NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => Suborbital Missions => Topic started by: Blackstar on 04/24/2016 08:34 PM

Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Blackstar 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# (http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/pictorial/index.html?issue_id=IC20161359&issue_div=all&template=7394?c88b56a0#)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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/ (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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/24/2016 06:41 PM
Preparations for North Korean Missile Test Caught on Satellite Imagery

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

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAUNcCV3hOg
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/25/2016 10:06 PM
Named "Polaris"... How original... ???
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/25/2016 10:31 PM
Named "Polaris"... How original... ???
That is a rough translation
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science 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"...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Comet on 08/26/2016 11:24 PM
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Comet on 08/26/2016 11:25 PM
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Finn 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Phillip Clark 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2016/10/16/26/0301000000AEN20161016000254315F.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDDb-m0r7cc

(http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2016/10/16/AEN20161016000254315_02_i.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: catdlr 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 10/27/2016 09:42 AM
Did North Korea just test missiles capable of hitting the U.S.? Maybe.

http://tinyurl.com/hcm6wzg (http://tinyurl.com/hcm6wzg)

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/10/26/Foreign/Images/Kusong-RGB-10_20-annotated1477495931.jpg?uuid=X-tPvpuREea1UrH4XkhAhg)

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/10/Kusong-GIF-NIR-annotated1.gif)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Hog 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."
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/an-upcoming-missile-launch-by-north-korea)

(http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Musudan-flight-path-6-16-768x432.jpg)
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.


(http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/traj-from-Kusong.jpg)
Fig. 2 The path a 3,000 km range test could follow from Kusong
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 11/08/2016 10:11 PM
Flashback to the Past: North Korea’s “New” Extended-Range Scud

http://38north.org/2016/11/scuder110816/ (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 (http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Scud-ER-110816_Schiller_Schmucker.pdf)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 12/22/2016 12:41 PM
North Korea’s Musudan Missile: A Performance Assessment

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Fig1_KCNA-16-0621-Test-Launch1.jpg)
Figure 1. BM-25/Musudan test launch claimed on June 21, 2016.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Fig2_SavelsbergKiessling.jpg)
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.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Fig3_SavelsbergKiessling.jpg)
Figure 3. Estimated Musudan drag coefficients as a function of Mach-number, with and without grid fins.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Table1_SavelsbergKiessling-300x117.jpg)
Table 1. Parameters of the R-27 and derived parameters for the baseline Musudan

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Table2_SavelsbergKiessling-300x162.jpg)
Table 2. Musudan models used in the simulations.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Fig4_SavelsbergKiessling.jpg)
Figure 4. Maximum altitude on lofted trajectories over a distance of 400 km as a function of the payload.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Fig5_SavelsbergKiessling.jpg)
Figure 5. Missile range as a function of the payload.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Fig6_SavelsbergKiessling.jpg)
Figure 6. Area covered by the baseline Musudan when launched from Wonsan.

Great in-depth article bij 38north.org

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/01/01/0200000000AEN20170101003000315.html?input=rss)

(http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2017/01/01/AEN20170101003000315_01_i.jpg)

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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 01/04/2017 11:02 AM
North Korean Underground Facility: Probably Not a Ballistic Missile Silo

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig1_Pumyong-Update-17-01031-990x742.jpg)
Figure 1. Overview of installation at Pumyong-dong.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig2_Pumyong-Update-17-0103-990x742.jpg)
Figure 2. Construction of the Pumyong-dong installation in November 2002

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig3_Pumyong-Update-17-0103-990x742.jpg)
Figure 3. Construction of the Pumyong-dong installation in March 2011

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig4_Pumyong-Update-17-0103-990x742.jpg)
Figure 4. The support area at Pumyong-dong in November 2002.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig5_Pumyong-Update-17-0103-990x742.jpg)
Figure 5. The road bridge and power sub-station at Pumyong-dong in November 2002.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig6_Pumyong-Update-17-0103.jpg)
Figure 6. Typical North Korean silo covers.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 01/13/2017 06:13 AM
How Might North Korea Test an ICBM?

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/unha-3ap.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Missiles-2015-KCNA-AFP-300x198.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 01/28/2017 08:14 AM
Can the US Prevent North Korea from Testing an ICBM?

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig1_Elleman-17-0127-1024x545.jpg)
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.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fig2_Elleman-17-0127-1024x666.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Olaf on 02/12/2017 07:39 AM
North Korea Fires Ballistic Missile
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201702121050586681-dprk-testfire-ballistic-missile/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (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,"

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 02/12/2017 09:40 PM
North Korea’s February Missile Launch

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/north-koreas-february-missile-launch (http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/north-koreas-february-missile-launch)

(http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/KN-11-test.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (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.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 02/13/2017 07:48 AM
Launch of Pukguksong-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVlzoPsFBQ
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 02/18/2017 10:39 PM
Finding the Real Site for the Pukguksong-2 Launch

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig1_Iha-ri-17-0211-AIR-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig2_Iha-ri-17-0211-AIR-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig3_Iha-ri-17-0211-AIR-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig6_KCTV-1024x777.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig7_KCTV-1024x783.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig8_KCNA-1024x669.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig9_KCTV-1024x779.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig10_KCTV-1024x727.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Fig11_KCNA-1024x669.jpg)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/03/06/0200000000AEN20170306001154315.html?input=rss)

(http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2017/03/06/AEN20170306001154315_01_i.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 03/07/2017 10:51 AM
North Korea says latest missile launch was training for strike on U.S. bases in Japan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LztweArR9hM
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGkjVtunJt8
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 03/08/2017 04:47 AM
Looks like Scud derivatives.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 03/08/2017 02:18 PM
Looks like Scud derivatives.

Missiles launched are ER-SCUD
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 03/16/2017 07:24 AM
Did North Korea test a fifth missile last week?

https://www.nknews.org/pro/did-north-korea-test-a-fifth-missile-last-week/?platform=hootsuite (https://www.nknews.org/pro/did-north-korea-test-a-fifth-missile-last-week/?platform=hootsuite)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/1.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/2.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/4-657x360.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/5.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/6-657x360.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/7.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/8-478x376.png)

(https://www.nknews.org/pro/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/9-1-768x521.png)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Lewis007 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

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 03/28/2017 07:45 AM
North Korea tests another rocket engine

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-usa-idUSKBN16Y2PY (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-usa-idUSKBN16Y2PY)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/03/2017 05:51 PM
Possible Evidence of the Failed March 22 Missile Test

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

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/05/2017 06:40 AM
North Korea fires ballistic missile into eastern waters

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/04/05/0200000000AEN20170405002353315.html?input=rss (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/04/05/0200000000AEN20170405002353315.html?input=rss)

(http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2017/04/05/AEN20170405002353315_02_i.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Satori on 04/16/2017 10:29 AM
North Korea missile launched from Sinpo at 2120UTC on April 15 failed shortly after launch.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/16/2017 10:53 AM
Here are the missiles North Korea just showed off, one by one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/15/here-are-the-missiles-north-korea-just-showed-off-one-by-one/?utm_term=.b13abea99655 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/15/here-are-the-missiles-north-korea-just-showed-off-one-by-one/?utm_term=.b13abea99655)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 04/16/2017 02:11 PM
First one is a Russian Topol, used as comparison.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/19/2017 09:24 PM
NorthKorea's Missile Launch Why Did It 'Immediately' Blow

youtu.be/nXor38gvUtM  (http://youtu.be/nXor38gvUtM)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/21/2017 08:52 PM
How to Hack and Not Hack a Missile

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Missile-Test-1024x428.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/25/2017 05:41 AM
Understanding North Korea’s Missile Tests

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/understanding-north-koreas-missile-tests (http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/understanding-north-koreas-missile-tests/?platform=hootsuite)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/26/2017 08:46 AM
A Paradigm Shift in North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Development?

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

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/28/2017 04:35 PM
North Korean video shows destruction of aircraft carrier and capitol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPEY90hEgQU
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: kch on 04/28/2017 04:57 PM
North Korean video shows destruction of aircraft carrier and capitol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPEY90hEgQU

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!  ;)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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 (http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Pukguksong-2_GLBM/index.htm) says that they might be based on RT-15M 1st and second stages respectively.
Other analysis (http://38north.org/2017/04/ychang042517/) 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 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rt-2p-pics.htm)]

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...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/28/2017 10:32 PM
Another launch, another fail...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 on 04/29/2017 09:51 AM
Go north korea! Missle technology is a right of all countries!
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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/ (http://38north.org/2017/05/nampo050117/)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig1_Sinpo-Test-Barge-17-0501-1024x768.jpg)
Figure 1. Submersible test stand barge seen at the Sinpo South Shipyard.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig2_Nampo-Test-Barge-17-0501-1024x768.jpg)
Figure 2. A second submersible test stand barge seen on same day at the Nampo Naval Shipyard.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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/ (http://38north.org/2017/05/missile050217/)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig1_Taesung-16-0220-AIR-1024x768.jpg)
Figure 1. Vertical engine test stand at Tae-sung Machine Factory in February 2016.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig2_Taesung-17-0424-AIR-1024x768.jpg)
Figure 2. Renovated Tae-sung Machine Factory in April 2017, with possible new solid rocket engine test stand.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig3_Iha-ri-17-0314-DG-1024x768.jpg)
Figure 3. The Iha-ri Driver Training and Test Facility north of Kusong.

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig4_Iha-ri-17-0314-DG-1024x768.jpg)
Figure 4. Close-up of TEL with launch tube elevated at the Iha-ri facility.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/05/2017 08:26 AM
North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard: Activity at the Test Stand

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig1_Sinpo-Update-17-0504-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig2_Sinpo-Update-17-0504-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig3_Sinpo-Update-17-0504-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig4_Sinpo-Update-17-0504-1024x768.jpg)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fig5_Sinpo-Update-17-0504-1024x768.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/05/2017 09:23 AM
North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard: Activity at the Test Stand

http://38north.org/2017/05/sinpo050417/ (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..."
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/05/14/0200000000AEN20170514000353315.html?input=rss)

(http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2017/05/14/AEN20170514000353315_01_i.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8XKvWgdvsI?t=1h36m17s)] It looks like a successfull test so we'll soon know more via NK news.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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/ (http://38north.org/2017/05/jschilling051417/)

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-04-16-01-561.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/15/2017 08:41 AM
DPRK New Ballistic Rocket Hwasong 12 Test launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ArgTk-pbc
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/15/2017 03:22 PM
Hypergolic.  Hopefully they are designing their warheads to be able to survive a "Damascus Incident".

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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?  ::)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/16/2017 07:00 PM
North Korea's missile launch: What do the images tell us?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/asia/north-korea-new-missile-type-analysis/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/asia/north-korea-new-missile-type-analysis/index.html)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/warhead-reentry)

(http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/heating-table.jpg)

(http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/q-vs-t-700-lofted-b1000-768x561.jpg)

(http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/q-vs-t-10k-MET-b1000-768x568.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: gospacex 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2017/05/21/90/0401000000AEN20170521003000315F.html)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/22/2017 08:40 AM
Pukguksong-2 launch May 21, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqbXDNvhI60
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 on 05/23/2017 02:55 PM
Pukguksong 2 Launch - May 21st 2017 (Official KCTV broadcast)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVWvnjNzzjU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVWvnjNzzjU)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/24/2017 06:54 AM
Whoa! They carried a camera in the nosecone. Got some great views of the Earth below.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/24/2017 07:42 AM
Lake Yonphung: Launch Site for the Second Pukguksong-2 Missile Launch

http://38north.org/2017/05/pukguksong2_052317/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (http://38north.org/2017/05/pukguksong2_052317/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/25/2017 09:40 PM
The Pukguksong-2: Lowering the Bar on Combat Readiness?

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

(http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-05-22-01-27.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 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/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sbYl0CP6pU
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/29/2017 09:55 AM
North Korea fires 'Scud-type' ballistic missile

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/05/29/0200000000AEN20170529000655320.html?input=rss (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/05/29/0200000000AEN20170529000655320.html?input=rss)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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."
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/29/2017 12:05 PM
North Korea's missile tests

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/asia/north-korea-missile-tests/index.html?sr=twCNN052917north-korea-missile-tests0632AMN/ALink&linkId=38107446 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/asia/north-korea-missile-tests/index.html?sr=twCNN052917north-korea-missile-tests0632AMN/ALink&linkId=38107446)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 05/30/2017 08:40 AM
KJU Guides latest ballistic missile launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_TNdFqg0Lc
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/31/2017 06:05 AM
The video was deleted by the user. This might be the same video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqwllc0fE4U
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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/ (http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/exclusive-north-korea-tested-its-new-intermediate-range-ballistic-missile-3-times-in-april-2017/)


Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/04/2017 08:59 AM
North Korea Fires Inter Continental Ballistic Missile Hwasong 14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PcBlgMjNk4
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: dodo 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") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rebel44 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") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop 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.
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Lewis007 on 07/05/2017 07:02 AM
The same pics in better (although low-res) quality) from the KCNA website.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: ethan829 on 07/05/2017 10:32 AM
A few high-res shots from Ankit Panda on twitter https://twitter.com/nktpnd
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science 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'
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rebel44 on 07/05/2017 03:33 PM
Video of launch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kS8FqpiaIc
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/06/2017 07:41 AM
Inside from North Korea
How the North Koreans experienced the ICBM launch


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEYp2LHCUdI
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: edkyle99 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Skyrocket 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!
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: laszlo 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: edkyle99 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
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RonM 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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."
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: edkyle99 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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.  :(
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/06/2017 07:25 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 (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)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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 (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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science 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"...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Torlek 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline) system).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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 (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?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.....
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/08/2017 05:00 PM
Hwasong 14 Contributors Arrive to Pyongyang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2vXhVykaM8
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: jak Kennedy 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/08/2017 11:43 PM
With a throw weight of 650 kg, including the mass of the second stage, not so much.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/09/2017 04:48 AM
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19543.0;attach=184568;image

Something like this could be the basis of the second stage.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon 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/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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/

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RLA 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
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RLA 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?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Skyrocket 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/14/2017 06:45 AM
Concerning EnergoMash and NK, obviously there is no link. NK uses knock-offs of Isayev 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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 video of a concert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibI4dxsdp8M) 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 (https://t.co/u3cYC3rGWx).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.....
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One 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?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber 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 (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/19/politics/north-korea-possible-missile-test/index.html)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/21/2017 07:58 AM
Sinpo South Shipyard: Preparations for a New SLBM Test?

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/sinpo072017/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (http://www.38north.org/2017/07/sinpo072017/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman 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.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Comet on 07/22/2017 08:40 PM
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/24/2017 07:04 AM
Are there similar scale drawings for HS10?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/27/2017 08:49 AM
North Korea reveals never-before seen images of missile program

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/26/opinions/north-korea-icbm-film/index.html?utm_content=buffer17716&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/26/opinions/north-korea-icbm-film/index.html?utm_content=buffer17716&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/28/2017 05:03 PM
Images of Hwasong 10 and Hwasong 12 in apparently the same TEL.

It appears that Hwasong 12 is the same diameter, but is longer. This is consistent with the addition of two vernier engines, but may also indicate that HS12 has a somewhat more powerful main engine.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 07/28/2017 05:22 PM
If HS-10 is a stretched R-27, wouldn't it already have four verniers?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/28/2017 05:27 PM
If HS-10 is a stretched R-27, wouldn't it already have four verniers?

R-27 only had 2 verniers.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 07/28/2017 05:49 PM
New launch, with early indication that flight time is significantly longer than the last one  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40757780 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40757780)
Quote
The latest missile was launched at 23:41 North Korea time (15:41 GMT) from Jagang province in the north of the country, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported.
...
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the missile flew for about 45 minutes - some six minutes longer than the ICBM tested in early July.
Early reports like this often turn out to be inaccurate, but if it holds, it would put it very clearly into real ICBM territory.

edit by mod: the reference to launch time has to be corrected:
14:41 UTC launch time = 23:41 Seoul local time = 23:11 Pyongyang local time



Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rebel44 on 07/28/2017 06:57 PM
Updated DPRK ICBM range estimates from David Wright. Hint: Pretty much everything you care about. Sorry Florida.

https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/891001298664824832

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/new-north-korean-icbm
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/28/2017 07:50 PM
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/28/2017 08:01 PM
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?
Could be their mobile launcher platform...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 07/28/2017 08:08 PM
Early Observations of North Korea’s Latest Missile Tests

Quote
On July 28, North Korea launched a ballistic missile that reportedly flew for 45 minutes, reaching a peak altitude of 3,000 km, and a slightly longer range than the previous test. While the type of missile tested is yet unconfirmed, these data, if accurate, are fully consistent with a Hwasong-14 tested with a larger second stage that is powered by a high-thrust engine. If flown on a flatter trajectory, this missile could reach as far as 9,000 to 10,000 km. More information, including videos and photographs, will help identify the new second stage engine, and pinpoint its performance capacity.

However, if the above assessment is correct, North Korea seems to have made a logical step forward, as it tries to perfect the technologies to build and field an operationally-viable ICBM that can threaten the mainland United States. More tests are needed to assess and validate the reliability of the Hwasong-14, so North Korea is sure to follow this launch with many more.

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/melleman072817/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Targeteer on 07/28/2017 08:08 PM
For clarity, the launch location is from this official DOD release.

The U.S. Department of Defense detected and tracked a single North Korea missile launch today at about 10:41 a.m. EDT.  We assess that this missile was an intercontinental ballistic missile, as had been expected.
 
The missile was launched from Mupyong-ni and traveled about 1000 km before splashing down in the Sea of Japan.  We are working with our interagency partners on a more detailed assessment.
 
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) determined the missile launch from North Korea did not pose a threat to North America.
 
Our commitment to the defense of our allies, including the Republic of Korea and Japan, in the face of these threats, remains ironclad.  We remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack or provocation
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/28/2017 11:19 PM
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?
Could be their mobile launcher platform...

Well. Obviously the missile is move around with a wheeled transporter/erector.

To refined the query. Does the DPRK have in place the infra-structure to set up a launch with  their ICBM at remote un-improved locations?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/28/2017 11:34 PM
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?
Could be their mobile launcher platform...

Well. Obviously the missile is move around with a wheeled transporter/erector.

To refined the query. Does the DPRK have in place the infra-structure to set up a launch with  their ICBM at remote un-improved locations?
I'm talking about on of these self contained launchers... Obviously...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-truck-idUSKBN19P1J3
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 01:20 AM
Early Observations of North Korea’s Latest Missile Tests

Quote
On July 28, North Korea launched a ballistic missile that reportedly flew for 45 minutes, reaching a peak altitude of 3,000 km, and a slightly longer range than the previous test. While the type of missile tested is yet unconfirmed, these data, if accurate, are fully consistent with a Hwasong-14 tested with a larger second stage that is powered by a high-thrust engine. If flown on a flatter trajectory, this missile could reach as far as 9,000 to 10,000 km. More information, including videos and photographs, will help identify the new second stage engine, and pinpoint its performance capacity.

However, if the above assessment is correct, North Korea seems to have made a logical step forward, as it tries to perfect the technologies to build and field an operationally-viable ICBM that can threaten the mainland United States. More tests are needed to assess and validate the reliability of the Hwasong-14, so North Korea is sure to follow this launch with many more.

The obvious approach would be to upgrade the upper stage to four engines, as was done in Iran.

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/melleman072817/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 01:25 AM
https://www.rt.com/news/397886-north-korean-irbm-range/

Once again, the Russians claimed this was an IRBM with a highest point of about 1,000 km. I suspect they were tracking the first stage.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 07/29/2017 01:26 AM
KCNA states it was HS-14 https://twitter.com/DaveSchmerler/status/891083982179229696

There are also reports the RV was caught on video from Japan
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20170729/k10011079571000.html

(via https://twitter.com/aldin_ww/status/891053580668547075)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/29/2017 02:07 AM
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?
Could be their mobile launcher platform...

Well. Obviously the missile is move around with a wheeled transporter/erector.

