13/2017 08:33 PM »
What is clear is that Hwasong 14 is comprised of Hwasong 12 as a first stage, with Hwasong 13 as a tiny second stage. And Hwasong 12 is Hwasong 10 with 2 extra verniers.

This is quite far from clear. If Hwasong-12 and Hwasong-14 share the same diameter of the first stage, the Hwasong-14 first stage is shorter than the Hwasong-12.

Interesting is, that both missiles are about the same length, if we assume the same diameter for the first stage.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2017 08:34 PM by Skyrocket »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #151 on: 07/14/2017 06:45 AM »
Concerning EnergoMash and NK, obviously there is no link. NK uses knock-offs of Issue engines.

As far as the Hwasong 14 first stage vs Hwasong 12, there may be quibbles about how close they are in size, but there is no doubt they are in the same class.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #152 on: 07/14/2017 03:24 PM »
Via the armscontrolwonks podcast the HS-14 measured to ~1.9m diameter which is a larger than the HS-12. Thrust for the HS-12 was estimated at ~47 tons, structural mass under 7%. They made a range estimate for the HS-14 of up to 9500km and the case for 10000km because hitting NY is a real objective.

I hope that we'll get a written posting but events will postpone that. KCTV released the to celebrate the HS-14 launch which had a whole treasure trove of previously not seen images and video running as stage background...

Dave Schmerler posted screen captures of most of them here.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #153 on: 07/16/2017 04:11 AM »
A lot of assertions in the armscontrolwonk assessment with not much evidence.

Structural mass of only 7 percent for a roadmobile missile would involve integration of a certain amount of magic.

Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that such a missile would be fitted with a tiny upper stage, if the HS14 missile were that magical, it could carry a Scud class upper stage like Unha. Unha was known to cluster 4 Scud engines in the first stage to be able to carry a Scud as a second stage plus a third stage similar to the HS14 second stage. But HS14 did not use a real second stage, just a small tweaker stage.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #154 on: 07/16/2017 04:15 AM »
What is going on here is that analysts arguing that HS14 is a real ICBM have to assume facts that are not in evidence, either wonderful mass ratios or really big new engines.

Occam's Razor tells us that HS14 is merely a Russian R-27 knockoff with four instead of 2 verniers in the first stage, plus a tiny second stage using two of those verniers as main engines.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #155 on: 07/16/2017 07:15 AM »
What is going on here is that analysts arguing that HS14 is a real ICBM have to assume facts that are not in evidence, either wonderful mass ratios or really big new engines.

Occam's Razor tells us that HS14 is merely a Russian R-27 knockoff with four instead of 2 verniers in the first stage, plus a tiny second stage using two of those verniers as main engines.
Yet it can be argued you also have no real evidence to back up that assertion just educated supposition. TBH all such analysis at this stage is somewhat pointless when dealing with this topic and in the absence of further data is just causing this thread to eat it's own tail.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2017 07:20 AM by Star One »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #156 on: 07/16/2017 10:27 AM »
What is going on here is that analysts arguing that HS14 is a real ICBM have to assume facts that are not in evidence, either wonderful mass ratios or really big new engines.

Occam's Razor tells us that HS14 is merely a Russian R-27 knockoff with four instead of 2 verniers in the first stage, plus a tiny second stage using two of those verniers as main engines.

There is evidence that HS-14 is a icbm. If NK had fired the missile with a max apogee of 500 Km rather then 2,800 km then it would have flown around 6700 km which is well within icbm range.

I really get the feeling the NK has used the musadan missile to get a handle on longer range missiles. In the 90s when NK first test fired the Rodong missile analysts thought it had a cluster of four scud engines when in reality it had a single Nodong engine. The Nodong engine is pretty much a upgraded scud engine with double the thrust of a regular scud engine. NK has historically taken foreign tech and improved on it over time. Perhaps they have done the same with the R-27 engine. They could have taken the design and tweaked it to increase thrust and/or ISP.

Either way i don't think it is even possible for a 25 ton thrust engine to power a icbm. The musadan was barely able to fly 3000km with R-27 tech dont know how it would suddenly become icbm capable unless some serious improvements have been made.

It will be interesting to see what the north koreans do now that they now have a working icbm. The second stage of this missile seems to be underpowered maybe we will see a upgraded HS-14 sometime in the future.....

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7289
  • UK
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #157 on: 07/16/2017 11:13 AM »
What is going on here is that analysts arguing that HS14 is a real ICBM have to assume facts that are not in evidence, either wonderful mass ratios or really big new engines.

