-
#100
by
Rocket Science
on 05 Jul, 2017 14:56
-
-
#101
by
Rebel44
on 05 Jul, 2017 15:33
-
Video of launch:
-
#102
by
Star One
on 05 Jul, 2017 20:41
-
Some analysis here.
North Korea Finally Tests an ICBMAs 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.
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.
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.
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/
-
#103
by
Websorber
on 06 Jul, 2017 07:41
-
Inside from North Korea
How the North Koreans experienced the ICBM launch
-
#104
by
edkyle99
on 06 Jul, 2017 16:41
-
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
-
#105
by
Skyrocket
on 06 Jul, 2017 16:51
-
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!
-
#106
by
RotoSequence
on 06 Jul, 2017 16:52
-
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.
-
#107
by
laszlo
on 06 Jul, 2017 16:58
-
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.
-
#108
by
edkyle99
on 06 Jul, 2017 17:34
-
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
-
#109
by
Star One
on 06 Jul, 2017 17:49
-
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.
-
#110
by
RotoSequence
on 06 Jul, 2017 17:57
-
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/
-
#111
by
RonM
on 06 Jul, 2017 17:57
-
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.
-
#112
by
RotoSequence
on 06 Jul, 2017 17:59
-
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."
-
#113
by
edkyle99
on 06 Jul, 2017 18:13
-
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
-
#114
by
RotoSequence
on 06 Jul, 2017 18:23
-
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.
-
#115
by
Star One
on 06 Jul, 2017 18:50
-
-
#116
by
RotoSequence
on 06 Jul, 2017 19:23
-
-
#117
by
Websorber
on 06 Jul, 2017 19:25
-
-
#118
by
Danderman
on 06 Jul, 2017 20:26
-
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.
-
#119
by
Star One
on 06 Jul, 2017 20:28
-