To refined the query. Does the DPRK have in place the infra-structure to set up a launch with  their ICBM at remote un-improved locations?
I'm talking about on of these self contained launchers... Obviously...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-truck-idUSKBN19P1J3

AFAIK this particular ICBM is hypergolic fueled. So it is unlikely this ICBM will be full of propellants when the North Koreans move it around from site to site IMO.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 04:10 AM
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.

I provided photos showing both HS10 and HS12 carried in the same model TEL. The only difference in size between the two missiles seems to be length, not diameter. I ascribe some of the additional length and mass to HS12 from the two additional verniers in the first stage, although it is possible that the R-27 derived first stage engine may have been tweaked a bit, as well.

Remember that tooling is expensive, so lengthening a stage is easy, making it wider, not so much. For those who don't know this, check out something called "Falcon 9".

What we have now is: Scud derived vehicles, 1.5 meter diameter, R-27 derived vehicles, 1.9 meter diameter, and Unha, 4 Scud engines in the first stage, 2.4 meter diameter. Clearly, if HS12 were 80 ton class, it would be wider, like Unha, which is 80 ton class.

BTW, HS13 is the small narrow upper stage carried by the HS12 first stage to comprise HS14.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 07/29/2017 04:50 AM
Video of the latest test. Seem to be very much the same as the previous HS14 launch, although the KCNA release kind of implies changes. US / allied sources all seem to have settled on an apogee around ~3,700 km and a flight time around ~45 minutes, consistent with KCNA claimed numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNViGZZ3pk
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 05:33 AM
You can call me crazy, but the first stage of this launcher seems significantly shorter than HS12, assuming use of the same TEL. HS12's interstage/interface with the payload is almost over the driver's head, whereas this video shows the interstage farther back.  Perhaps HS12 is shortened to accomodate the upper stage mass.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 07/29/2017 05:51 AM
You can call me crazy, but the first stage of this launcher seems significantly shorter than HS12, assuming use of the same TEL. HS12's interstage/interface with the payload is almost over the driver's head, whereas this video shows the interstage farther back.  Perhaps HS12 is shortened to accomodate the upper stage mass.
If they are close to the same diameter, then the HS14 first stage is definitely shorter than HS12. Skyrocket pointed that out a few pages back  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40159.msg1702066#msg1702066

edit:
They aren't the same TEL though. HS12 is a 6 axle with a weird armored skirt (see http://www.38north.org/2017/05/jschilling052417-2/), HS14 is 8 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/kn-08.htm).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/29/2017 09:52 AM
2th Hwasong 14 launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR78q3lAfa8
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 10:05 AM
You are certainly right about the 2 different TELs. I have seen HS10 on the 6 axle TEL, as well as HS12.

I have noticed some sources claim that Hwasong 13 is a separate missile, not the HS14 upper stage.

There are claims that HS14 uses a RD-216 derived engine, which is bollocks.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 07/29/2017 10:12 AM
I have noticed some sources claim that Hwasong 13 is a separate missile, not the HS14 upper stage.
The ICBM model seen in the 2015 parade had 'HS-13' on a plate on the TEL. Given they seem to have abandoned that design now, whether they'll reuse the designation is anybody's guess.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/29/2017 12:20 PM
Watch CNN news bulletin on this launch. CNN reported that the missile launch from a different location (reportedly Mupyong-ni near Wosan) from the previous launch. Does that mean this missile system is capable of remote setup for launch? Or are there multi launch sites?
Could be their mobile launcher platform...

Well. Obviously the missile is move around with a wheeled transporter/erector.

To refined the query. Does the DPRK have in place the infra-structure to set up a launch with  their ICBM at remote un-improved locations?
I'm talking about on of these self contained launchers... Obviously...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-truck-idUSKBN19P1J3

AFAIK this particular ICBM is hypergolic fueled. So it is unlikely this ICBM will be full of propellants when the North Koreans move it around from site to site IMO.
So you figure that they could not add a fuel truck to the convoy if they needed to? ???
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 on 07/29/2017 12:59 PM
Looks like my speculation a couple of weeks ago about the second stage of HS-14 was correct. Looking at the pictures and video released by north Korea the upper stage seems to be stretched which would indicate a longer burn time hence greater range. They could in theory mount a small third stage and push the range even further to 12,000 km+.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 07/29/2017 01:17 PM
Both the armscontrolwonks and 38 North are slow with a comprehensive comparison of all the missiles after the concert. Much easier to do comparisons between missiles with data from the same analyst. Norbert Brügge did a lot of revisions since the image dump, here is some of what he thinks:


The HS-12 first (and only stage) has the same overall length as the HS-14 first stage.

The HS-12 first stage are ~1.5m diameter with common bulkhead, HS-14 first stage is ~1.70m diameter and no common bulkhead.
HS-10 is also ~1.5m diameter with common bulkhead but much shorter in length and with a submerged engine.

HS-14 second stage is of similar dimensions as the HS-13 3rd stage. HS-13 2013 parade version that is.
HS-13 first stage is larger in diameter ~1.9m.


Same engine on HS-12 and HS-14, different from the submerged engine on HS-10. Verniers may be the same.
Very little information about the HS-13 engine(s). From images the first stage has 2 main combustors and 2 verniers.

--

Seems to me like NK moved away from R-27 inspired submerged engines and redid their designs with their new engine. A slightly longer missile is not too much of a hassle on land. (Btw: that seems to be a major reason for different HS-12 and HS-14 missile length between analysts. Some add the overhanging nozzles to the length, some don't...)
Their submarine launched missiles moved to solid fuel instead.

Norbert still thinks that the new engine is NKs take on the RD-250 but there is quite a bit of opposition to that in this thread. ;)
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 07/29/2017 02:29 PM
Quote
Alex Lennon @atjlennon
Impt point: most likely use of #DPRK ICBM is not a first-strike weapon v US homeland, but to divide US from allies and undermine reassurance

https://mobile.twitter.com/atjlennon/status/891302770522955776


Quote
Vipin Narang @NarangVipin
Replying to @Cold_Peace_ and 3 others
'Decent' is relative. I wouldn't put my money on midcourse interceptors. But THAAD launchers are useless.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/891302201641009152
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 06:13 PM
Looks like my speculation a couple of weeks ago about the second stage of HS-14 was correct. Looking at the pictures and video released by north Korea the upper stage seems to be stretched which would indicate a longer burn time hence greater range. They could in theory mount a small third stage and push the range even further to 12,000 km+.

I can't see the upper stage on the latest launch as being appreciably larger than the one used for the July 4 test.

In all cases, the upper stage is far too small to carry a significant payload, it is designed to fly a minimum payload a long distance.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/29/2017 06:16 PM
It is possible that Hwasong 10 is failing because it is a stretched version of R-27, which could mean that the two verniers do not provide sufficient control authority for the vehicle during some flight phases. Addition of two more verniers would provide additional control authority, even with additional stage length.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Comet on 07/29/2017 07:36 PM
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 07/29/2017 09:26 PM
You are certainly right about the 2 different TELs. I have seen HS10 on the 6 axle TEL, as well as HS12.
Yeah, H10 and H12 look like the same TEL, with the extra armor added for the HS12.

The H14 TEL is notorious Wanshan WS51200, "logging truck" imported from China, which appears similar to the MZKT-79221 TOPOL-M TEL, and was previously seen carrying around the KN-08/HS13(?)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/31/2017 04:49 AM
To put the potential performance of the NK missiles into perspective, check out the performance of the R-29 derived Russian missiles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtil%27

This R-29 deriviative is not only larger than Hwasong 14, it has a fully developed second stage. Yet, its orbital throw weight is tiny. These SLBMs are simply not intended to throw heavy payloads long distances. The Korean variants are less developed, as they are based on R-27, as far as is known.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 07/31/2017 06:03 AM
This R-29 deriviative is not only larger than Hwasong 14, it has a fully developed second stage.
According to http://www.military-today.com/trucks/wanshan_ws51200.htm, the HS14 TEL is ~20 m long. The HS14 is very nearly as long as the TEL, by eyeball within a meter or two (e.g. see http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/hwasong-14-2017-07-04-image19.jpg|||). According to https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/slbm/r-29.htm the R-29 was ~13 m long.

The R-29 is a more compact design, but even so, HS14 appears to be a significantly larger missile. Assuming the HS14 is 19m and scaling the R-29 image from the above to be ~13 gives the attached.

Quote
Yet, its orbital throw weight is tiny. These SLBMs are simply not intended to throw heavy payloads long distances. The Korean variants are less developed, as they are based on R-27, as far as is known.
DPRK has been working on this program for many years. It would seem unwise to assume they are only capable of copying hand-me-down Soviet stuff.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/31/2017 10:59 AM
R-27 features a common bulkhead between the oxidizer and fuel, and the engine is submerged in the lower tank. Reforming these two design issues provides a missile about the same size as the HS14 first stage, with, of course, two extra vernier engines.

The HS10 and HS14 TELs are different in length, but similar in width.

All this tells us is HS10 and HS14 are in the same class regarding first stage performance.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/01/2017 12:57 PM
US detects 'highly unusual' North Korean submarine activity

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/north-korea-ejection-test-submarine-activity/index.html

North Korea carries out 'unprecedented' test of submarine missile system

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/01/north-koreas-submarine-missile-tests-critical-advance-highly/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/01/2017 02:14 PM
Making the rounds is that the rapidity in NK ICBM program is being explained that they have been getting assistance from Pakistan for the warhead and ex-Russian rocket "scientists" for the missile...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/01/2017 04:36 PM
Making the rounds is that the rapidity in NK ICBM program is being explained that they have been getting assistance from Pakistan for the warhead and ex-Russian rocket "scientists" for the missile...

It was reported in 1992 that engineers from the Makeyev design bureau were detained in Russia en route to North Korea. Since then, Makeyev designs have been used by NK. Not so rapid, though.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/01/2017 09:39 PM
Making the rounds is that the rapidity in NK ICBM program is being explained that they have been getting assistance from Pakistan for the warhead and ex-Russian rocket "scientists" for the missile...

It was reported in 1992 that engineers from the Makeyev design bureau were detained in Russia en route to North Korea. Since then, Makeyev designs have been used by NK. Not so rapid, though.
This info was reported last night on CNN, other information on Dr. Khan's input can be found online...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/02/2017 08:38 PM
North Korea shows KJU ordering ICBM Attack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvyFI5tW_Tg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvyFI5tW_Tg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/03/2017 01:47 AM
Making the rounds is that the rapidity in NK ICBM program is being explained that they have been getting assistance from Pakistan for the warhead and ex-Russian rocket "scientists" for the missile...

It was reported in 1992 that engineers from the Makeyev design bureau were detained in Russia en route to North Korea. Since then, Makeyev designs have been used by NK. Not so rapid, though.
This info was reported last night on CNN, other information on Dr. Khan's input can be found online...

Dr. Khan is a nuclear engineer, not a rocket scientist.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/03/2017 01:48 AM
North Korea shows KJU ordering ICBM Attack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvyFI5tW_Tg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvyFI 5tW_Tg)

Step 1 would be "design and build an ICBM".

One comment on the current hysteria: NK does not have a deliverable warhead anywhere close to what could be carried by an SS-18, let alone the experimental test rocket they are flying now. Every nuclear test to date has required filling some cavern with kilotons of TNT so that if the nuke fails, there will still be a large explosion with fissile material thrown into the air. Some of the tests are confirmed fizzles.

So, even if their test rocket could carry 650 kg as far as the US mainland, there is no warhead to carry.

Of course, that may change in the future.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 08/03/2017 02:18 AM
One comment on the current hysteria: NK does not have a deliverable warhead anywhere close to what could be carried by an SS-18, let alone the experimental test rocket they are flying now.
You know this how, exactly? I'm not aware of any reliable public information about their weapon designs. If the disco ball is representative of a real weapon design, it would fit in their missiles, and people who know nukes seem to think it looks like it could be a real design.

If you think about where other nuclear weapon states were after 5 tests (or worse, 11 years after their first attempted detonation), there doesn't seem to be much reason to assume that DPRK can't weaponize one.
Quote
Every nuclear test to date has required filling some cavern with kilotons of TNT so that if the nuke fails, there will still be a large explosion with fissile material thrown into the air.
Source? I'm not aware of any credible sources reporting the "massive amounts of TNT" claim, and IIRC only two had any detected release of fission products, so the "fissile material thrown into the air" bit at least appears to be contradicted by available evidence.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/03/2017 10:58 AM
Making the rounds is that the rapidity in NK ICBM program is being explained that they have been getting assistance from Pakistan for the warhead and ex-Russian rocket "scientists" for the missile...

It was reported in 1992 that engineers from the Makeyev design bureau were detained in Russia en route to North Korea. Since then, Makeyev designs have been used by NK. Not so rapid, though.
This info was reported last night on CNN, other information on Dr. Khan's input can be found online...

Dr. Khan is a nuclear engineer, not a rocket scientist.
That's why I stated Pakistan for the warhead... Guess where he is from, if you can...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: input~2 on 08/05/2017 02:13 PM
Air France expands no-fly zone around North Korea after missile scare (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/03/asia/north-korea-air-france/index.html)

Quote from: CNN article
Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it issued a warning to all vessels and aircraft operating within its exclusive economic zone eight minutes after the launch of the North Korean missile.
Air France confirmed it received the warning, but the message "did not specify any indication or instruction requiring an operational action on the part" of the airline. Two notices to airmen were published but not transmitted to the crew because "the event had already passed when they were sent by the Japanese authorities," the airline said.


Here are possibly the 2 NOTAMs referenced to in the CNN article:

J4845/17 NOTAMN
Q) RJJJ/QWMLW/IV/BO/EW/000/999/3310N14118E999
A) RJJJ B) 1707281453 C) UFN
E) MISSILE POSSIBLY LAUNCHED FROM NORTH KOREA MAY FLY TOWARD
SEA AND AIRSPACE SURROUNDING JAPAN.
F) SFC G) UNL

J4847/17 NOTAMN
Q) RJJJ/QWMLW/IV/BO/EW/000/999/3310N14118E999
A) RJJJ B) 1707281508 C) UFN
E) REF NOTAM RJAAYNYX J4845/17
ALL ACFT TO COMMUNICATE BY CWP AND/OR NP HF WI FUKUOKA FIR
REQUESTED TO KEEP LISTENING WATCH FOR THE HF FREQ TO BE PROVIDED
INFO CONCERNED LAUNCHING MISSILE FROM NORTH KOREA

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/08/2017 08:18 AM
North Korea's missile tests by the numbers

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/29/asia/north-korea-missile-tests/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/29/asia/north-korea-missile-tests/index.html)

Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/08/2017 03:18 PM
North Korea's nuclear threat at a 'new stage', warns Japan

Defence paper said it was possible that the regime was able to miniaturise a nuclear warhead to load it on to a missile

Quote
Scott LaFoy, a Washington-based imagery analyst focusing on ballistic missile and space technologies, said the report reflected “an increasing belief that North Korea either has or is very close to having a nuclear warhead”.

Based on data and projections by experts at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, LaFoy told the Guardian: “I lean towards believing North Korea is either in possession of a device, or the potential sixth nuclear test will be the practical test of said device.

“The Japanese defence white paper doesn’t add much to this due to its expected government vagueness, but it is consistent with what I’m seeing.”

Quote
The report also cited Pyongyang’s attempts to improve its ability to conduct a surprise attack using solid-fuel missiles, which can be prepared for launch in less time than liquid-fuelled rockets and are therefore harder to detect.

“The risk that North Korea will deploy nuclear-tipped missiles covering Japanese territory will grow as time passes,” it warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/north-korea-nuclear-miniaturised-warhead-advanced-considerably-japan
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/08/2017 07:59 PM
North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say[/quote]

Quote
North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles, crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment.

The new analysis completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country’s atomic arsenal. The U.S. calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts believe the number of bombs is much smaller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_nkorea-1212p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.75ed50493fed
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/10/2017 04:29 AM
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/024/94/PDF/N1702494.pdf

UN report on NK sanctions, with some nuggets about missiles.

HS10 is definitely R-27 based.
HS13 is considered to use 2 R-27 based engines in a tight cluster this is the "80 ton thrust" engine tested in 2016. This would have nothing to do with the alleged RD-250 class engine, which seems to be a false rumor.

Oh, and the miniature nuclear warhead displayed in 2016 was fake.

An excellent page on R-27:

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/R-27/index.htm
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 08/10/2017 08:14 AM
We know HS-13 used a 4D10 cluster, we've seen images of the back end of the missile. But the HS-14 clearly does not use the same engine.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/10/2017 09:17 PM
If we assume that HS12 uses the same engine as HS10, with 2 extra verniers, and HS13 uses 2 4D10s in a cluster, if HS14 doesn't use a 4D10 derivative in its first stage, in other words, if it were to use an RD-250 derived engine, that would truly be a lot of rocket engine development work to produce multiple engines in the same class.

Since the clustered 4D10s are alleged to produce 80 tons of thruster, the NK version of the 4D10 therefore would produce 40 tons (presumably including the verniers), which would be sufficient for HS12 and HS14.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 08/11/2017 04:20 AM
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/024/94/PDF/N1702494.pdf
Link seems to be broken.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/11/2017 04:56 AM
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/024/94/PDF/N1702494.pdf
Link seems to be broken.

http://www.un.org/ga/search/viewm_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/150

This is the primary link, from which you can choose the document language.


Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 08/11/2017 03:54 PM
Don't assume, look at the launch pictures.
The HS-12 does not use the same engine as the HS-10.
HS-12 and HS-14 use the same or at least very similar engines.
The nozzle of the HS-12 and HS14 first stage is of the same size and visibly larger than the HS-10.


The UN document is from February 2017, a lot has happend since.

As far as the disco ball goes, here is what it says:
Quote
11. On 9 March 2016, state media announced that Kim Jong Un had inspected a  spherically shaped object and been briefed on “specifications and the mechanism of  the miniaturized powerful nuclear warheads with a Korean-style structure of mixed charge” (see figure 3). The report claimed that “the nuclear warheads [have] been standardized to be fit for ballistic rockets”.15 According to a Member State, the device lacks the physical characteristics typically associated with a thermonuclear device,16 and its plates, which can be seen on the surface, do not hide explosive lenses.17

 _____________
 15 “Kim Jong Un guides work for mounting nuclear warheads on ballistic rockets”, Rodong Sinmun, 9 March 2016.
 16 A standard thermonuclear device features two stages, not featured in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea device.
 17 Distributing explosive lenses on the surface at regular intervals may achieve a higher degree of implosion symmetry and, hence, higher yield.

Not a thermonuclear device.
Not using a specific method to increase yield.
The takeaway is as usual hidden between the lines: Nobody says that it's not a fission device...


Taking another look at the disco ball propaganda picture, open source experts said it
- is staged in all aspects to convey a message, esp. Kims clothing
- is likely supposed to show their "standardized, compact" design
- is small enough to fit into NK reentry vehicles
- calculates to a weight that is light enough for NK missiles
- conveys a design that is feasible

Which is good enough for me. The UN report did not contradict any of that and actual nuclear weapons designers are not commenting openly.
Is it the real thing? Or at least a representation of the real thing? - We don't know.
We can't know short of sending experts to take it apart and give us an report. [Not going to happen, ever.]

We however do know that shorty after the picture NK did their 5th nuclear test.


Taking all of that into account it becomes clear why the other major concern of open source experts is that NK is talking more and more about a large, heavy device instead of their compact weapon. Chances are that test 5 was indeed a boosted weapon and it finally works. Is the next one a true thermonuclear design? If so that would increase the tensions drastically.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/11/2017 04:26 PM
I admit that discussions of nuclear weapons are beyond me, other than noting that NK claimed to test a thermonuclear weapon last year, and no one believes them.

I agree that HS10 and HS12 do not use the same engine, since they differ in the number of verniers, 2 vs 4. Both seem to use an R-27 derived main engine.