Occam's Razor tells us that HS14 is merely a Russian R-27 knockoff with four instead of 2 verniers in the first stage, plus a tiny second stage using two of those verniers as main engines.

There is evidence that HS-14 is a icbm. If NK had fired the missile with a max apogee of 500 Km rather then 2,800 km then it would have flown around 6700 km which is well within icbm range.

I really get the feeling the NK has used the musadan missile to get a handle on longer range missiles. In the 90s when NK first test fired the Rodong missile analysts thought it had a cluster of four scud engines when in reality it had a single Nodong engine. The Nodong engine is pretty much a upgraded scud engine with double the thrust of a regular scud engine. NK has historically taken foreign tech and improved on it over time. Perhaps they have done the same with the R-27 engine. They could have taken the design and tweaked it to increase thrust and/or ISP.

Either way i don't think it is even possible for a 25 ton thrust engine to power a icbm. The musadan was barely able to fly 3000km with R-27 tech dont know how it would suddenly become icbm capable unless some serious improvements have been made.

It will be interesting to see what the north koreans do now that they now have a working icbm. The second stage of this missile seems to be underpowered maybe we will see a upgraded HS-14 sometime in the future.....

The problem I have with those saying this is old technology is that they don't seem to be allowing for the possibility that they have had covert assistance from other nations. I was under the impression that Iran was suspected of giving them assistance in this area?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #158 on: 07/17/2017 01:44 AM »
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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #159 on: 07/17/2017 01:48 AM »
The evidence that HS14 is not a real ICBM is that it is in the same class as HS10, and therefore too small to carry a useful payload a long distance. The second stage is only 6 feet long.

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #160 on: 07/17/2017 06:10 AM »
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.

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.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #161 on: 07/17/2017 08:37 AM »
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.
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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #162 on: 07/17/2017 09:18 AM »
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.

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.

You assert that using a 25 ton thrust engine would preclude use of a second stage.

Note that the Vanguard launcher had a 15 ton thrust engine in the first stage and was able to carry a second and third stage. I believe that the Electron LV is not much larger than 25 tons and it seems to have a second stage. I had an Estes rocket that had 10 newtons of thrust in the first stage, and it had a second stage. There is no correlation between first stage thrust and ability to carry a second stage.

There is a correlation between first stage mass and second stage mass for an ICBM. Hwasong 14 falls outside of any known ICBM by that criteria.

Why I am so adamant that Hwasong 14 is related to HS10? I have seen no evidence that these are not in the same class in terms of size. If you have evidence that HS14 is significantly larger than Hwasong 14, please share.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #163 on: 07/17/2017 09:21 AM »
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.
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.

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.

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #164 on: 07/17/2017 09:31 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.
I don't see how you can consider the HS-10 engine mature; the last three HS-10 tests all failed, and they've still only had one unambiguous success.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #165 on: 07/17/2017 03:00 PM »
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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #166 on: 07/17/2017 03:35 PM »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 07/17/2017 03:42 PM by Danderman »

Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #167 on: 07/19/2017 08:33 PM »
US intelligence shows North Korean preparations for a possible missile test

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/19/politics/north-korea-possible-missile-test/index.html


Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #168 on: 07/21/2017 07:58 AM »

Offline K210

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #169 on: 07/21/2017 02:45 PM »
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.

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.

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/north-koreas-hwasong-12-missile-stepping-stone-icbm/

The article above backs up a lot of my points. According to frame by frame analysis the thrust of the HS-12 engines is around 50 tons not 25. Furthermore the central engine has a exhaust which means it is not a closed cycle engine like the R-27.

There are also design similarities between the march 18 missle engine and the 80 ton thrust SLV engine NK tested in September 2016. Most likely this new missile engine is a spinoff of their 80 ton SLV engine.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 02:46 PM by K210 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #170 on: 07/22/2017 08:25 AM »
The analysis starts with the assumption that the vehicle mass is 30 tons, and derives values from that assumption. They don't say where they get the 30 ton figure from.

Moreover, they claim that HS12 was fueled elsewhere and moved to the launch location. That seems a little odd to me.

They do admit that HS12 uses the HS10 TEL, without understanding what that implies for estimating HS12 size. If HS10  is derived from R-27, then so is HS12.

They claim that HS12 can carry 500kg a distance of 4500 km. In comparison, R-27 could carry 650 kg for 3000 km. I am not understanding how HS12 is not an R-27 class missile.

Offline Comet

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #171 on: 07/22/2017 08:40 PM »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9484
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: North Korea missiles
« Reply #172 on: 07/24/2017 07:04 AM »
Are there similar scale drawings for HS10?