Here is an analysis of HS12 that concurs with my assessment:

http://www.38north.org/2017/05/hwasong051917/

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: catdlr on 08/12/2017 05:14 AM
North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states

Massachusetts Institute of Technology rocket expert Ted Postol and two German experts, Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker of Schmucker Technologie, published their findings Friday in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

http://thebulletin.org/north-korea%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnot-quite%E2%80%9D-icbm-can%E2%80%99t-hit-lower-48-states11012

Quote
the North Korean rocket fired twice last month—the Hwasong-14—is a “sub-level” ICBM that will not be able to deliver nuclear warheads to the continental United States. Our analysis shows that the current variant of the Hwasong-14 may not even be capable of delivering a first-generation nuclear warhead to Anchorage, Alaska, although such a possibility cannot be categorically ruled out. But even if North Korea is now capable of fabricating a relatively light-weight, “miniaturized” atomic bomb that can survive the extreme reentry environments of long-range rocket delivery, it will, with certainty, not be able to deliver such an atomic bomb to the lower 48 states of the United States with the rocket tested on July 3 and July 28.

Quote
General conclusions—for now. Our general conclusions from intensive study of a wide variety of data relating to the two rockets that North Korea launched in July:

The Hwasong-14 does not currently constitute a nuclear threat to the lower 48 states of the United States.

The flight tests on July 4 and 28 were a carefully choreographed deception by North Korea to create a false impression that the Hwasong-14 is a near-ICBM that poses a nuclear threat to the continental US.

The Hwasong-14 tested on July 4 and 28 may not even be able to deliver a North Korean atomic bomb to Anchorage, Alaska.

Although it is clear that North Korea is not capable of manufacturing sophisticated rocket components, their skill and ingenuity in using Soviet rocket motor components has grown very substantially. This is not good news for the long run.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/12/2017 10:18 AM
High Levels of Activity at North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard

http://www.38north.org/2017/08/sinpo081117/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (http://www.38north.org/2017/08/sinpo081117/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 08/12/2017 12:24 PM
North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states

Massachusetts Institute of Technology rocket expert Ted Postol and two German experts, Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker of Schmucker Technologie, published their findings Friday in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

http://thebulletin.org/north-korea%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnot-quite%E2%80%9D-icbm-can%E2%80%99t-hit-lower-48-states11012

Hm. Less of rocket than others think, larger device than others think. The cherry on top is that Norbert Brügge is once more impressed by their ability to use his original research without any mention and getting away with it.
This time he even predicted it.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/12/2017 09:06 PM
North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states

Massachusetts Institute of Technology rocket expert Ted Postol and two German experts, Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker of Schmucker Technologie, published their findings Friday in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

http://thebulletin.org/north-korea%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnot-quite%E2%80%9D-icbm-can%E2%80%99t-hit-lower-48-states11012

Hm. Less of rocket than others think, larger device than others think. The cherry on top is that Norbert Brügge is once more impressed by their ability to use his original research without any mention and getting away with it.
This time he even predicted it.

Norbert Brügge?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/13/2017 12:49 AM
Assuming the thrust of the upper stage is 3,000 kg, and ISP is 300 seconds, if the stage burned for 244 seconds, that works out to 2440 kg of consumed propellant. This does not count the mass of the tanks and engines and nosecone, let alone a payload. In short, if the stage contained a payload anywhere close to 500 kg, it could not have itself provided much altitude to the flight, given the steep trajectory.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/13/2017 12:59 AM
Another way of looking at the upper stage is by assessing how much propellant it could carry. Assuming a diameter of 1.4 meters and a length of 2.5 meters, that is a volume of just under 4 cubic meters. Since the density of rocket fuel is higher than water, if the entire volume of the cylinder were a single tank, it could carry some 5 or 6 tons. However, it is a bipropellant, so some of the volume is used by at least one bulkhead, as well as the rocket engines and any gas tanks, avionics, cabling. So, around 2500 kg of prop is a reasonable estimate, maybe more if the engines are submerged.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 08/13/2017 01:13 AM
Norbert Brügge?

The person behind b14643.de (http://www.b14643.de/). A geologist in real life, writing extensively about space launch vehicles and other things rocket like the NK missiles. Writing quite a bit about geology too.

He is the only one, that I know about, who did a full revision of his rocket analysis for all NK rockets after the concert image dump - and published his revised analysis for all of them including comparisons.
The armscontrolwonks / CNS / NTI did revisions of their models but little publication thereof so far.
Every analyst has his or her own bias. When they are from the same person/group and time frame it is much easier to compare between them.

He was likely the first to write that in his opinion NK uses a variant of the RD-250 series engines. Something that, months later, the writers of the white paper pass off as their own original research.


Here is an archived version (https://archive.fo/7rxBP) of the HS-14 page where he wondered who else will use his work without cite, naming the Washington post. Archived version (https://archive.fo/C3XS0) of the page today after the MIT paper. (For unknown values of MIT, but it is called that in German media.)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/13/2017 07:18 AM
There is a lot of handwaving in the linked article. For example, just because numbers are given for engine performance doesn't mean anything if there is no sourcing for those numbers. More to the point, numbers with decimal points seem impressive, but at best, these are rough guesses, so the implied precision does not exist.

As to the claim that NK has plans for the "RD-250" engine, first off, although the engine can produce 80 tons of thrust, that is with 2 Chambers, not one. Anyone claiming that they know the thrust of a single chambered version with any precision would have to be North Korean, if they have produced such an engine.

However, the claim that EnergoMash engineers provided RD-250 tech to NK is truly bizarre, since the engine has been out of production for so long. It is more likely that the tech came from Ukraine, but no one is making that claim.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 08/14/2017 04:17 PM
It is more likely that the tech came from Ukraine, but no one is making that claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-ukraine-factory.html
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/14/2017 09:10 PM
Here's the original report.

http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2017-adeb/august-2b48/north-korea-icbm-success-3abb

I wonder how easy they will find it to cluster the RD-250s on the first stage and could it be used on the second stage as well?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/14/2017 09:39 PM
Here's the original report.

http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2017-adeb/august-2b48/north-korea-icbm-success-3abb

I wonder how easy they will find it to cluster the RD-250s on the first stage and could it be used on the second stage as well?
Original RD-250 is 4 nozzle design with shared turbopump et cetera, so all that I can see is them going to the original design as 1, 2, 3 nozzle variant would be solely domestic in design and manufacture which require high quality craftsmanship which they do not have a good record of. It could that RD-250 is incorrect and that its another Soviet era engine.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/14/2017 09:42 PM
Here's the original report.

http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2017-adeb/august-2b48/north-korea-icbm-success-3abb

I wonder how easy they will find it to cluster the RD-250s on the first stage and could it be used on the second stage as well?
Original RD-250 is 4 combustion chamber design with shared turbopumps et cetera, so all that I can see is them going to the original design as 1, 2, 3 chamber variant would be solely domestic in design and manufacture which require high quality craftsmanship which they do not have a good record of. It could that RD-250 is incorrect and that its another Soviet era engine.

The article indicates no other engine matches the description/images of that used?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 08/14/2017 10:56 PM
4 nozzles per tubo pump?

The RD-250 family engines in question have 2 nozzles and 1 turbo pump. Propellant is N2O4/UDMH
RD-250 (8D518), 3 form  a RD-251 -> R-36 aka SS-18 Satan aka SS-9 Scarp
RD-250PM, 3 form a RD-261 -> Tsyklon-2 and -3

Upper stage versions also have 2 nozzles and 1 turbo pump.
RD-252 (8D724) -> R-36 aka SS-18 Satan aka SS-9 Scarp
RD-262 (11D26) -> Tsyklon-2 and -3

RD-253 as used on the Proton is not part of the discussion.



The previous generation of engines ~7 years older is the RD-215 family. Propellant is AK-27/UDMH
RD-215 (8D513) 2 form a RD-216 -> R-14 aka SS-5 Skean
An updated version of is the RD-215M / RD-216M was used on the Kosmos-3M space launcher, 444 launches last launch in 2009

Others in the series also have 2 nozzles and 1 turbopump
RD-217 (8D515), 3 form a RD-218 -> R-16 aka SS-7 Saddler
RD-225 (8D721), 3 form a RD-224 -> R-26 (not deployed)

The upper stage version has 2 nozzle 1 tubopump
RD-219 (8D713) -> R-16


------------

I think that it is entirely possible that NK managed to find and import a few of these engines in the last ~30 years. Not as complete rockets or even new old stock engines but likely as scrap. After all how well were used first stages policed, how much attention is paid to the scrapyards after that?

The hard part is supposed to be turbomachinery and metallurgy. Both are not too hard to get close to with enough scrap and a modern metallurgy lab. If they indeed bought them together with other arms in the mid 1990s the would have had 20 years to get a copy working. Not impossible certainly not as analytical instruments got better.


EDIT:
Ooops. Copy and paste is hard.  :(

R-36 aka SS-9 Scarp
R-36M aka SS-18 Satan

4 RD-263 (1 pump per nozzle) form 1 RD-264 as used on the R-36M first stage.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/15/2017 10:29 AM
KJU Inspects KPA Strategic Force The Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u1fXXxHNL4
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2017 03:08 PM
It is more likely that the tech came from Ukraine, but no one is making that claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-ukraine-factory.html

I guess they are now.

As a note, there is no such thing as an "RD-250" engine.  Well, there is, one of the 3 engines on R-36 would be called RD-250, with the cluster of 3 called the RD-251.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2017 03:10 PM
4 nozzles per tubo pump?

The RD-250 family engines in question have 2 nozzles and 1 turbo pump. Propellant is N2O4/UDMH
RD-250 (8D518), 3 form  a RD-251 -> R-36 aka SS-18 Satan
RD-250PM, 3 form a RD-261 -> Tsyklon-2 and -3

Upper stage versions also have 2 nozzles and 1 turbo pump.
RD-252 (8D724) -> R-36 aka SS-18 Satan
RD-262 (11D26) -> Tsyklon-2 and -3

RD-253 as used on the Proton is not part of the discussion.



R-36 was SS-9, not SS-18.    SS-18 does not use engines related to the SS-9 engine family (a/k/a RD-250).

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2017 03:27 PM
Here's the original report.

http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2017-adeb/august-2b48/north-korea-icbm-success-3abb

I wonder how easy they will find it to cluster the RD-250s on the first stage and could it be used on the second stage as well?
Original RD-250 is 4 combustion chamber design with shared turbopumps et cetera, so all that I can see is them going to the original design as 1, 2, 3 chamber variant would be solely domestic in design and manufacture which require high quality craftsmanship which they do not have a good record of. It could that RD-250 is incorrect and that its another Soviet era engine.

The article indicates no other engine matches the description/images of that used?

This is all very shaky, since the original "RD-250" is a 2 chambered 90 ton engine, whereas HS-14 uses a single chamber engine that is much smaller. There are many former Soviet engines closer in size to the HS-14 than RD-250, perhaps not so politically correct. There are:

RD-0105 class, single chamber, 60 tons.
RD-120, single chamber 90 ton (but a good engine that could be de-scoped).
RD-0216, single chamber, 25 tons, but high ISP.
RD-0233, single chamber, 60 tons, fairly high ISP.
RD-0235, single chamber derivative of RD-0216, 10 percent more thrust.

Another possibility would be redirection of RD-216M technology from Omsk, where Cosmos launchers were manufactured until recently. It is possible the engines were manufactured there under license, as was the case in Dneprpetrovsk.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/15/2017 03:37 PM
Anatoly Zak’s take on the NYT report about rocket tech being obtained from Ukraine:

Quote
Let's not forget that these engines are serially produced at NPO Energomash in Moscow, Russia. NYT reporting on rocket technology is poor.
https://twitter.com/russianspaceweb/status/897109656681811968

Quote
They also improperly quote my article which never said that Ukraine had sold anything to North Korea. This is very irresponsible writing.
https://twitter.com/russianspaceweb/status/897111666441293824

Quote
This is very poor and irresponsible writing by people who don't understand basics of rocketry...and this engine is built in Russia.
https://twitter.com/russianspaceweb/status/897114333653737472
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/15/2017 03:49 PM
Why on Earth is he complaining about the NYT article rather than addressing his complaints towards the original report?

As they say don't shoot the messenger.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2017 03:55 PM
My understanding is that the engines for Cyclone (RD-250 class) were built by Yuzhmash under license from Energomash. I vaguely recall being told this during a lunch with the president of Yuzhmash.  RD-171s for Zenit were still being bought from Energomash, but they made RD-120s, and their other engines, IIRC.

The NYT articles points to Yuzhmash as the source for the RD-250 by default, but AFAIK, these were also produced by Polyot in Omsk.

What is being forgotten is that Energomash is a design bureau with limited production facilities, so serial production for their engines, with the exception of RD-171, was usually conducted elsewhere.


Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 08/15/2017 04:06 PM
4 nozzles per tubo pump?

The RD-250 family engines in question have 2 nozzles and 1 turbo pump. Propellant is N2O4/UDMH
RD-250 (8D518), 3 form  a RD-251 -> R-36 aka SS-18 Satan
RD-250PM, 3 form a RD-261 -> Tsyklon-2 and -3

Upper stage versions also have 2 nozzles and 1 turbo pump.
RD-252 (8D724) -> R-36 aka SS-18 Satan
RD-262 (11D26) -> Tsyklon-2 and -3

RD-253 as used on the Proton is not part of the discussion.



R-36 was SS-9, not SS-18.    SS-18 does not use engines related to the SS-9 engine family (a/k/a RD-250).


Ooops. Copy and paste is hard.  :(

R-36 aka SS-9 Scarp
R-36M aka SS-18 Satan


-----

I think that someone in NK took a hard look at the RD-215/RD-250 class/type/style engines, said "Works for me" and then went on to implement their own version.

How certain is the propellant identification? N2O4/UDMH vs. AK-27/UDMH
There are some ideas that the NK Scud-D / Scud-ER / Hwasong-7 introduced AK-27/UDMH over the usual AK-27/Kerosene. That would give NK much time to build experience with high energy propellants.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/15/2017 04:51 PM
How are NK paying for these engines with so many sanctions on them, surely by now these are having an impact even on the elite?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/15/2017 05:05 PM
How are NK paying for these engines with so many sanctions on them, surely by now these are having an impact even on the elite?
natural resource trade with other countries. NK is the largest supplier of its coal to China and Russia which funds majority of NK's government operations. Other funding reserves are kept abroad in places like Switzerland and the Isle of Man. With the coal China doesn't have the means to produce steel and power industrial cities. As China builds more nuclear reactors and domestic energy to fuel its high demand, the need for NK coal drops and is being replaced with NK's developing metals trade.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/15/2017 05:37 PM
How are NK paying for these engines with so many sanctions on them, surely by now these are having an impact even on the elite?
natural resource trade with other countries. NK is the largest supplier of its coal to China and Russia which funds majority of NK's government operations. Other funding reserves are kept abroad in places like Switzerland and the Isle of Man. With the coal China doesn't have the means to produce steel and power industrial cities. As China builds more nuclear reactors and domestic energy to fuel its high demand, the need for NK coal drops and is being replaced with NK's developing metals trade.

Thanks. Said like that makes sanctions sound slightly futile.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2017 09:24 PM
Note that the Soviet Union required 4 RD-250 class engines to produce an IRBM, and 6 for their ICBM.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/16/2017 05:04 AM
KJU Inspects KPA Strategic Force The Movie

Only two rocket related images from that video.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 on 08/16/2017 09:50 AM
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/024/94/PDF/N1702494.pdf
Link seems to be broken.

http://www.un.org/ga/search/viewm_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/150

This is the primary link, from which you can choose the document language.

This report seems to be making a lot of assumptions to back the point that the engine tested in september 2016 and march 2017 by NK is the RD-250. First of all i think the engine tested in march of this year and september of last year are different engines. One is probably for the first stage of a new SLV while the other is for ballistic missles as we have seen over the past few months.

The RD-250 is a closed cycle engine whereas both engines tested by north korea were clearly open cycle. Also it would not make a lot of sense for north korea to jump from gas ganerater engine straight to oxidiser rich staged combustion cycle engines as even countries with decades of experience with rocket engines like china often run into problems.

The report also points out how difficult it is to reverse engineer a rocket engine and end up with a engine identical to the original. However it is worth pointing out that this has been pulled off before. ISRO for example developed their first gen cryogenic engine CE-7.5 by reverse engineering the russian RD-56 engine. China i believe developed their early engines modeled after soviet designs.

What i think has happened is that NK at some point in time has come across blueprints for old soviet engines. They have probably taken the basic design and adapted it for their own needs much like a handful of other countries.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/16/2017 11:02 AM
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/024/94/PDF/N1702494.pdf
Link seems to be broken.

http://www.un.org/ga/search/viewm_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/150

This is the primary link, from which you can choose the document language.

This report seems to be making a lot of assumptions to back the point that the engine tested in september 2016 and march 2017 by NK is the RD-250. First of all i think the engine tested in march of this year and september of last year are different engines. One is probably for the first stage of a new SLV while the other is for ballistic missles as we have seen over the past few months.

The RD-250 is a closed cycle engine whereas both engines tested by north korea were clearly open cycle. Also it would not make a lot of sense for north korea to jump from gas ganerater engine straight to oxidiser rich staged combustion cycle engines as even countries with decades of experience with rocket engines like china often run into problems.

The report also points out how difficult it is to reverse engineer a rocket engine and end up with a engine identical to the original. However it is worth pointing out that this has been pulled off before. ISRO for example developed their first gen cryogenic engine CE-7.5 by reverse engineering the russian RD-56 engine. China i believe developed their early engines modeled after soviet designs.

What i think has happened is that NK at some point in time has come across blueprints for old soviet engines. They have probably taken the basic design and adapted it for their own needs much like a handful of other countries.

Kind of ignoring the advanced manufacturing and materials needed by just saying oh they knocked them up from some old blueprints they found lining around.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 08/16/2017 11:18 AM
The RD-250 is a closed cycle engine whereas both engines tested by north korea were clearly open cycle. Also it would not make a lot of sense for north korea to jump from gas ganerater engine straight to oxidiser rich staged combustion cycle engines as even countries with decades of experience with rocket engines like china often run into problems.
There's consensus that NK have tested and flown the 4D10 ORSC engine, so they have at least some grasp of that technology already. Also, are you sure RD-250 is closed-cycle? Norbert Bruegge's site lists all engines in that family as GG.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 08/16/2017 05:36 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-intelligence-idUSKCN1AV2CK

Quote from: Reuters
North Korea likely has the ability to produce its own missile engines and intelligence suggests it does not need to rely on imports, U.S. intelligence officials said on Tuesday.

The assessment disputes a new study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies that said that the engines for a nuclear missile North Korea is developing to hit the United States likely were made in factories in Ukraine or Russia and probably obtained via black market networks.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/16/2017 08:17 PM
The RD-250 is a closed cycle engine whereas both engines tested by north korea were clearly open cycle. Also it would not make a lot of sense for north korea to jump from gas ganerater engine straight to oxidiser rich staged combustion cycle engines as even countries with decades of experience with rocket engines like china often run into problems.
There's consensus that NK have tested and flown the 4D10 ORSC engine, so they have at least some grasp of that technology already. Also, are you sure RD-250 is closed-cycle? Norbert Bruegge's site lists all engines in that family as GG.


The RD-250 family are gas generator engines:

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/R-16_missile_engine_derivative/index.htm

RD-253 is closed cycle, but not related to RD-250.

Chris Bergan has posted the Yuzhnoye response here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43583.msg1713332#msg1713332

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/16/2017 08:20 PM

The report also points out how difficult it is to reverse engineer a rocket engine and end up with a engine identical to the original. However it is worth pointing out that this has been pulled off before. ISRO for example developed their first gen cryogenic engine CE-7.5 by reverse engineering the russian RD-56 engine. China i believe developed their early engines modeled after soviet designs.



When ISRO designed their cryogenic engine, they had working examples of LH2 engines and access to Russian engineers continually. 

When China designed their initial rocket engines, they had working examples of Soviet engines and access to Soviet engineers.

When NK designs their engines, they probably don't have working examples, nor easy access to Russian engineers.  For example, although they may have access to some Makayev engineers, they don't have access to Isayev engineers, and Isayev is the engine designer, not Makayev.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 08/17/2017 01:14 AM
Apparently the CEO of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash suspects China: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukrainian-missile-plant-director-duped-call-russian-pranksters.html

Edit:
More from Elleman at VOA: https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-north-korea-missile-technology/3988469.html
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/17/2017 01:54 AM
From the end user perspective (meaning those serving as potential targets of a NK ICBM), there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 ton RD-250 engine and a 4D10 that has been upgraded from 25 tons and 2 extra verniers installed.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/18/2017 10:26 PM
More analysis & speculation on NK indigenous development based on Soviet tech. Claims recent NYT report etc are wrong:

https://www.nknews.org/2017/08/how-north-korea-makes-its-missiles/ (https://www.nknews.org/2017/08/how-north-korea-makes-its-missiles/)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/19/2017 01:04 AM
"The U.S. intelligence community, which usually keeps mum, signaled its own unhappiness with the New York Times, telling the PBS NewsHour, Reuters, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times that the story was flat wrong. "

Meaning that the Ukrainians did not sell RD-250 engines to NK. This makes sense, since it would be crazy for NK to buy a 2 chambered RD-250 engine, and then cut it in half.  And, as noted before, the HS-12 engine seems to be open cycle, whereas the RD-250 is closed cycle, supposedly.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 on 08/19/2017 10:39 AM
Assuming that NK has indeed acquired RD-250 designs it is somewhat odd we have not seen any ground tests of both combustion chambers in action at the same time

EDIT: RD-250 has a thrust of 88 tons while the September 2016 engine has a reported test of 80 tons. Does RD-250 have throttling capablity? Very little information about this engine on the internet......
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/19/2017 03:33 PM
Since this is an old Glushko design, there is quite a bit written about the engine in Russian books. My impression at the time was that the engine was low performance, even for its' time period, but perhaps optimized for reliability.

At any rate, it is unlikely that a single chamber version would produce 80 tons of thrust.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 08/19/2017 03:37 PM
 I suspect the 80 ton figure has more to do with South Korea having demonstrated a 75 ton engine than the engine's real performance. On the other hand, US treasury sanctions mentioned an '80 ton booster engine' before NK had made any public statements about it.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/19/2017 10:59 PM
Do you have a link to that statement from the US Treasury?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 08/20/2017 08:04 AM
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0322.aspx
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/20/2017 09:31 PM
Yeah, that is referring to a rocket rather than an engine. Unha clusters 4 Improved Scud engines for a total thrust around 80 tons.

Note that HS12 is in the same class as the 25 ton thrust HS10; it may be up to 40 tons, but is not twice as powerful, and certainly not 3 times the size.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/22/2017 05:49 PM
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukraine-bats-away-claims-supplied-rocket-engines-north-korea.html

Ukraine enumerates the production and location of RD-250 engines since 1991.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/26/2017 04:56 AM
US Pacific Command reports it detected a salvo launch of at least 3 ballistic missiles which all failed at different times of powered flight. Preliminary info is one appeared to be on a heading towards Guam or another US island. An official presser will be made later.

EDIT: verified info:
U.S. Pacific Command‏Verified account @PacificCommand
Statement on latest #NorthKorea violation of @UN Security Council resolutions: 3 SRBM launches; no threat to U.S. territory including #Guam
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/27/2017 03:18 AM
This report is saying that the missiles previously reported as failing in flight were successful. Range is reported as 250 km, which is within the range of Hwasong-5 (Scud B).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/north-korea-missile-launches-did-not-fail-in-flight-as-first-thought/article/2632657
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/27/2017 12:50 PM
A Peek Into North Korea’s Missile Future


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJE9fQUChnY
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/28/2017 05:55 AM
Screen captures. Looks like a solid motor winding area, possibly for the Pukguksong missiles.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/28/2017 03:50 PM
This report is saying that the missiles previously reported as failing in flight were successful. Range is reported as 250 km, which is within the range of Hwasong-5 (Scud B).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/north-korea-missile-launches-did-not-fail-in-flight-as-first-thought/article/2632657
Pacific Command still says that on of the missiles failed immediately after launch.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 08/28/2017 09:46 PM
More here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41078187
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: savuporo on 08/29/2017 01:38 AM
Approx flight path

Pretty spooky alleged in-flight pic from the ground in Japan:

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/902326770724110336
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/29/2017 06:57 AM
Screen captures. Looks like a solid motor winding area, possibly for the Pukguksong missiles.

According to KCNA, this is the Chemical Material Institute of Academy of Defence Science.

"Kim Jong Un Inspects Chemical Material Institute of Academy of Defense Science

Pyongyang, August 23 (KCNA) -- Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK and supreme commander of the Korean People's Army, gave field guidance to the Chemical Material Institute of the Academy of Defense Science.

Shaking hands of officials who came out to greet him, respected Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un said that he came to learn about the situation of the institute and help its work. He noted that in recent years the institute has done a lot of jobs in a patriotic drive for breaking through the cutting edge, whether they are known or not, true to the Workers' Party of Korea's policy of attaching importance to the defense science and technology and policy of the munitions industry.

After looking round the newly-built room for the education in the revolutionary history and exhibition hall of scientific and technological achievements, he learned about the processes for manufacturing ICBM warhead tip and solid-fuel rocket engine.

Acquainting himself with the processes for preform weaving by carbon fiber, chemical deposition, high pressure liquid deposition and final treatment, he learned about in detail the density of preform, deposition temperature, vacuum degree and deposition time in the chemical deposition process, deposition temperature, pressure, working medium and deposition frequency in the high pressure liquid deposition process and technological specifications in the final treatment process.

He then made a field survey of the process for manufacturing solid-fuel rocket engine and specified tasks and ways for normalizing the production at a higher level.

He set forth important tasks facing the institute.

He instructed the institute to produce more solid-fuel rocket engines and rocket warhead tips by further expanding engine production process and the production capacity of rocket warhead tips and engine jets by carbon/carbon compound material.

Highly appreciating that it is the pride of our Party to have such unassuming heroes, unit of patriotic scientists as the officials of this institute who have devoted themselves to carrying out the Party's policy of defense science, keeping in mind the pure single mind of loyalty to the Party, whether they are appreciated or not, and gave special thanks and special bonus to them in the name of the Party Central Committee.

He had a photo session with the scientists, technicians and workers of the Chemical Material Institute of the Academy of Defense Science.

Accompanying him were Jo Yong Won and Kim Jong Sik, vice department directors of the C.C., the Workers' Party of Korea. -0-"
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/30/2017 05:05 AM
CNN reports this latest missile was Hwasong 12. It appears to have traveled about 2,000 miles before disintegration.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/30/2017 05:35 AM
Kim’s Visit to the Chemical Material Institute: A Peek Into North Korea’s Missile Future

http://www.38north.org/2017/08/melleman082517/

"Two large posters were also captured in the photos, presenting conceptual illustrations of a new missile, the Pukguksong-3, and the Hwasong-13 (also known as the KN-08), as well as the technical parameters for their composite materials."
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Lewis007 on 08/30/2017 11:54 AM
video of the latest missile launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpY8PMmimAk


Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/30/2017 03:58 PM
Launch of Hwasong 12
Augsut 29, 2017


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWzWvd5j3o4
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/31/2017 05:31 AM
Screen grabs! You can see the trajectory over Japan. Should be able to work out the expected range from that photo.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/31/2017 05:32 AM
More grabs.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: StvB on 08/31/2017 12:10 PM
Looks to be the same office seen in the above photos; seeing it made the location of the others more clear to me. Pretty good spot to watch a launch. I had also seen a photo on twitter, taken from the ground, of the latest missile in flight but can't seem to find it now.

(https://www.opptrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/KIM-watching-missile-launch-850x567.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/31/2017 04:35 PM
What does the proximity of the Dear Leader to the missile being erected tell us about its fueling status, if anything?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/31/2017 04:56 PM
The shape of the reentry vehicle is reminiscent of Iran's Shahab-3B. Given their history of cooperating on missile technology, and the awkward proportions of the nose, I would not be surprised if the reentry vehicle is a borrowed design.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 08/31/2017 08:06 PM
Shahab-3 is a Scud variant, with a max range of about 1000 km with a heavy payload. Note that it is comparable in size to Hwasong 12, it is smaller, but still in the same class. It is unlikely that the two would share a warhead design, since Hwasong 12 has higher velocities.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 09/03/2017 08:52 AM
Kim Jong Un inspects an H-bomb fitting into new ICBM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqadadHXNkE
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/03/2017 09:29 AM
Kim Jong Un inspects an H-bomb fitting into new ICBM


And a follow-up to the warhead part, North Korea claims it just tested a Hydrogen Bomb that could fit on an ICBM:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/03/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test-live-updates/index.html?sr=twCNN090317north-korea-nuclear-test-live-updates0239PMVODtop

Cant't verify that it was miniature, but USGS shows a 6.3 Magnitude earthquake in the area consistent with a nuclear test, followed by at 4.0 tremor that is probably collapse of the test tunnel:

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000aert#executive
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2017 11:02 AM
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?

See here where it suggests a boosted fission device rather than a Hydrogen bomb.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/904349507491696640

Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?

Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un

Updated now up to 120 Kilotons.

Quote
Will Ripley @willripleyCNN
Norway seismologists: North Korea H-bomb test had explosive yield of 120 kilotons. Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. North Korea statement below:

https://mobile.twitter.com/willripleyCNN/status/904264088078868480
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: yokem55 on 09/03/2017 03:26 PM
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?

Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?

Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.

If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.

Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088

As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.

All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2017 04:03 PM
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?

Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?

Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.

If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.

Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088

As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.

All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.

Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: yokem55 on 09/03/2017 04:09 PM
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?

Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?

Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.

If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.

Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088

As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.

All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.

Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?
No, the focus will probably be on keeping size and weight down. They want to get the most out of what they have in terms of fissionable material and how big of a rocket they have to build. Tsar Bomba was impressive, but utterly useless in a real war.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RonM on 09/03/2017 04:25 PM
Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?

Here's what a 100 kt ground blast can do (same as a W-76 warhead). More powerful warheads are not really needed as one of these gets the job done.

You can run your own detonation simulation at the Nukemap site.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 09/03/2017 05:30 PM
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
China went from their first test to thermonuclear in two years, without much outside help. They had some soviet help to start the program, but that quickly ended due to the sino-soviet split.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: savuporo on 09/03/2017 05:46 PM
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
China went from their first test to thermonuclear in two years, without much outside help. They had some soviet help to start the program, but that quickly ended due to the sino-soviet split.
If only the step from fission to fusion was as easy in power generation.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2017 06:22 PM
Looks like they are going for a singular warhead at the moment, perhaps their current missiles don't have the throw weight to carry anything else. I know the warheads are smaller but the infrastructure to carry and deploy them must weigh a fair bit. Plus they probably don't have the technology to deploy multiple warheads at three moment.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: sanman on 09/03/2017 07:00 PM
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.

If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.

Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088

As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.

Having achieved a 100-kiloton yield, they may do more tests in the future to scale that up further.
i assume that because thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material, that this now means that the number of North Korean warheads would now increase.

EDIT: The rumor that I'd heard was that the latest device exploded by DPRK is a possible derivative of the American W-88 design, which was lifted from the United States through espionage by a 3rd party. Since P-5 powers are all test ban signatories, and sub-kiloton hydronuclear testing is hard to use for design validation, it helps to have a non-signatory friend who can do actual full-scale tests.


Quote
All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.

North Korea doesn't have to directly launch a nuclear attack on anyone in order to fundamentally challenge the global power structure. All it has to do is sell its nuclear weapons technology to anyone willing to pay. With upwards of 60 nuclear warheads currently estimated in its fissile material supply, that quantity will only grow into the future, as will its missile repertoire.

How long until it develops the ability reliably launch orbital satellites?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Joris on 09/03/2017 09:35 PM
Quote
thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material

They actually require a lot more, most of it in the tamper. Most of the energy in an H-bomb comes from fission, not fusion.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: ugordan on 09/04/2017 07:36 AM
Quote
thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material

They actually require a lot more, most of it in the tamper. Most of the energy in an H-bomb comes from fission, not fusion.

It's been a while since I've read up on Teller-Ulam staged thermonuclear combustion, but from what I remember that's not strictly true, at least in the sense that "fissile" usually implies self-sustaining fission.

Tampers, especially if you're not going for a "clean" bomb can be made of depleted uranium 238 which ought to be abundant to you since you're already either using natural uranium to produce smaller quantities of either Pu-239 or U-235. It doesn't have to be fissile by slow neutrons (self-sustaining fission, i.e. something you can make a bomb out of all by itself) to boost the yield up significantly by fast fusion neutron-induced fission. In this sense, tamper material shouldn't be a very scarce commodity.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/04/2017 07:59 AM
This takes us back to the missile question.

We know that Hwasong 12 can fly 2,000 km, since it just did so, although the payload was unknown.

Hwasong 14, the "ICBM", is reported to be Hwasong 12 with a small upper stage to increase range at the expense of payload mass. It is not clear that Hwasong 14 could fly a conventional nuke payload very far, and we have no proof that NK has successfully miniaturized their bikes.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/04/2017 08:09 AM
This takes us back to the missile question.

We know that Hwasong 12 can fly 2,000 km, since it just did so, although the payload was unknown.

Hwasong 14, the "ICBM", is reported to be Hwasong 12 with a small upper stage to increase range at the expense of payload mass. It is not clear that Hwasong 14 could fly a conventional nuke payload very far, and we have no proof that NK has successfully miniaturized their bikes.

A deterrent based on sabre rattling needs to be credible to be effective.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: randomly on 09/04/2017 08:10 AM
A true fusion weapon is much more difficult to design than a fission weapon. I talked to the man who designed the first US fusion bomb Ivy Mike, his comment was "Fission bombs are easy, fusion devices are hard".
They actually do require more fissile material as there is a fissile "spark plug" at the core of the fusion portion of the weapon in addition to the fission core that provides the drive for the initial compression. The outer casing tamper can be made of depleted uranium and most of it will fission from the fast neutron flux from the fusion reaction inside. The outer casing can also be made of non-fissionable lead or some other material in which case the total device yield will be reduce to about 1/2. Something like 60% of the total energy typically comes from fission. There are limits to how big a yield you can get out of a pure fission or boosted fission weapon (around a megaton), however there is no limit on a fusion weapon.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2017 11:10 AM
A true fusion weapon is much more difficult to design than a fission weapon. I talked to the man who designed the first US fusion bomb Ivy Mike, his comment was "Fission bombs are easy, fusion devices are hard".
They actually do require more fissile material as there is a fissile "spark plug" at the core of the fusion portion of the weapon in addition to the fission core that provides the drive for the initial compression. The outer casing tamper can be made of depleted uranium and most of it will fission from the fast neutron flux from the fusion reaction inside. The outer casing can also be made of non-fissionable lead or some other material in which case the total device yield will be reduce to about 1/2. Something like 60% of the total energy typically comes from fission. There are limits to how big a yield you can get out of a pure fission or boosted fission weapon (around a megaton), however there is no limit on a fusion weapon.

I thought there was a limit due to size. The Tsar bomb was impractically huge and not something that could be realistically used normally.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: ugordan on 09/04/2017 11:16 AM
I thought there was a limit due to size. The Tsar bomb was impractically huge and not something that could be realistically used normally.

There's a limit to how big the subsequent stage can be compared to the primary (IIRC something like 100x the yield maximum), but in principle you can stack bigger and bigger thermonuclear stages. Tsar is believed to have been a 3 stage weapon, a fission primary powering a fusion stage and then that stage acting as primary for a 3rd stage. The U.S. has also tested three stage weapons.

Tsar was more about making a statement about Soviet weapon prowess than it being any kind of a usable weapon.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2017 11:20 AM
I thought there was a limit due to size. The Tsar bomb was impractically huge and not something that could be realistically used normally.

There's a limit to how big the subsequent stage can be compared to the primary (IIRC something like 100x the yield maximum), but in principle you can stack bigger and bigger thermonuclear stages. Tsar is believed to have been a 3 stage weapon, a fission primary powering a fusion stage and then that stage acting as primary for a 3rd stage. The U.S. has also tested three stage weapons.

Tsar was more about making a statement about Soviet weapon prowess than it being any kind of a usable weapon.

Are Fusion devices in general much more difficult to miniaturise compared to fission devices?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/04/2017 06:30 PM
Seeking a summation of the speculation in this thread:
Are we looking at a boosted-fission test?
(Increasing fission yield efficiency and simultaneously allowing miniaturization of a fission warhead via the inclusion of a small amount of fusile material?)
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2017 07:03 PM
Good summation here.

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/nuke090317/

Quote
The released photographs purportedly show Kim Jong Un providing “guidance” on what the North Korean press called a “thermonuclear” warhead for a ballistic missile. The device shown in the images has many of the hallmarks of such a device (two bulbous ends shaped like a peanut consistent with the claim of a “two-stage” device); however, caution should be taken as this is the conclusion that North Korea wants the US and others to reach from viewing the images and it is likely that an actual device will have a somewhat different design and that this was only a model mock-up.

Quote
Regardless of whether this most recent test was an operational warhead for an ICBM or simply a device, the yield of the test clearly shows North Korean progress in increasing the yields of the nuclear weapons. The significance of this is that it has the potential to dramatically increase the threat posed by its Strategic Force (responsible for ballistic missiles) as individual nuclear warheads potentially now have 10-times-greater destructive power. This would allow fewer missiles to be employed to ensure destruction of a given target, and increase the target set threatened by North Korean ICBMs by allowing a larger number of targets to be engaged with the current missile inventory. If the claim that the device just tested has a variable yield is true (from tens to hundreds of kilotons), then this would also imply a more sophisticated employment doctrine that envisions more limited, flexible and discrete targeting options than would otherwise be needed to implement a minimum deterrence, counter value doctrine.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: savuporo on 09/04/2017 07:32 PM
Seeking a summation of the speculation in this thread:
Are we looking at a boosted-fission test?
(Increasing fission yield efficiency and simultaneously allowing miniaturization of a fission warhead via the inclusion of a small amount of fusile material?)

In the easy to digest version:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/did-north-korea-just-test-a-hydrogen-bomb

Seismic strength lends credibility to it being a h-bomb, but the telltale xenon signature hasn't been picked up by monitoring stations. Detection might be impossible though, if not much leaked out
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2017 07:37 PM
More to the post above.

Quote
Stephen Schwartz @AtomicAnalyst
CTBTO has raised its body-wave magnitude estimate of DPRK's sixth nuclear test yesterday from 5.8 to 6.0, largest ever detected by the IMS.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AtomicAnalyst/status/904779901399470080
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: sanman on 09/04/2017 10:11 PM
Potential launch dates coming up:

Quote
G.Spezza‏ @TheSpezz
Worth reminding: #NorthKorea has two of its most important anniversaries on Sep 9 & Oct 10. Expect more tests & missile launches.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 09/04/2017 11:05 PM
Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?
No, the focus will probably be on keeping size and weight down. They want to get the most out of what they have in terms of fissionable material and how big of a rocket they have to build. Tsar Bomba was impressive, but utterly useless in a real war.

I would think that, if anything, they would focus on improving prompt gamma ray production rather than total energy output (in order to maximize the EMP effect). Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell if they’re doing that. Hopefully the probable tunnel collapse after this latest test will at least reveal whether it was a hydrogen bomb.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: randomly on 09/05/2017 03:16 AM
I thought there was a limit due to size. The Tsar bomb was impractically huge and not something that could be realistically used normally.
There may be a limit dictated by portability, but not a physical limit on the yield of the device as there is with a fission weapon. There is also a practical limit in that above 50-100 Mt the atmosphere above the explosion can't provide enough containment for the explosion and additional energy just blows the atmosphere above the explosion off. Increasing the yield above that point does not substantially increase the blast wave.

The USA no longer has any fusion weapons in their nuclear inventory. Only sub megaton boosted fission weapons, which are smaller in size and weight. Large weapons were only developed to compensate for poor delivery accuracy, which is no longer an issue.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: randomly on 09/05/2017 03:30 AM
Are Fusion devices in general much more difficult to miniaturise compared to fission devices?
They are always larger than the smallest fission weapons, since it takes a fission weapon to power the second stage compression of the fusion core.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/05/2017 06:09 AM
This takes us back to the missile question.

We know that Hwasong 12 can fly 2,000 km, since it just did so, although the payload was unknown.

Hwasong 14, the "ICBM", is reported to be Hwasong 12 with a small upper stage to increase range at the expense of payload mass. It is not clear that Hwasong 14 could fly a conventional nuke payload very far, and we have no proof that NK has successfully miniaturized their bikes.

A deterrent based on sabre rattling needs to be credible to be effective.

Those may be wise words, but that has nothing to do with the physical attributes of the Hwasong 14 missile.

Note that NK claims that its first satellite launch was successful, so their claims are not always credible.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2017 07:32 AM
Are Fusion devices in general much more difficult to miniaturise compared to fission devices?
They are always larger than the smallest fission weapons, since it takes a fission weapon to power the second stage compression of the fusion core.

I thought this might be the case. I suppose with the way the regime seems to think that they will seek to develop up a megaton device.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: cn1984x on 09/05/2017 07:55 AM
I thought there was a limit due to size. The Tsar bomb was impractically huge and not something that could be realistically used normally.
There may be a limit dictated by portability, but not a physical limit on the yield of the device as there is with a fission weapon. There is also a practical limit in that above 50-100 Mt the atmosphere above the explosion can't provide enough containment for the explosion and additional energy just blows the atmosphere above the explosion off. Increasing the yield above that point does not substantially increase the blast wave.

The USA no longer has any fusion weapons in their nuclear inventory. Only sub megaton boosted fission weapons, which are smaller in size and weight. Large weapons were only developed to compensate for poor delivery accuracy, which is no longer an issue.

B83 is over 1 megaton
W88 is Teller-ullam with a primary and secondary
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Hog on 09/05/2017 02:59 PM
Quote
thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material

They actually require a lot more, most of it in the tamper. Most of the energy in an H-bomb comes from fission, not fusion.

It's been a while since I've read up on Teller-Ulam staged thermonuclear combustion, but from what I remember that's not strictly true, at least in the sense that "fissile" usually implies self-sustaining fission.

Tampers, especially if you're not going for a "clean" bomb can be made of depleted uranium 238 which ought to be abundant to you since you're already either using natural uranium to produce smaller quantities of either Pu-239 or U-235. It doesn't have to be fissile by slow neutrons (self-sustaining fission, i.e. something you can make a bomb out of all by itself) to boost the yield up significantly by fast fusion neutron-induced fission. In this sense, tamper material shouldn't be a very scarce commodity.
Agreed
Yes, in the secondary the neutron flux causes the U-238 tamper to grab a neutron and transmutate to Ne239, then Pu239.  Of course all those fission products make things very very dirty.  IIRC Tsar Bomba used a lead tamper to limit yield, of which approx. 90% came from fusion alone. But the 3 stage B-41 was more efficient on a mass/yield compare, the most efficient ever.

Much easier to make a chunk of U238(depleted Uranium) than a chunk of HEU235, from a cost/procurement standpoint. Though one is the byproduct of the production of the other.

Approx. 77% of the Ivy Mike device came from fast fission of the U238 tamper. the lack of U238 having a critical mass, means that you can stuff as much of the metal into the bomb as the secondary tamper as you wish.

The recent 50-100 kt test is impressive, and worrisome.  They keep talking about a Hydrogen Device, but are the DPNK using a play on words here?  Are these test subjects "simply" boosted fission devices with their focus soley on the Tritium (isotope of Hydrogen) that is usually injected into the core thus boosting the fission yield by using the powers of fusion(fusion of tritium and deuterium-both isotopes of Hydrogen- produces a neutron with an energy of 14 MeV)?
 Or is North Korea really detonating true 2 stage Hydrogen weapons?
or
Are they demonstrating some sort of old school single stage device that uses large amounts of fusion fuel to cause a U238(depleted uranium) tamper to fission.  Like the early Joe-4 and Soviet "Layer Cake" designs?

I guess the only real way of determining this would be by "sniffing" for the products of the test. Or by having the North Koreans actually tell us what they were doing, similarly like they did by telling the USA about the exact location of their U enrichment facilities by giving Siegfried Hecker a tour of their centrifuge enrichment building of the Uranium Enrichment Complex.  (The famed one with the blue roof-which was doubled in size a few years ago.)  With their Uranium enrichment centrifuge, in "full swing"(pun intended)and their Plutonium production reactor the 5MWe reactor firing back up, coupled with the success of a truly "fruitful" last test, the goal of miniaturizing some test subjects to fit them onto ballistic missiles is disconcerting to say the least.  Even their last threat of an EMP strike would be "disruptive" at the very best.

Yesterdays emergency meeting of the UN in regards to DPRK.  6.0 magnitude up to 6.3 magnitude estimated yield 50-100 kt. The initial event was followed by a smaller event of which some scientists have speculated that the smaller event that occurred 8-1/2 minutes after the first event, was the test tunnel actually collapsing after the nuclear detonation.(I have seen reports of yield estimates that stretch up to 0.3 megatons or 300 kilotons.)
From a DPRK press release, actually two releases squished together by myself. They were released on the same day, August 3.
 QUOTE "Their leader had inspected what they claimed to be a Hydrogen bomb which was conspicuously displayed in from of a Payload Fairing of a Hwasong-14 Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile  "the Hydrogen Bomb was a multifunctional thermonuclear nuke with great destructive power which can be detonated at even high altitudes for super powerful EMP(electro magnetic pulse) attack"ENDQUOTE

All covered in this video of the 2nd emergency meeting about Nuclear Weapons Proliferation as it pertains to North Korea in less than a week
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpZs5Hh4bK8

So the statement about the "Hydrogen Bomb" in front of their missiles Payload Fairing has obvious connotations.
We have the missile and a small enough nuke to place aboard said missile. IOW We have the weapon AND its delivery system.

I really hope their leader doesn't think that an EMP attack wouldn't have the same outcomes for him that an actual nuclear attack that would strike surface targets.

Here are the lofted trajectories of the last H-14 missile test. These trajectories were used to not encroach on other nations borders
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/05/2017 03:19 PM
Anatoly Zak's analysis and response:

http://russianspaceweb.com/rd250.html

Quote
The RD-250 engine at the center of an international storm
In 2017, North Korea stunned the world with a series of test launches of long-range ballistic missiles. One popular explanation for the rogue state's remarkable progress in rocketry essentially blamed Ukraine for providing North Korea with know-how on the powerful RD-250 engine which bore some superficial resemblance to a North-Korean engine. But was it really possible, given the scale of effort required to reproduce and drastically redesign a complex rocket engine?

...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2017 05:01 PM
Latest update on the yield of the sixth test.

US Intelligence: North Korea's Sixth Test Was a 140 Kiloton 'Advanced Nuclear' Device

Quote
U.S. government sources with access to the latest intelligence regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program have told The Diplomat that its sixth nuclear test also involved an “advanced nuclear device.”

Per the early assessment shared with The Diplomat, the device was either a boosted fission device or, as North Korea claimed in its state media, a two-stage thermonuclear bomb. It’s unclear if the device test was the specific device North Korea showed in photographs prior to its test on Sunday.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/09/us-intelligence-north-koreas-sixth-test-was-a-140-kiloton-advanced-nuclear-device/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2017 10:15 PM
North Korea’s Sixth Nuclear Test: A First Look

Quote
Commercial satellite imagery from Planet, obtained the day after North Korea conducted its largest test to date (currently estimated in the 100+ kiloton range), appears to show numerous landslides throughout the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site and beyond. The area of these surface disturbances, which include numerous areas of pre-existing gravel and scree fields that have apparently been lofted in place from the tremors,[1] is centered about Mt. Mantap (elevation. 2205 meters). These disturbances are more numerous and widespread than what we have seen from any of the five tests North Korea previously conducted. There does not appear to be any evidence of a collapse crater, as might have been suggested from the post-test tremor. The resolution of this imagery is presently insufficient to show any other damage, (e.g. to buildings at the base of the mountain in the support areas). However, once higher resolution imagery becomes available, additional details will become known and we will report on them at that time.

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/punggye090517/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Phillip Clark on 09/07/2017 01:19 AM
Should the nuclear/thermonuclear weapon discussion be separated from the missile thread?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2017 07:23 AM
Should the nuclear/thermonuclear weapon discussion be separated from the missile thread?

Isn't it better to contain it all in one thread, to stop thread creep?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Phillip Clark on 09/07/2017 09:41 AM
Should the nuclear/thermonuclear weapon discussion be separated from the missile thread?
Isn't it better to contain it all in one thread, to stop thread creep?

Maybe it's just me but I thought that the design of bombs had already caused the thread about *missiles* to creep rather a long way.   Still, no problem.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 09/14/2017 07:40 PM
NORSAR has revised their assessment of the 6th nuclear test, now 200-300kt.
(https://www.norsar.no/getfile.php/135707/norsar.no/Press/Pictures/20170903-new_staggered_DPRK_panel.png%20%28content%29.png)

[Source (https://www.norsar.no/press/latest-press-release/archive/the-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea-on-3-september-2017-a-revised-magnitude-assessment-article1548-984.html)]


In rocket news the 3 rockets fired on August 26th were identified as KN21 aka Scud-B MaRV. This modification was first seen on this years parade.
[Source (http://thediplomat.com/2017/09/introducing-the-kn21-north-koreas-new-take-on-its-oldest-ballistic-missile/)]
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2017 10:24 PM
Reports coming in that North Korea has fired what's described in some reports as an intercontinental ballistic missile towards Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41275614
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 09/15/2017 04:53 AM
North Korea’s Sept. 15 Missile Launch over Japan

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-sept-15-launch-over-japan (http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-sept-15-launch-over-japan)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/15/2017 05:14 AM
Probably a max range test with a minimum payload. R-27 could do that carrying 650 kg of payload, as a reference.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Liss on 09/15/2017 07:29 AM
With distance of 3700 km and height of 770 km, initial velocity is approximately 6100 m/s.
It is still within the known capacity of HS-12 IRBM.
We'll see if KCNA reports the launch and in which terms.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 09/15/2017 10:33 PM
Pics From the latest Hwasong-12 launch from North Korea

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 09/16/2017 09:00 AM
Hwasong 12 launch September 15, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIQpmGx9ubE
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/16/2017 06:50 PM
With distance of 3700 km and height of 770 km, initial velocity is approximately 6100 m/s.
It is still within the known capacity of HS-12 IRBM.
We'll see if KCNA reports the launch and in which terms.

If there is any way to calculate the final velocity of the HS-14 first stage, that might give us some insight into the mass proporties of the second stage, based on the above numbers.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/17/2017 05:13 AM
Here's the KCNA broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdsOVphN0Dk
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/17/2017 05:26 AM
For those who collect serial numbers. This one was launched directly from the TEL, unlike the previous launch. The TEL got scorched quite a bit, but this allows a more rapid response.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/19/2017 02:12 PM
I'm curious why a direct tweet link from the US president calling out Kim and his missile launches would get deleted? All the news media covered it and everything the president communicates will be archived in the Library of Congress for posterity...

Trump UN address quote: "Rocket Man is on a suicide mission"  10:20am ET

Edit to add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lujfTUMJhU0
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: catdlr on 09/21/2017 11:31 PM
MDAA CRT: Defending Against the North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat

Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
Published on Sep 21, 2017

MDAA's Congressional Roundtable Series: Defending Against the North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat.

The event was on September 20, 2017 at the Hart Senate Office Building.

Speakers:

COL Mark Holler
Executive Officer to the Army Inspector General
Former Commander of the 35th ADA Brigade

RADM (ret) Mark Montgomery
Former Director of Operations
U.S. Pacific Command


RADM Johnny Wolfe
Program Executive, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
Missile Defense Agency

Host: Riki Ellison
Founder and Chairman
Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtvQRxuygaQ?t=001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtvQRxuygaQ
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/22/2017 01:20 AM
This thread needs more posts about North Korea missile tech, and less about the political stuff.

In particular, compare and contrast Hwasong 12 vs Hwasong 14.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/22/2017 01:02 PM
This thread needs more posts about North Korea missile tech, and less about the political stuff.

In particular, compare and contrast Hwasong 12 vs Hwasong 14.
That will come in handy when one lands on you and without the politics the missiles would not exist...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/22/2017 02:12 PM
The news today is about North Korea's plan to test a "hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean".  Any thoughts on how that might be carried out?  Is North Korea planning to launch a live warhead on a missile that likely has to fly over Japan?  The U.S. and Soviet Union carried out such tests before the test ban treaty, but those were on controlled test ranges. 

 - Ed Kyle
I heard possibly using a ship, unconfirmed...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rebel44 on 09/22/2017 02:20 PM
The news today is about North Korea's plan to test a "hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean".  Any thoughts on how that might be carried out?  Is North Korea planning to launch a live warhead on a missile that likely has to fly over Japan?  The U.S. and Soviet Union carried out such tests before the test ban treaty, but those were on controlled test ranges. 

 - Ed Kyle

China actually did the same thing, after US president said that China doesnt have a viable delivery platform for its nukes, so they are not worried about it (which sound very similar to what many are saying now).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/22/2017 02:31 PM
I never heard of anyone testing a nuke without the capability of monitoring the results. A missile launch would take the nuke beyond telemetry range unless they tried flying a very high elevation trajectory, which would mean that an engine failure would put the nuke close to land.

A ship could be intercepted.

Therefore, most likely, this is Guam all over again.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/22/2017 02:46 PM
I never heard of anyone testing a nuke without the capability of monitoring the results. A missile launch would take the nuke beyond telemetry range unless they tried flying a very high elevation trajectory, which would mean that an engine failure would put the nuke close to land.

A ship could be intercepted.

Therefore, most likely, this is Guam all over again.
They may detonate on a ship, no launch needed and they have hidden weapons on board that got past inspectors during intercepts...
There has been unusual submarine activity in the last month or so in international waters and so it could even be a sub launched missile for all we know:

"North Korea’s latest submarine is a step in a different direction, the so-called Sinpo or Gorae (“Whale”) class ballistic-missile submarine (SSB). The SSB appears to blend submarine know-how from previous classes with launch technology from the Soviet Cold War–era Golf-class ballistic-missile submarines; North Korea imported several Golf-class subs in the 1990s, ostensibly for scrapping purposes. Both the Golf and Gorae classes feature missile tubes in the submarine’s sail. The tubes are believed to be meant for the Pukkuksong-1 (“Polaris”) submarine-launched ballistic missiles currently under development."

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/north-koreas-submarine-fleet-big-threat-or-big-joke-20300
Edit to add:
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 09/24/2017 03:41 AM
I will stick my neck out and predict that we are not going to see a Pacific test of a nuke for many years, not an intentional one, except if carried out by a large ship.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 09/24/2017 12:13 PM
Just in:

Earthquake In North Korea Sets Off Alarm And Speculation

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/23/553127805/earthquake-in-north-korea-sets-off-alarm-and-speculation?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170923
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 09/24/2017 02:33 PM
Just in:

Earthquake In North Korea Sets Off Alarm And Speculation

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/23/553127805/earthquake-in-north-korea-sets-off-alarm-and-speculation

There have been a couple more Tweets from [CTBTO Executive Secretary] Lassina Zerbo (https://mobile.twitter.com/sinazerbo?lang=en) saying that the seismic activity was related to geologic stress from the previous nuclear test.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Archibald on 09/24/2017 05:10 PM
Live test of Polaris A1, 1962.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329041813/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/frigate_bird.htm

Last atmospheric nuclear test was China in October 1980.

If North Korea really do that... well, the gloves are off. It will create quite a dangerous situation.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 09/24/2017 10:50 PM
Live test of Polaris A1, 1962.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329041813/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/frigate_bird.htm

Last atmospheric nuclear test was China in October 1980.

If North Korea really do that... well, the gloves are off. It will create quite a dangerous situation.
What is different since the last atmospheric tests is that nearly every nation on Earth has since signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  An open air test by North Korea would be a nasty affront to the rest of this planet's inhabitants - and that is the best possible outcome.  Worse would be setting the thing off in the midst of naval or air traffic, or having test fallout affect islands or transiting traffic.

 - Ed Kyle

Our oceans are not exactly in the best of health these days and such a test certainly wouldn’t do much for them in the vicinity.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 09/24/2017 11:07 PM
Live test of Polaris A1, 1962.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329041813/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/frigate_bird.htm

Last atmospheric nuclear test was China in October 1980.

If North Korea really do that... well, the gloves are off. It will create quite a dangerous situation.
What is different since the last atmospheric tests is that nearly every nation on Earth has since signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  An open air test by North Korea would be a nasty affront to the rest of this planet's inhabitants - and that is the best possible outcome.  Worse would be setting the thing off in the midst of naval or air traffic, or having test fallout affect islands or transiting traffic.

 - Ed Kyle

Our oceans are not exactly in the best of health these days and such a test certainly wouldn’t do much for them in the vicinity.
As someone who has dedicated their professional - and personal - life to the world’s oceans, I’m mortified by this threat.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 09/25/2017 05:32 AM
Live test of Polaris A1, 1962.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329041813/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/frigate_bird.htm

Last atmospheric nuclear test was China in October 1980.

If North Korea really do that... well, the gloves are off. It will create quite a dangerous situation.
What is different since the last atmospheric tests is that nearly every nation on Earth has since signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  An open air test by North Korea would be a nasty affront to the rest of this planet's inhabitants - and that is the best possible outcome.  Worse would be setting the thing off in the midst of naval or air traffic, or having test fallout affect islands or transiting traffic.

 - Ed Kyle

Our oceans are not exactly in the best of health these days and such a test certainly wouldn’t do much for them in the vicinity.
As someone who has dedicated their professional - and personal - life to the world’s oceans, I’m mortified by this threat.

I can only assume that the plan is for an airburst. Am I mistaken in my understanding that the many dozens of prior tests over the ocean caused no lasting harm?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: catdlr on 09/25/2017 08:32 AM
Live test of Polaris A1, 1962.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329041813/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_24/frigate_bird.htm

Last atmospheric nuclear test was China in October 1980.

If North Korea really do that... well, the gloves are off. It will create quite a dangerous situation.
What is different since the last atmospheric tests is that nearly every nation on Earth has since signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  An open air test by North Korea would be a nasty affront to the rest of this planet's inhabitants - and that is the best possible outcome.  Worse would be setting the thing off in the midst of naval or air traffic, or having test fallout affect islands or transiting traffic.

 - Ed Kyle

Our oceans are not exactly in the best of health these days and such a test certainly wouldn’t do much for them in the vicinity.
As someone who has dedicated their professional - and personal - life to the world’s oceans, I’m mortified by this threat.

I can only assume that the plan is for an airburst. Am I mistaken in my understanding that the many dozens of prior tests over the ocean caused no lasting harm?

Not unless you're on a scheduled trans-pacific flight. (remember Un is not going to provide a NOTAM for his test).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Bubbinski on 09/25/2017 06:28 PM
This morning NK apparently threatened to shoot down US bombers even if they weren’t over NK airspace. Do they have long range SAM’s for that? Next missile firing from there might be that if not the threatened open air nuke test.

Regarding the nuke test Tony’s right, if I’m a passenger on a jetliner over the Pacific I wouldn’t feel good about the situation. Depending on how high the air burst was EMP could come into play. What’s the minimum airburst height for EMP to affect a wide area? And how would a NK airburst over the Pacific affect ISS or other satellites?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/26/2017 02:58 AM
<snip>

Setting off a nuclear warhead without a NOTAM would be insane.  Beyond Cuban Missile Crises crazy.  How would the world know it wasn't an act of war gone awry? 

 - Ed Kyle

It is about the equivlant of determining if any approaching warplane might be doing an attack run on your facilities and leadership if you are the DPRK. Remember the US and the DPRK are still technically at war

You got to think of the mindset of the North Korean leadership after being threaten by the POTUS.

One should not be poking a cornered animal without taking some risk of being attack by said animal.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 10/01/2017 07:09 PM
North Korea carried out failed SLBM engine test in September

http://www.arirang.com/News/News_View.asp?nseq=209266 (http://www.arirang.com/News/News_View.asp?nseq=209266)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 10/01/2017 07:11 PM
North Korea Continues Work on Second Barge Used for SLBM Testing

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/nampo092817/ (http://www.38north.org/2017/09/nampo092817/)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 10/03/2017 10:39 PM
Speculation ON

Given that China's new line of launchers is based on the RD-120 engine, and it is not clear how China got the design, is it possible that the same source provided the design to NK, which then converted the engine to storable fuels?

Speculation OFF
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/03/2017 11:02 PM
Speculation ON

Given that China's new line of launchers is based on the RD-120 engine, and it is not clear how China got the design, is it possible that the same source provided the design to NK, which then converted the engine to storable fuels?

Speculation OFF
China's are from Ukraine. They are almost identical and their are threads on this. As for North Korea there is not any strong evidence to support this theory and the UN has yet to issue its findings from its recently conducted review. All I can say is wait for a bit.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 10/04/2017 02:12 PM
The fact that China's RD-120 derivatives originated from a Ukrainian source somehow means that NK could not purchase from the same source?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: SmallKing on 10/04/2017 02:23 PM
The fact that China's RD-120 derivatives originated from a Ukrainian source somehow means that NK could not purchase from the same source?
Converting the engine to storable fuels? This is not easy. For NK, apparently there are some better choices
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: pippin on 10/04/2017 02:23 PM
No, it’s more that the photos and videos Yankton NKs engines show them to be very, very different from RD-120
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 10/07/2017 07:05 PM
North Korea preparing long-range missile test: RIA cites Russian lawmaker

Quote
MOSCOW (Reuters) - North Korea is preparing to test a long-range missile which it believes can reach the west coast of the United States, a Russian lawmaker just returned from a visit to Pyongyang was quoted as saying on Friday.

Anton Morozov, a member of the Russian lower house of parliament’s international affairs committee, and two other Russian lawmakers visited Pyongyang on Oct. 2-6, Russia’s RIA news agency reported.

“They are preparing for new tests of a long-range missile. They even gave us mathematical calculations that they believe prove that their missile can hit the west coast of the United States,” RIA quoted Morozov as saying.

“As far as we understand, they intend to launch one more long-range missile in the near future. And in general, their mood is rather belligerent.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-russia/north-korea-preparing-long-range-missile-test-ria-cites-russian-lawmaker-idUSKBN1CB21T
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 10/18/2017 04:58 PM
Relevant to this thread.

Doubts Growing US Will Always Defend Asian Allies

Quote
SEOUL --- In South Korea and Japan there is increasing support for the deployment of nuclear weapons to defend against the growing North Korean threat, and due to public concern that the U.S. may no longer be counted on to aid allies with extended nuclear deterrence.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimates North Korea may have as many as 60 nuclear weapons, and that it might have successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads to fit on its arsenal of 1,000 missiles.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/187701/doubts-growing-us-will-always-defend-asian-allies.html
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 11/14/2017 02:17 PM
Did North Korea Conduct A Solid-Fuel Rocket Engine Test at Magunpo?

http://www.38north.org/2017/11/jbermudez111317/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (http://www.38north.org/2017/11/jbermudez111317/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 11/17/2017 12:10 PM
North Korea’s Submarine Ballistic Missile Program Moves Ahead

http://www.38north.org/2017/11/sinpo111617/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29s (http://www.38north.org/2017/11/sinpo111617/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29s)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Lewis007 on 11/22/2017 06:13 AM
N. Korea seems to have a problem with re-entry capability on its ICBMs.
See: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/North_Korean_ICBM_program_runs_into_major_roadblock_at_reentry_999.html
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 11/27/2017 12:28 AM
N. Korea seems to have a problem with re-entry capability on its ICBMs.
See: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/North_Korean_ICBM_program_runs_into_major_roadblock_at_reentry_999.html


I am surprised that this has not been discussed earlier.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 11/27/2017 06:22 PM
It has been widely discussed at the time of the launches.

The evidence that the reentry vehicles failed was not that great.
It still looked like the NK reentry vehicle survived long enough for an air burst, using yield from the last test. *
The armscontrolwonks once more dug up a declassified study about early US reentry testing. Most of the failed test did not break up but veered off course, hitting outside the systems CEP. (Consistent ablation rates seem to be hard.)

The articles are not that rosy if you say no ground burst for NK and likely just hitting a different part of a city target.  :(


*: Some articles said it broke up at 1 mile height. Which happens to be the default air burst height for 150kt on nukemap...
What I would like to know is how would it look if they stuffed their gadget with conventional explosives and set it for airburst. We know that they rigged some rocket stages with self destuction charges to prevent recovery or at least make it harder.
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 11/28/2017 05:37 PM
BBC reporting that North Korea has fired a ballistic missile. They are quoting South Korean reports.

In that article it’s described as a new ballistic missile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42160227
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 11/28/2017 05:58 PM
According to CNN it is still in the air  ATM possibly a high altitude flight to test the RV...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Olaf on 11/28/2017 06:18 PM
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/935587658650222592
Quote
NK missile impacted Sea of Japan, so no Japan overflight this time.
Could still be one of the high apogee tests, or just a smaller missile.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Olaf on 11/28/2017 07:11 PM
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/935601293338521600
Quote
And now Yonhap matches my guess quite accurately. (My guessed TLE gives 4420 km apo, 920 km range)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 11/28/2017 07:18 PM
By the altitude achieved it could be a Hwasong-14.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 11/28/2017 07:33 PM
By the altitude achieved it could be a Hwasong-14.

Possibly testing the re-entry vehicle again after reports of prior failures on past launches.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Rocket Science on 11/28/2017 07:55 PM
Flight time 50 minutes...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles/north-korea-fires-icbm-splashes-in-sea-of-japan-pentagon-idUSKBN1DS2MB
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Targeteer on 11/28/2017 09:30 PM
IMMEDIATE RELEASE    No. NR-401-17
Nov. 28, 2017
Statement by Pentagon Spokesman Col. Robert Manning on North Korea ICBM Launch

The U.S. Department of Defense detected and tracked a single North Korea missile launch today at about 1:17 p.m. EST. Initial assessment indicates that this missile was an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The missile was launched from Sain Ni, North Korea, and traveled about 1000 km before splashing down in the Sea of Japan, within Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We are working with our interagency partners on a more detailed assessment of the launch.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) determined the missile launch from North Korea did not pose a threat to North America, our territories or our allies.

Our commitment to the defense of our allies, including the Republic of Korea and Japan, in the face of these threats, remains ironclad. We remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack or provocation.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Targeteer on 11/28/2017 09:48 PM
"We are working with our interagency partners on a more detailed assessment of the launch."

https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/what-happens-when-north-korea-launches-a-missile/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: sanman on 11/29/2017 12:27 AM
Apparently, the missile flew to an altitude of 2800 miles on a "flat trajectory" - demonstrating much greater capability than ever shown before:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q55ijaLohVU



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-north-korea-ballistic-missile-20171128-story.html



Quote
The missile, which was launched early Wednesday local time, traveled some 620 miles and reached a height of about 2,800 miles before landing off the coast of Japan and flew for a total of 54 minutes. This suggested that it had been fired almost straight up — on a lofted trajectory similar to North Korea's two previous intercontinental ballistic missile tests.

...

If it had flown on a standard trajectory designed to maximize its reach, this missile would have a range of more than 8,100 miles, said David Wright, co-director of the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Phillip Clark on 11/29/2017 01:28 AM
The Pentagon announcement quoted above gives the launch site as being "Sain Ni".   Is this a new launch site or is it one which we know under a different name?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Targeteer on 11/29/2017 01:45 AM
"We are working with our interagency partners on a more detailed assessment of the launch."

https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/what-happens-when-north-korea-launches-a-missile/

http://www.nasic.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/1235024/2017-ballistic-and-cruise-missile-threat-report/

Published every 3 years, somewhere nearby  :)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 11/29/2017 02:15 AM
Interesting time when everyone hopes that NK "only" tested another (3rd)  HS-14.

Looks like there will be a special NK TV report soon. New pictures to ponder over.


Edit says:
There were no pictures of the launch but as usual of Kim the launch order. HS-15  :-\

Via Anna Fifield (https://twitter.com/annafifield/status/935713849050910721) and others.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: sanman on 11/29/2017 04:03 AM
North Korea claims that the latest launch test demonstrates an ability to "reach all of the mainland US"

North Korea declares ballistic missile launch a success: ‘Which can reach all of the mainland US’ (http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-fires-ballistic-missile/news-story/ac1a65e2487b5d8cfbfd60dc7a516cd2)

(But maybe not Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands)


Anyhow, Pyongyang says that with this test their nuclear program now stands completed:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/north-korea-says-nuclear-program-completed-after-new-icbm-test

Quote
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his regime completed its nuclear program after firing a missile that put the entire U.S. in range.

North Korea “successfully” fired a new Hwasong-15 missile with improved technology, the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Wednesday. Kim watched the test and “declared with pride that now we have finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force, the cause of building a rocket power,” KCNA said.

“It is the most powerful ICBM, which meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development set by the DPRK,” the report said, referring to North Korea by its formal name.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/29/2017 04:46 AM
Here's the official KCNA press release. Apogee 4475 km and 950 km range. Launch time was 02:48 29 November. Not sure if that was UTC or local, but if local (+9 UTC) then that is 17:48 UTC 28 November.

"DPRK Gov't Statement on Successful Test-fire of New-Type ICBM

Pyongyang, November 29 (KCNA) -- The government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea announced the following statement Wednesday over the successful test-fire of new-type ICBM:

The test-fire of intercontinental ballistic rocket Hwasong-15, newly developed under the political resolution and strategic decision of the Workers' Party of Korea, was successfully carried out.

The ICBM Hwasong-15 type weaponry system is an intercontinental ballistic rocket tipped with super-large heavy warhead which is capable of striking the whole mainland of the U.S. This system has much greater advantages in its tactical and technological specifications and technical characteristics than Hwasong-14 whose test-fire was conducted in July last, and it is the most powerful ICBM which meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development set by the DPRK.

Upon authorization of the WPK and the government of the DPRK, ICBM Hwasong-15 was launched at 02:48 on Nov. 29, Juche 106 (2017) in the suburbs of Pyongyang under the guidance of Comrade Kim Jong Un.

After making a 53-minute flight along its preset orbit, the rocket accurately landed in the target waters set in the open sea in the East Sea of Korea.

The test-fire was conducted in the highest angle launch system and it had no adverse effect on the security of neighboring countries.

The rocket soared to the highest altitude of 4 475 km and then flew the distance of 950 km.

After watching the successful launch of the new type ICBM Hwasong-15, Kim Jong Un declared with pride that now we have finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force, the cause of building a rocket power.

The great success in the test-fire of ICBM Hwasong-15 is a priceless victory won by the great and heroic people of the DPRK who have upheld the WPK's line on the simultaneous development of the two fronts with loyalty without the slightest vacillation despite the vicious challenges by the U.S. imperialists and their followers and manifold difficulties.

The development and advancement of the strategic weapon of the DPRK are to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country from the U.S. imperialists' nuclear blackmail policy and nuclear threat, and to ensure the peaceful life of the people, and therefore, they would not pose any threat to any country and region as long as the interests of the DPRK are not infringed upon. This is our solemn declaration.

As a responsible nuclear power and a peace-loving state, the DPRK will make every possible effort to serve the noble purpose of defending peace and stability of the world."
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Liss on 11/29/2017 06:46 AM
The Pentagon announcement quoted above gives the launch site as being "Sain Ni".   Is this a new launch site or is it one which we know under a different name?
They are mobile and being launched from multiple sites.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 11/29/2017 07:58 AM
Maybe the Hwasong-15 is a Hwasong-14 with a larger second stage considering the duration of the burn.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 11/29/2017 10:05 AM
The logical next step would be use of a second stage with 4, rather than 2, engines. That configuration has already flown in Iran.
Title: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 11/29/2017 12:37 PM
The logical next step would be use of a second stage with 4, rather than 2, engines. That configuration has already flown in Iran.

How much commonality is there believed to be between the two?

Here’s some analysis of this latest launch.

This is always a good point to keep in mind.

Quote
We do not know how heavy a payload this missile carried, but given the increase in range it seems likely that it carried a very light mock warhead. If true, that means it would be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead to this long distance, since such a warhead would be much heavier.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-yet

This article has even more analysis. Interesting point about it being a nighttime launch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42161896
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: input~2 on 11/29/2017 02:24 PM
This was a NOTAM related to yesterday test

J8124/17 NOTAMN
Q) RJJJ/QWMLW/IV/BO/EW/000/999/3310N14118E999
A) RJJJ B) 1711281828 C) UFN
E) MISSILE POSSIBLY LAUNCHED FROM NORTH KOREA MAY FLY TOWARD
SEA AND AIRSPACE SURROUNDING JAPAN.
F) SFC G) UNL
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RIB on 11/29/2017 05:05 PM
Is the range assessment of 13,000 km accurate?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: sanman on 11/29/2017 07:12 PM
Aren't major European capitals now also within North Korean Missile range, and not just American ones? I'm assuming their quickest route to hit Europe would be launching over the polar region.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 11/29/2017 07:24 PM
Aren't major European capitals now also within North Korean Missile range, and not just American ones? I'm assuming their quickest route to hit Europe would be launching over the polar region.

Well the UK is certainly in range.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 11/29/2017 07:39 PM
North Korea’s Third ICBM Launch

http://www.38north.org/2017/11/melleman112917/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2038North%20%2838%20North%3A%20Informed%20Analysis%20of%20North%20Korea%29 (http://www.38north.org/2017/11/melleman112917/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2038North%20%2838%20North%3A%20Informed%20Analysis%20of%20North%20Korea%29)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: wolfpack on 11/29/2017 08:27 PM
What's uncertain is whether or not a live warhead can be attached to these missiles, whether it could be successfully deployed, and whether it could survive re-entry. Without that, which will never be tested, this could still all be a grand poker bluff by NK at this point in time.

The upcoming Minuteman launch from VB won't be.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 11/29/2017 11:29 PM
Yes, we can't know if range and/or capability are for real until they fire a warhead and detonate it.
Which is why "stop daring them to do it!" has become part of the arms control experts message to politicians.

(As discussed earlier America, China and Russia did it. China fired and detonated a nuke over their own nation as 4th test after US politics said they could not.)


Pictures are out. And no, not just 2 more vernier engines.
This time a 9 axle TEL, larger in diameter and length, blunt tip. 2 1st stage engines, no more 1st stage verniers..
My first impression is that it looks a bit like a new take on the HS-13 (2nd version).

Here (https://www.nknews.org/2017/11/north-korea-releases-photographs-of-new-hwasong-15-icbm/?c=1511998167404) is a large set of picture.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/30/2017 03:30 AM
Here's the KCNA release. Says the nine axle T/E is 100% North Korean. Photo clearly showing the two engines of the first stage. Looks like a Titan II class missile. Attached is a zip file of all the photos.

"Kim Jong Un Guides Test-fire of ICBM Hwasong-15

Pyongyang, November 29 (KCNA) -- A test-fire of the inter-continental ballistic rocket Hwasong-15 was successfully conducted on November 29 under the guidance of Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK and supreme commander of the Korean People's Army.

Kim Jong Un personally supervised the whole course of the test-fire.

He indicated the orientation of developing a new type rocket that can make the final victory of the country in the showdown with the U.S. imperialists and gave detailed instructions every day to the Academy of Defence Science for doing so and thus made sure that the Hwasong-15 weapon system was successfully completed.

Upon receiving the report that it is ready to test-fire the new type ICBM on Nov. 28, he came out to the place where technical preparations for the rocket was under way late at night to see the 9-axis self-propelled launching vehicle manufactured by workers of the munitions industry.

He praised them for having successfully made the vehicle to be impeccable.

He expressed great satisfaction over the fact that such vehicles can be manufactured as many as the country wants now that the munitions industry has made a breakthrough in putting the production of all parts of the vehicle on a domestic and Juche basis 100 percent.

He went to the launching ground and meticulously guided the pre-launch processes one by one including the one for vertically standing the rocket.

At an observation post for command he learned in detail about the launching plan and issued an order to launch the rocket.

The rocket successfully blasted off and soared into the sky.

The ICBM Hwasong-15 soared to the highest altitude of 4 475 km and made a flight over the distance of 950 km for 53 minutes before making an accurate landing in the preset waters in the open sea in the East Sea of Korea.

The test-fire confirmed that all the integers of the weapon system have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of design and that it is capable of fully ensuring reliability in combat situation to serve its mission as strategic weaponry system.

Particularly, the accuracy of hitting targets by posture control and speed correction in the mid-flight section, accuracy in operation of high-thrust engine to which propulsion vector control is applied and the engine of high specific thrust was confirmed, and the accuracy of design integers of subsequent guided and stabilization systems was verified.

Also confirmed were mobile and hoisting capabilities and operational reliability of launching system of the nine-axis self-propelled launching vehicle newly developed and completed.

The test-fire also re-confirmed the control and stabilization technology, phase-separation and start-up technology and the safety of warhead in the atmospheric reentry environment that had already been confirmed.

The ICBM Hwasong-15 weapon system represents the weapon system peculiar to the Workers' Party of Korea, which was developed with domestic efforts and technology 100 percent to suit the specific conditions of the country. With this system, the DPRK has become possessed of another new-type inter-continental ballistic rocket weaponry system capable of carrying super-heavy nuclear warhead and attacking the whole mainland of the U.S.

Greatly satisfied with the at-a-go success in the test-fire of the newly developed ICBM Hwasong-15, respected Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un was so excited to express his great satisfaction and extend his heartfelt gratitude to all those who took part in the development of the new type rocket weapon system.

He said that the day was a significant day when the historic cause of completing the state nuclear force, the cause of building a rocket power was realized, adding that the day, on which the great might of putting the strategic position of the DPRK on a higher stage was given birth, should be specially recorded in the history of the country.

The dazzling achievements made in all fields of the country recently including the field of national defence science are a great victory which can be won only by the heroic people of the DPRK who remain true to the cause of our Party without vacillation, weathering all tempests of history.

He warmly congratulated scientists, technicians, workers and officials in the field of the defence science who demonstrated once again the dignity and might of Juche Korea by succeeding in the test-fire of the newly-developed ICBM Hwasong-15, and had a photo taken with them.

He was accompanied by Jang Chang Ha, Jon Il Ho, Jo Yong Won and Yu Jin. -0-"
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 11/30/2017 04:25 AM
To use very round numbers comparing against Titan II the HS-15 has 2/3 the length and diameter, 1/3 the volume.

It is however more or less UR-100 sized, similar diameter with HS-15 slightly longer overall.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 11/30/2017 05:22 AM
It looks to be the 2 nozzle 80 ton thrust engine, with the 4 engine upper stage. So, yeah, now they have either a small ICBM or a decent IRBM, based on the payload mass.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/30/2017 06:27 AM
It looks to be the 2 nozzle 80 ton thrust engine, with the 4 engine upper stage. So, yeah, now they have either a small ICBM or a decent IRBM, based on the payload mass.

Depends on how closely they captured the RD-250's performance with this seemingly derivative engine, I guess.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 11/30/2017 06:48 AM
It looks to be the 2 nozzle 80 ton thrust engine, with the 4 engine upper stage. So, yeah, now they have either a small ICBM or a decent IRBM, based on the payload mass.

Is it case of clustering more of the same engine rather than using an improved version or a different model entirely?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Lewis007 on 11/30/2017 07:18 AM
Some pics of the Hwasong-15 launch
source: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/29/asia/north-korea-hwasong-15-missile/index.html

Also a video of the announcement of the launch (the woman in the pink kimono is back), but without footage of the launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqEGu60PLw
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: sanman on 11/30/2017 07:26 AM
How heavy is the North Korean nuclear warhead device?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/30/north-korea-has-shown-us-its-new-missile-and-its-scarier-than-we-thought/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 11/30/2017 09:10 AM
Here is another news broadcast, this time with launch video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs31hdydloo
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/30/2017 11:18 AM
What's uncertain is whether or not a live warhead can be attached to these missiles, whether it could be successfully deployed, and whether it could survive re-entry. Without that, which will never be tested, this could still all be a grand poker bluff by NK at this point in time.

The upcoming Minuteman launch from VB won't be.
::)
The Minuteman launch is a bluff in a way. Since neither the USAF or USN have launch a ballistic missile with a live warhead for decades. How could anyone be sure the missiles, especially the payloads will worked in real life? There is some equal mutual level of credibility among all nuclear capable powers right now with no one done a live nuclear tipped missile test for a very long time. Unless someone goad the DPRK into being the only one with a demonstrated working nuke missile currently.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 11/30/2017 02:15 PM
It would appear that HS-15 could be HS-13 with an upper stage, much as HS-14 could be HS-12 with an upper stage. And it appears that HS-14 could be a half size demonstration vehicle.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/30/2017 05:23 PM
What's uncertain is whether or not a live warhead can be attached to these missiles, whether it could be successfully deployed, and whether it could survive re-entry. Without that, which will never be tested, this could still all be a grand poker bluff by NK at this point in time.

The upcoming Minuteman launch from VB won't be.
::)
The Minuteman launch is a bluff in a way. Since neither the USAF or USN have launch a ballistic missile with a live warhead for decades. How could anyone be sure the missiles, especially the payloads will worked in real life? There is some equal mutual level of credibility among all nuclear capable powers right now with no one done a live nuclear tipped missile test for a very long time. Unless someone goad the DPRK into being the only one with a demonstrated working nuke missile currently.

We know the reentry vehicles work. only newer fully assembled Warheads for the next generation of the US Nuclear Triad have never been detonated however component level and some integrated tests have been performed.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/30/2017 05:31 PM
It would appear that HS-15 could be HS-13 with an upper stage, much as HS-14 could be HS-12 with an upper stage. And it appears that HS-14 could be a half size demonstration vehicle.
But HS-13 is thought to be a KN-14 IRBM using solid propellant unless the designation by western intelligence groups is wrong.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: wolfpack on 11/30/2017 07:51 PM

No way.  The missiles are real.  The bombs are real - both products of massive national efforts.  Why would they fake the reentry vehicle, a relatively trivial matter by comparison? 

 - Ed Kyle

I don't doubt that the bombs and missiles are real. But some unseen thing that goes "BOOM" under a mountain isn't necessarily something that can be mounted atop a rocket. That requires miniaturization, acoustic testing and at least an in-flight deployment using a dummy that can be recovered and analyzed. Has the DPRK recovered an RV? These are unknowns. It doesn't mean they don't have the capability, but I refuse to believe the DPRK's statement that their nuclear program is "complete". Hogwash. More likely they're giving themselves an excuse to stop launches and see what's offered up at the bargaining table next.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: RonM on 11/30/2017 07:55 PM
What I find fascinating about the video linked a couple messages up-thread are the people visible in the hangar.  Kim Jong-un, of course, is right in the middle of everything, even stepping up to help eyeball the exit dimensions as the transporter begins to move.  He doesn't look like a figurehead type in these scenes.  He's actually getting his hands dirty.  There are a couple of men talking with him before the move, and others in the building.  Which, if any, is the "chief designer", I wonder?

 - Ed Kyle

Kim Jong-un wants to be seen as a hands on leader, the indispensable man needed to run the country.

The video, with its many views of the missile, also serves the purpose of showing the world that North Korea is serious. Experts already know that, but these images will play well on news broadcasts as "talking heads" discuss the issue.

Also gives us a lot to talk about since we got a good look at the missile.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/01/2017 12:40 AM
It would appear that HS-15 could be HS-13 with an upper stage, much as HS-14 could be HS-12 with an upper stage. And it appears that HS-14 could be a half size demonstration vehicle.
But HS-13 is thought to be a KN-14 IRBM using solid propellant unless the designation by western intelligence groups is wrong.

No. Hwasong-13 is a liquid fueled missile that has never flown publicly. It seems to have been a failed design that may serve as the basis for the Hwasong-15 first stage.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Hwasong-13/HS-13_2015.jpg
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 12/01/2017 05:14 AM
 China successfully developed an ICBM, H-bomb and an RV in the middle of the cultural revolution, conditions much worse than in the DPRK at any point within the last two decades or so. It's now pretty clear they didn't have any kind of bluffing in their program, and the systems developed during this time are still considered credible deterrents today.  Especially given what has been done in the past year, the idea that the DPRK are bluffing about the capabilities that are harder to show is shifting into 'wishful thinking' territory.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/01/2017 06:06 AM
China successfully developed an ICBM, H-bomb and an RV in the middle of the cultural revolution, conditions much worse than in the DPRK at any point within the last two decades or so. It's now pretty clear they didn't have any kind of bluffing in their program, and the systems developed during this time are still considered credible deterrents today.  Especially given what has been done in the past year, the idea that the DPRK are bluffing about the capabilities that are harder to show is shifting into 'wishful thinking' territory.

Actually, the introduction of HS-15 tells us that HS-14 likely was an experimental system intended to demonstrate technology, rather than an actual weapon. HS-14 was simply too small and underpowered to serve as an ICBM. So, yeah, although NK may have claimed it was an ICBM, they were bluffing.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Kryten on 12/01/2017 06:11 AM
 It could probably work as one with a primary-only warhead. Not ideal, but fine as an interim solution.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 12/01/2017 09:17 AM
How heavy is the North Korean nuclear warhead device?

There are a lot of guesses about NK warheads. First and foremost if what we see is a representation of the real thing, and of course if there is a real warhead in the first place. Which is wishful thinking at the very best.

The Jeffrey Lewis has the disco ball at 60cm and "a few hundred kg + reentry vehicle", others at 90cm and up to 900kg+ RV.
The much mentioned 4th Chinese test in 1966 ~90cm 500-1200kg ~10kt.
The 1953 US Mark 7 / W7 had a 60cm 500kg core, 8-61kt. (Listed as unboosted, yet with dial a yield? Interesting(tm).)

The Mr.Peanut estimates also vary widely.
Going for the US arsenal again, say it is more or less a 1958 Mark 28/W28. 20x60 inches 700-800kg (800-1050kg for the free fall variants). The Y2 option was 350kt, primary only Y3 70kt, Y1 1.1Mt Y5 1.45Mt.
I selected this one because it is old, compact enough and even comes with a low yield option.


Lets take a look at it from the other direction, how much weight budget is there?.

At first sight and in absence of better estimates HS-15 is roughly UR-100UTTKh [SS-11 Mod 2] sized, perhaps 10% longer. Very different propulsion though.
The UR-100UTTKh is listed as 2m diameter, 19m length overall, 12000-13000km range with a 900-1200kg warhead, 50t lift off weight. Single 1Mt warhead ~1km CEP. First test in 1969, deployed in 1972. Later also as 3x350kt mirv with 10600km range.

How efficient is NK propulsion? Looks like the RD-0216 had even more ISP than the now infamous RD-250.
Lets play it safe and reduce ISP by 20% down to gas generator level. Simply say that throw weight changes the same. Still 720kg. Certainly enough for the disco ball, and with just a little bit performance or fuel enough for a W28ish Peanut.


And it looks like the HS-15is slightly larger than that. Norbert Brügge has it at 2.4x22.4m in his initial analysis.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/01/2017 02:39 PM
Actually, the introduction of HS-15 tells us that HS-14 likely was an experimental system intended to demonstrate technology, rather than an actual weapon. HS-14 was simply too small and underpowered to serve as an ICBM. So, yeah, although NK may have claimed it was an ICBM, they were bluffing.
The reality is different, I'm sure, but I wonder what HS-15/HS-14 means for ABM now.

 - Ed Kyle


I guess, this means some priority to get the east coast GBI site ready. Did they select a site already? IIRC, Fort Drum (NY); Camp Ravenna (OH) and Fort Custer (MI) were the finalists.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/01/2017 07:14 PM
It would be amazing if NK put two different large missile systems into serial production.

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 12/01/2017 08:49 PM
The US ABM system was, as I remember it, designed for a theoretical minimal ICBM force only able to hit California.  At least that's how the design was described in the general media.  The reality is different, I'm sure, but I wonder what HS-15/HS-14 means for ABM now.
No, the Ft. Greely Alaska site covers pretty much all the CONUS against Korea, though with the significant downside that interceptors launch toward Russia or China for many targets.  See slide 8 on this post to get an idea of the geometry https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204122/nuclear-deterrence-the-revenge-of-geography/

Unless DPRK goes for something like FOBS.

It also occurs to me that HS-14 are probably suitable for targeting Ft. Greely itself...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/01/2017 10:16 PM
RD-250 is part of RD-215 family and no, the former has higher performance than later.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/R-16_missile_engine_derivative/

Jane's Intelligence Group estimates the mock up of Teller-Ulam/Hydrogen/Thermonuclear bomb that Kim Jong Un was inspecting/observing is 255 to 360 kilograms heavy.

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/111/75111/North_Korea_bargains_with_nuclear_diplomacy.pdf

Detonation on September 3rd could be over 300 kilotons...

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203852/sar-image-of-punggye-ri/

Those who claim 90 centimeter diameter for disco ball are insane, Kim Jong Un would have to be over 2.5 meters tall and Kim Jong Un is 1.70 meters tall according to US while SK has it at 1.75 meters. Disco ball with every other needed component to work and survive re-entry is few hundred kilograms which could mean 2 or more.

Reading Elleman's article as he jumped to conclussion about Hwasong-15 before footage was released and then next article is hilarious after release, anyway he estimates 1000 kilogram payload thus 3 or 4 disco balls of death as MIRV is not out of the question at all.

http://www.38north.org/2017/11/melleman113017/?platform=hootsuite

In case you didn't know the name of that engine is Paektusan.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-X/Description/Frame.htm

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-X/Gallery/Engine.htm

Hwasong-15 has no verniers and each chamber/thruster/engine is gimballed/steerable separately despite single turbopump which I've read is that Russia achieved that relatively recently since RD-180 is post-Cold War development of RD-170 which steered in unison.

Anyway initial assesment of length was 22 meters which increased in end to 22.5 meters, isn't Hwasong-15 largest road mobile ICBM in the world? Also diameter of it is identical to R-14 and Unha-3.

This thing is R-36/SS-18 Satan's bastard son, just look at it and the engine, if its launched three times in a row then North Korea has very reliable production of this engine that it can be sure it won't blow up if they ever decide to have a silo and make own Satan.

Hail Satan the ender of the world. /s

Now the question should be are they developing variant with 4 chambers, it would fit inside 2.4 meter diameter.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/02/2017 12:41 AM
RD-250 is part of RD-215 family and no, the former has higher performance than later.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/R-16_missile_engine_derivative/

Jane's Intelligence Group estimates the mock up of Teller-Ulam/Hydrogen/Thermonuclear bomb that Kim Jong Un was inspecting/observing is 255 to 360 kilograms heavy.

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/111/75111/North_Korea_bargains_with_nuclear_diplomacy.pdf

Detonation on September 3rd could be over 300 kilotons...

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1203852/sar-image-of-punggye-ri/

Those who claim 90 centimeter diameter for disco ball are insane, Kim Jong Un would have to be over 2.5 meters tall and Kim Jong Un is 1.70 meters tall according to US while SK has it at 1.75 meters. Disco ball with every other needed component to work and survive re-entry is few hundred kilograms which could mean 2 or more.

Reading Elleman's article as he jumped to conclussion about Hwasong-15 before footage was released and then next article is hilarious after release, anyway he estimates 1000 kilogram payload thus 3 or 4 disco balls of death as MIRV is not out of the question at all.

http://www.38north.org/2017/11/melleman113017/?platform=hootsuite

In case you didn't know the name of that engine is Paektusan.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-X/Description/Frame.htm

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Unha-X/Gallery/Engine.htm

Hwasong-15 has no verniers and each chamber/thruster/engine is gimballed/steerable separately despite single turbopump which I've read is that Russia achieved that relatively recently since RD-180 is post-Cold War development of RD-170 which steered in unison.

Anyway initial assesment of length was 22 meters which increased in end to 22.5 meters, isn't Hwasong-15 largest road mobile ICBM in the world? Also diameter of it is identical to R-14 and Unha-3.

This thing is R-36/SS-18 Satan's bastard son, just look at it and the engine, if its launched three times in a row then North Korea has very reliable production of this engine that it can be sure it won't blow up if they ever decide to have a silo and make own Satan.

Hail Satan the ender of the world. /s

Now the question should be are they developing variant with 4 chambers, it would fit inside 2.4 meter diameter.
This regarding RD-250 in North Korea has been disproven several times now.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Targeteer on 12/02/2017 12:55 AM
Here's the KCNA release. Says the nine axle T/E is 100% North Korean. Photo clearly showing the two engines of the first stage. Looks like a Titan II class missile. Attached is a zip file of all the photos.



That photo seems to show the rear footings for the launcher being on the edge of a concrete pad and the erect missile resting over a depression/hole next to that edge.  That kind of prepared site might be identifiable...
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/02/2017 01:29 AM
This regarding RD-250 in North Korea has been disproven several times now.
It looks really really like it, what... They reverse engineered it just by looking at pictures of it?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/02/2017 04:25 AM
Some engineering by analogy:

Let's assume that the first stage engines of Hwasong-15 are some sort of RD-250 derivative. i doubt that it has similar performance of RD-250, given that it is reverse engineered, but let's assume it's in the ballpark.

We know that a launch vehicle based on 2 pairs of RD-250 engines (Cosmos 3) can orbit 1000 kg to a low orbit, which is close to the same capability as launching sub-orbital but extremely long range. So, a double RD-250 system with a decent upper stage can do 1000 kg.

On the other hand, Hwasong-15 seems to have the low performance 4 vernier engine upper stage that uses R-27 verniers, which are not very efficient.Compared to the Cosmos 3 upper stage, Hwasong-15 loses a lot of performance.

So, compared with Cosmos-3, Hwasong-15 is a poor performer, which means it's not going to have 1,000 kg capability over a long distance.

I should note that the doggy upper stage is really suited for sending very small payloads long distances. This leads me to believe that Hwasong-15 as we see it is not the final iteration, that Some Day, the current upper stage will be replaced by a real one.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 12/02/2017 05:38 AM
On the other hand, Hwasong-15 seems to have the low performance 4 vernier engine upper stage that uses R-27 verniers, which are not very efficient.
Source? I haven't seen much of anything about the HS-15 upper stage, except that it is very obviously larger than the seemingly undersized one on the HS-14
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 12/02/2017 06:34 AM
4 verniers for the HS-15 second stage is a guess based what we saw on previous NK missiles. HS-14 is supposed to use 2 from the 4D10 engine. That analysis is based on tank size and burn time. AFAIK there are no second stage pictures for HS-14 or HS-15.

Looking at HS-14 and HS-15 images and the sizing Norbert Brügge did I really doubt that they intend to use verniers for long if at all. There is much more space this time.
HS-14 had ~1m between ducts. HS-15 has ~4m between ducts. Looking at markings and panels a ~2m long interstage adapter?

I say there is enough room to stick a much larger engine into it. Actually, you can copy&paste the entire first stage engine set -as is- and just protrude 15cm below the painted separation line... :-[
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/02/2017 10:31 AM
At start second stage of Hwasong-14 may be underpowered with 1.1 thrust to weight ratio which increases over time as fuel is being burned to the point of going over 2.0 T/W and could be same type of situation for Hwasong-15, the point is to drop a bomb which would be a failure if it orbits the earth in first place...

If they want to make SLV version out of it then they will do appropriate modifications to it.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Comet on 12/02/2017 12:16 PM
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/02/2017 03:21 PM
On the other hand, Hwasong-15 seems to have the low performance 4 vernier engine upper stage that uses R-27 verniers, which are not very efficient.
Source? I haven't seen much of anything about the HS-15 upper stage, except that it is very obviously larger than the seemingly undersized one on the HS-14

I don’t have a source for the upper stage engines for HS-15, just speculation. It is possible that the upper stage engine is Scud-derived.

BTW, looking at Cosmos-3M as an analog to HS-15 is informative:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos-3M

Wikipedia says the payload max is 1500 kg. Note the very low performance of the first stage engine, which is related to RD-250.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/02/2017 11:15 PM
I don’t have a source for the upper stage engines for HS-15, just speculation. It is possible that the upper stage engine is Scud-derived.

BTW, looking at Cosmos-3M as an analog to HS-15 is informative:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos-3M

Wikipedia says the payload max is 1500 kg. Note the very low performance of the first stage engine, which is related to RD-20.

Your comparison is fallacious.

Anyway if this missile can deliver 1,000kg payload anywhere on US mainland so ~13,000km then how light could payload get until it is no longer viable to be sub-orbital and become viable as orbital? 300kg?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/03/2017 12:30 AM
I don’t have a source for the upper stage engines for HS-15, just speculation. It is possible that the upper stage engine is Scud-derived.

BTW, looking at Cosmos-3M as an analog to HS-15 is informative:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos-3M

Wikipedia says the payload max is 1500 kg. Note the very low performance of the first stage engine, which is related to RD-250.

Your comparison is fallacious.

Anyway if this missile can deliver 1,000kg payload anywhere on US mainland so ~13,000km then how light could payload get until it is no longer viable to be sub-orbital and become viable as orbital? 300kg?

you are not quite understanding the proposition.

I made a bunch of assumptions that i hope are reasonable, and noted that the Cosmos 3M was good for 1500 kg to orbit. That would tell us that HS-15 is probably less capable than that, and given the upper stage issue, probably much less capable. That's all.

Oh yeah, there is the problem of surviving re-entry:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/asia/north-korea-missile-re-entry/index.html

Getting off-topic here, how close is this missile to being able to carry a Mercury-class capsule?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/03/2017 12:56 AM
you are not quite understanding the proposition.

I made a bunch of assumptions that i hope are reasonable, and noted that the Cosmos 3M was good for 1500 kg to orbit. That would tell us that HS-15 is probably less capable than that, and given the upper stage issue, probably much less capable. That's all.

Oh yeah, there is the problem of surviving re-entry:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/asia/north-korea-missile-re-entry/index.html

Getting off-topic here, how close is this missile to being able to carry a Mercury-class capsule?
I don't care about your proposition which is fallacious comparison, simply incomparable.

There is problem with tbose claims and you, that wasn't MET where its longer, but gradual increase of heat and stress compared to high amgle launch and specialy going 4475km up and down that I am wondering if it went hypersonic before hitting dense atmosphere like splashing the sea before splashing the actual sea or it could be that it was hit by some space debri by some chance. Too many  possibilities.

Edit:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/expert-north-koreas-new-hwasong-15-icbm-you-cannot-stop-23476

Welp... Pixie dust.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/03/2017 04:05 AM
How does NK monitor the final seconds of flight of these tests? Read newspapers from the West?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/03/2017 04:32 AM
How does NK monitor the final seconds of flight of these tests? Read newspapers from the West?
Oh you.

They probably don't care as reentry vehicle went trough much more stress in shorter time span, if it survived long enough to be out of radar line of sight then its probably a success.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/03/2017 09:52 AM
The re-entry vehicle could be just be sending a carrier signal. After re-entry if they still get the signal, they know the re-entry vehicle survived, plus they get Doppler data to measure speed. The re-entry vehicle probably detonates at its required altitude to prevent the vehicle getting into the wrong hands and demonstrate one part of the function required for delivering a nuclear device.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 12/03/2017 12:15 PM
The problem comparing HS-15 is that space launchers of similar diameter tend to be ~50% longer.  Call it 45m³ more fuel, more or less what HS-15 has in the first stage.

That said, Norbert Brügge has his 2nd analysis out and he thinks that HS-15 is Unha-3 based.


Mercury-Atlas is out, but a Mercury-Redstone like suborbital hop is possible. Redstone was smaller.
Maybe Kim should forgo Juche Bird and announce a new space race instead.  8)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 12/03/2017 07:01 PM
How does NK monitor the final seconds of flight of these tests? Read newspapers from the West?
In addition to nuclear weapons and ICBM class rockets, DPRK is known to posses ships and aircraft.

Seriously, they've devoted a large fraction of their national economy to this program. There is absolutely no reason to think they are incapable of obtaining observations and/or telemetry from something re-entering over the sea of Japan, and there are very good reasons to think they would expend significant effort to maximize the technical value of these tests.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/03/2017 10:49 PM
How does NK monitor the final seconds of flight of these tests? Read newspapers from the West?
In addition to nuclear weapons and ICBM class rockets, DPRK is known to posses ships and aircraft.


You are suggesting that deployment of certain ships or aircraft would be indications of an impending launch. That's good to know.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: wolfpack on 12/04/2017 03:25 PM
If he's crazy enough to attempt this Juche Bird test, what trajectory is it likely to fly and where would the IP be? And the global response to an above-ground, thermonuclear detonation?

Any real launch towards CONUS has to overfly China and Russia. How can those two nations possibly be OK with that?

Do we really think DPRK has FOBS capability? IIRC, they couldn't even deploy their last "satellite" properly.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: hop on 12/04/2017 05:42 PM
You are suggesting that deployment of certain ships or aircraft would be indications of an impending launch. That's good to know.
FWIW, this is just my speculation as to some ways they could do it, I have no information on whether they do. The main point is that this program is a major national priority and it would be really dumb to do RV tests without collecting data, so the safe assumption is they are set up to collect the data they need.

There have been reports that the IC knew about most of the recent tests in advance. These have generally been attributed to activity around the test site, but tracking assets could certainly be an indicator. OTOH, depending on the exact requirements they might not need anything particularly visible.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/05/2017 12:59 AM
Hwasong-15 F-22 tech level http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aid=3041606
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/06/2017 07:27 AM
Hwasong-15 F-22 tech level http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aid=3041606

The author of the article does not seem to know much about missile technology.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 12/06/2017 04:42 PM
The Hwasong-15: The Anatomy of North Korea's New ICBM

https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/ (https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/)
Must read!!
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/07/2017 02:57 PM
The Hwasong-15: The Anatomy of North Korea's New ICBM

https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/ (https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/)
Must read!!
I've read the moment it was released.

Two more successful tests of this missile and you can have a safe bet that if they were to build SS-18 Satan/R-36M class heavy ICBM that it would work on first test and SLV variant would put several ton payload into space.

The author of the article does not seem to know much about missile technology.
The person who said that isn't the author of the article also having single turbopump as evident by single exhaust pipe and have two combustors individualy gimballed is achievement comparable to RD-180 in terms of single turbopump engine with gimballed combustors.

Though would it be more correct to say F-35?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 12/08/2017 06:03 AM
Reentry of North Korea’s Hwasong-15 Missile

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/reentry-of-hwasong-15 (http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/reentry-of-hwasong-15)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/08/2017 02:02 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/939061056709808128?p=v

More satelites launches, they plan to place in near future over 1000kg satelite into GSO/GEO which would require space launch vehicle larger and more powerful than Tsyklon, Delta or Atlas series.

Before that earth observation satellite over 100kg with resolution of several meters, more than two less than 10 meters if I had to guess. Good enough to spot/track aircraft carrier like Ronald Reagan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan

This 256 by 256 pixel image should give us a rough idea at amount of detail they could see:

(http://khm0.googleapis.com/kh?v=748&hl=en&x=9436&y=12758&z=15)

They will have no problem knowing exactly where it is while inside FOV of the satellite.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/11/2017 03:20 AM
HS-15 is about 50 percent of a Cosmos-3 class launcher, so it would be limited to payloads to low orbit of 500 - 700 kg. Most recon birds go to very high inclination orbits, and that reduces payload further.

Right now, NK has problems just getting a small satellite to work, let alone a sophisticated recon sat.

As always, I am talking about near term, not in that future where we are all living on Mars, and NK has an SS-18 class ICBM.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/11/2017 01:37 PM
HS-15 is about 50 percent of a Cosmos-3 class launcher, so it would be limited to payloads to low orbit of 500 - 700 kg. Most recon birds go to very high inclination orbits, and that reduces payload further.

If Kwangmyongsong 3-2 and 4 orbit is the targed then at minimum 250 kg so 50 more than 4 and 150 more than 3-2.

Quote
Right now, NK has problems just getting a small satellite to work, let alone a sophisticated recon sat.

http://special.tass.ru/politika/2688450

http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/NKorea/Kwangmyongsong4ndot2.php

http://www.northkoreatech.org/2016/03/03/north-koreas-satellite-caught-on-camera/

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20170510009000315&site=0400000000&mobile
What problem? It works and spatial resolution is good enough to spot aircraft carrier.

Quote
As always, I am talking about near term, not in that future where we are all living on Mars, and NK has an SS-18 class ICBM.

It is far more likely to see North Korean on moon before first human lands on Mars.

EDIT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmCL5ARN_Hk

North Korea may soon test new SLBM and range up to 4000 kilometers is expected.

If that happens to be accurate estimate than solid fuel ICBM is not far off.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/11/2017 02:46 PM
If that happens to be accurate estimate than solid fuel ICBM is not far off.

If they get the SLBM to work, why not just use that as their ground based IRBM/ICBM (I think the range is a little short if the real target is the US main land, but puts all of NK's other classic enemies at risk).

Never understood the separate program philosophy, yes an SLBM will cost more, but more than the development costs of two rocket programs?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/11/2017 03:02 PM
If they get the SLBM to work, why not just use that as their ground based IRBM/ICBM (I think the range is a little short if the real target is the US main land, but puts all of NK's other classic enemies at risk).

Never understood the separate program philosophy, yes an SLBM will cost more, but more than the development costs of two rocket programs?
Pukguksong-1 is SLBM, Pukguksong-2 is GLBM of Pukguksong-1 and Pukguksong-3 is direct successor to Pukguksong-1 thus if pattern repeats then Pukguksong-4 could be GLICBM.
*GL as ground launched

That 8-axle TEL and also MEL had containers on them thus it is already in motion.

Added 3 meters would mean its nearly 10.5 meters long so I expect 15-16 meter long ground variant that puts west coast in range.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Silmfeanor on 12/11/2017 03:13 PM
http://special.tass.ru/politika/2688450
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/NKorea/Kwangmyongsong4ndot2.php
http://www.northkoreatech.org/2016/03/03/north-koreas-satellite-caught-on-camera/
http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20170510009000315&site=0400000000&mobile
What problem? It works and spatial resolution is good enough to spot aircraft carrier.
Did you actually read those links, and paid attention to the dates? The source of the released images are unclear; the zarya.info gives no estimates of actual transmissions, or how the height compare to random noise from other satellites, and explicitely has the heading "Is Kwangmyongsong 4 Alive? That is a big question. ". The Tass.ru image merely finds a trackable object in space, and has no indication whether it works, or not. Timer-based solar panel deploy is something different from working ground control and changing orbital inclinations after weeks, months or years - normal lifespan for sats. So i'd be very hesitant to characterize that satellite as working based on the evidence presented. At most, you could conclude it 'worked' for a few days based on the (presumed) solar panel deployment or stabilization system kicking in - changes in orbit which could also be caused by say a pressure vessel failing, or a battery depressurizing. 

Certainly the statement 'they have no trouble' is not supported by that evidence.

Quote
It is far more likely to see North Korean on moon before first human lands on Mars.
I'd like to see your argument for this, but it'd be off-topic. Let me just instead say - I very much doubt that.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/11/2017 04:44 PM
Did you actually read those links, and paid attention to the dates? The source of the released images are unclear; the zarya.info gives no estimates of actual transmissions, or how the height compare to random noise from other satellites, and explicitely has the heading "Is Kwangmyongsong 4 Alive? That is a big question. ". The Tass.ru image merely finds a trackable object in space, and has no indication whether it works, or not. Timer-based solar panel deploy is something different from working ground control and changing orbital inclinations after weeks, months or years - normal lifespan for sats. So i'd be very hesitant to characterize that satellite as working based on the evidence presented. At most, you could conclude it 'worked' for a few days based on the (presumed) solar panel deployment or stabilization system kicking in - changes in orbit which could also be caused by say a pressure vessel failing, or a battery depressurizing. 

Certainly the statement 'they have no trouble' is not supported by that evidence.

Yes, yes, yes... Sure, pretend that I didn't read all of that if that makes you happy and further more ignore statement of Russian official or you didn't ever to bother to use google translate as I did and thankful translation from Russian to Croatian is perfect.

"Equipment on this craft is active/working/turned on. - he added"

Quote
i'd like to see your argument for this, but it'd be off-topic. Let me just instead say - I very much doubt that.
People very much doubted about everything about North Korea with exception anything negative about it without dose of skepticism and those missile failures are primarily for Hwasong-10 submerged closed-cycle gas generator turbopump staged combustion engine which is insanity for North Koreans to try make it work when it was pain in the ass for Russians and west would simply say no to that. That engine is 4D10, overengineered complex engine and to think Hwasong-13 was to have pair of that makes me shiver.

What they learned from that surely was beneficial to engines used in Hwasong 12, 14 and 15 due to remarkable reliability of the engine, they may revisit staged combustion in future.

4D10 is much smaller engine while consumes equally per kilonewton as RD-250 and general rule is the bigger the more efficient it is.

Also as many experts and analysts noted, Hwasong-15's engine has individualy gimballed combustors, North Korea managed to match Russians in terms of having single turbopump feeding two combustor chambers that can move.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: K210 on 12/13/2017 10:58 AM
I would not be surprised if north korea soft landed on the moon within the next decade. Now that their missile and nuclear programs are at mature level they can transfer some of the tech and resources back into their space program.

I think 2018 will see some interesting developments in terms of NK's space technology.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: VernierLover on 12/14/2017 11:23 AM
I would not be surprised if north korea soft landed on the moon within the next decade. Now that their missile and nuclear programs are at mature level they can transfer some of the tech and resources back into their space program.

I think 2018 will see some interesting developments in terms of NK's space technology.
It is possible under very aggressive schedule on the level of Cold War's space race that by end of 2018 they send satellite into GEO/GSO and satellite to orbit moon while aim to soft land by 2020 to place small drone rover and or flag on it.

They almost launched satellite in 1998, Unha 2/3 3 failures until it worked and wish they continued with Paektusan which is far smaller rocket far less resource intensive.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/16/2017 01:56 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/mattis-north-korea-icbm/index.html

Mattis says NK ICBM cannot strike the US mainland.

How to square this statement with the obvious improvement in ICBM tech in NK? Either Mattis is saying that NK does not have a weaponized nuke yet, or the NK ICBM is flying with no significant payload. It is possible that DoD is not detecting any transmissions from test flights after payload separation, or there is no payload separation. I don't recall seeing any separation between upper stage impact sites and payload impact sites. Perhaps the second stage is mostly incinerated during re-entry, but some debris should still impact the ocean, and should be distinguishable from the payload. Unless the payload does not separate.

For that matter, the payload fairing should be separating at relatively low speeds, where are they landing? Or do they not separate?

BTW, with these near vertical flights, I am surprised that the first stages are not being recovered, since they fly with lower velocity than a ballistic flight.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/16/2017 12:43 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/mattis-north-korea-icbm/index.html

Mattis says NK ICBM cannot strike the US mainland.

<snip>

BTW, with these near vertical flights, I am surprised that the first stages are not being recovered, since they fly with lower velocity than a ballistic flight.

Presume that extreme flight termination to prevent recovery by South Koreans, Japan and US. IIRC the rockets landed in or near International waters.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 12/17/2017 04:26 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/mattis-north-korea-icbm/index.html

Mattis says NK ICBM cannot strike the US mainland.

How to square this statement with the obvious improvement in ICBM tech in NK? Either Mattis is saying that NK does not have a weaponized nuke yet, or the NK ICBM is flying with no significant payload.

I’d say the latter for now. There’s definitely room between weaponized and small enough to fit on an early ICBM (as opposed to something that could hit South Korea/Japan, or Guam/Hawaii).

It is possible that DoD is not detecting any transmissions from test flights after payload separation, or there is no payload separation.

But is that even necessary?

BTW, with these near vertical flights, I am surprised that the first stages are not being recovered, since they fly with lower velocity than a ballistic flight.

What Zed_Noir said, or else they are being recovered and we just don’t know…
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 12/19/2017 04:52 PM
For test flights, usually there is telemetry for all stages of flight. It’s hard to determine the CEP of a system if you don’t know where it lands.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 12/23/2017 03:06 PM
What made North Korea’s weapons programs so much scarier in 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/21/what-made-north-koreas-weapons-programs-so-much-scarier-in-2017/?utm_term=.283a37db3f1a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/21/what-made-north-koreas-weapons-programs-so-much-scarier-in-2017/?utm_term=.283a37db3f1a)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Skyrocket on 01/03/2018 06:03 PM
The Hwasong-12 IRBM launch failure on 28 April 2017 crashed into the North Korean city of Tokchon, causing considerable damage to a complex of industrial or agricultural buildings.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/when-a-north-korean-missile-accidentally-hit-a-north-korean-city/
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 01/04/2018 10:03 AM
Was this previously reported as an HS-10 launch failure?
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/05/2018 01:22 AM
Was this previously reported as an HS-10 launch failure?

I don't think so. My records had this as HS-12. There might have been a HS-10 failure on 22 March 2017.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 01/05/2018 07:36 AM
North Korea Likely Preparing for New Rocket Engine Test at Sohae

http://www.38north.org/2018/01/sohae010418/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (http://www.38north.org/2018/01/sohae010418/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 01/07/2018 05:34 PM
How U.S. Intelligence Agencies Underestimated North Korea

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-missile-intelligence.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-missile-intelligence.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 01/07/2018 06:27 PM
That first image is missing its text.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/08/2018 02:00 AM
That first image is missing its text.

The text is a separate layer. Here is a screen grab showing the text.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 01/08/2018 07:56 AM
Thank you for that.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 02/05/2018 12:37 PM
What to Watch For at North Korea's Upcoming Military Parade

https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/what-to-watch-for-at-north-koreas-upcoming-military-parade/ (https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/what-to-watch-for-at-north-koreas-upcoming-military-parade/)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 02/08/2018 11:15 AM
North Korea Military Parade "The missiles"
February 8, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1fpytoqQc
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/08/2018 01:36 PM
North Korea Military Parade "The missiles"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1fpytoqQc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1fpytoqQc)
I'm confused - it this footage from this week's parade or a clip from last year's? The YouTube post isn't very descriptive (it was posted today, but doesn't say when the actual parade was).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 02/08/2018 01:46 PM
Date of the parade is February 8, 2018
My fould

North Korea Military Parade "The missiles"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1fpytoqQc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1fpytoqQc)
I'm confused - it this footage from this week's parade or a clip from last year's? The YouTube post isn't very descriptive (it was posted today, but doesn't say when the actual parade was).
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 03/11/2018 05:53 PM
A Monumental Success

https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard (https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 04/05/2018 12:06 PM
North Korea is 'almost certain' to have ICBM that could reach UK by 2019
Rapport from the "Commons defence select committee"

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/327/327.pdf (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/327/327.pdf)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/07/2018 06:54 AM
North Korea Razing Key Missile Test Stand

https://www.38north.org/2018/06/ihari060618/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (https://www.38north.org/2018/06/ihari060618/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Chasm on 06/07/2018 09:07 PM
Key is relative.
The stand was used for ejection tests of what became land based Pukkuksong-2 aka KN-15 missile. It has been declared operational since and mass production has been ordered. (However many and how fast that may be.)

North Korea is dismantling sites that are visible and not too important to them.
In this case ejection tests test with the actual launchers seem more applicable and a gravel bed is quickly replaced.
They still have another ejection test stand used for SLBM development in Sinpo.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/14/2018 05:56 AM
North Korea to Destroy Tongchang-ri Missile Test Site

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/06/14/2018061401619.html (http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/06/14/2018061401619.html)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/14/2018 01:58 PM
Trump Asked Kim Jong Un to Dismantle a 'Missile Engine Testing Site'. What Did He Mean?

https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/trump-asked-kim-jong-un-to-dismantle-a-missile-engine-testing-site-what-did-he-mean/ (https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/trump-asked-kim-jong-un-to-dismantle-a-missile-engine-testing-site-what-did-he-mean/)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/15/2018 05:41 AM
No Indications of Missile Test Stand Dismantlement Yet

https://www.38north.org/2018/06/sohae061418/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (https://www.38north.org/2018/06/sohae061418/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: mrhuggy on 06/15/2018 08:31 PM
No Indications of Missile Test Stand Dismantlement Yet

https://www.38north.org/2018/06/sohae061418/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (https://www.38north.org/2018/06/sohae061418/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

There would be no indication on the pictures as they was 3 weeks before the announcement. 38North has got its reporting wrong.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/17/2018 09:13 PM
More on North Korea’s Missile Test Sites

https://www.38north.org/2018/06/testsites061518/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29 (https://www.38north.org/2018/06/testsites061518/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+38North+%2838+North%3A+Informed+Analysis+of+North+Korea%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/18/2018 12:11 PM
No, North Korea Hasn't Blown Up Missile 'Launch Sites' After the June 12 Summit

https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/no-north-korea-hasnt-blown-up-missile-launch-sites-after-the-june-12-summit/ (https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/no-north-korea-hasnt-blown-up-missile-launch-sites-after-the-june-12-summit/)

(https://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/thediplomat-https_2f2fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com2fuploads2fcard2fimage2f6629612f418348d5-bdc7-4b35-9e20-1cd9fc46f066-386x217.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 06/21/2018 09:13 AM
U.S. identifies North Korea missile test site it says Kim committed to destroy

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-site/u-s-identifies-north-korea-missile-test-site-it-says-kim-committed-to-destroy-idUSKBN1JH02B?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-site/u-s-identifies-north-korea-missile-test-site-it-says-kim-committed-to-destroy-idUSKBN1JH02B?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 06/30/2018 08:25 AM
North Korea has increased nuclear production at secret sites, say U.S. officials

Quote
”Work is ongoing to deceive us on the number of facilities, the number of weapons, the number of missiles," said one U.S. official.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/north-korea-has-increased-nuclear-production-secret-sites-say-u-n887926
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Danderman on 07/24/2018 05:02 AM
There is probably a good reason why Sohei is being dismantled.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/25/2018 09:44 PM
Expansion of North Korea’s Solid Fuel Ballistic Missile Program: The Eight Year Old Case of the Chemical Materials Institute

https://www.38north.org/2018/07/cmi072518/ (https://www.38north.org/2018/07/cmi072518/)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/25/2018 09:59 PM
North Korean Engine Dismantlement at Sohae Reversible ‘Within Months

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/us-intelligence-north-korean-engine-dismantlement-at-sohae-reversible-within-months/ (https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/us-intelligence-north-korean-engine-dismantlement-at-sohae-reversible-within-months/)

]
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: catdlr on 07/30/2018 11:41 PM
U.S. spy agencies: North Korea is working on new missiles

The Washington Post article might be behind a paywall.  Try Google Search with this "North Korea is working on new missiles", otherwise use this link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.3dadc67b636c
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2018 06:37 AM
Here’s a BBC article that isn’t behind a paywall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45015343
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 07/31/2018 08:55 AM
US Intelligence: North Korea Is Continuing to Produce ICBM.s

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/us-intelligence-north-korea-is-continuing-to-produce-icbms/ (https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/us-intelligence-north-korea-is-continuing-to-produce-icbms/)

(https://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/thediplomat-hwasong15-840x552-386x254.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 08/17/2018 05:24 AM
North Korea’s Sinpo South Shipyard: Low Level Activity

https://www.38north.org/2018/08/sinpo08162018/ (https://www.38north.org/2018/08/sinpo08162018/)

Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Websorber on 11/12/2018 07:07 AM
The Sakkanmol Missile Operating Base

https://beyondparallel.csis.org/undeclared-north-korea-sakkanmol-missile-operating-base/ (https://beyondparallel.csis.org/undeclared-north-korea-sakkanmol-missile-operating-base/)

(https://beyondparallel.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Sakkanmol-Missile-Bases_1-1.jpg)

(https://beyondparallel.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Sakkanmol-Missile-Bases_2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/12/2018 03:30 PM
The Sakkanmol Missile Operating Base

https://beyondparallel.csis.org/undeclared-north-korea-sakkanmol-missile-operating-base/ (https://beyondparallel.csis.org/undeclared-north-korea-sakkanmol-missile-operating-base/)

(https://beyondparallel.csis.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/11/Sakkanmol-Missile-Bases_1-1.jpg)

(https://beyondparallel.csis.org/wp-content
/uploads/2018/11/Sakkanmol-Missile-Bases_2-1.jpg)
\

Please attach your images so that loading on hotel wifi doesn't attempt to kill my laptop.
Title: Re: North Korea missiles
Post by: Star One on 11/12/2018 05:52 PM
If you want an article without attached overloading images.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/12/north-korea-keeps-undeclared-missile-bases-up-and-running-us-think-tank.html