They published the video from test launches; the smoke was a solid-fuel one.How do one know if it's solid propellant tho. Other than apparent similarities to Russian topol or yars TEL.
To be exact, they already used storable liquid fuel, so refueling was not required, but it's clear that solid fuel made their ICBM much more durable and less maintenance-heavy. Also increase their mobility quite a lot.Anyway having solid propellant ICBM's allows NK's to launch quicker and eliminate preparation required to fuel and maintaining the liquid fueled ICBM's in cost of reduced utility as space launchers in the future.
U.S. intelligence analysts believe a recent military parade in North Korea "probably oversells" the threat its inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) pose to the United States, according to a leaked document purportedly from the U.S. government.
A brief, one-paragraph observation in one of the documents marked "Secret" and seen by Reuters noted that North Korea had paraded an unprecedented number of ICBM-class launchers at an event on Feb. 8that were "most likely carrying nonoperational systems."
This is just another Pentagon copium and or damage control since Hwasong-17 can certainly carry four reentry vehicles with nuclear warheads, with there being a dozen ICBMs of Hwasong-17 type thus can overwhelmed American ballistic missile defense system.U.S. intelligence analysts believe a recent military parade in North Korea "probably oversells" the threat its inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) pose to the United States, according to a leaked document purportedly from the U.S. government.A brief, one-paragraph observation in one of the documents marked "Secret" and seen by Reuters noted that North Korea had paraded an unprecedented number of ICBM-class launchers at an event on Feb. 8that were "most likely carrying nonoperational systems."North Korea parade 'probably oversells' ICBM threat -leaked document
U.S. intelligence analysts believe a recent military parade in North Korea "probably oversells" the threat its inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) pose to the United States, according to a leaked document purportedly from the U.S. government.www.reuters.com
Tone down the rhetoric a bit.This is just another Pentagon copium and or damage control
Well, it would be the MTCR in this case, but clearly when some people sign a treaty it's because they wish to restrict their counterpart, while for them it doesn't exist.Looks a whole lot like an RS-24. But hey, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. NPT after all.
Yep.Well, it would be the MTCR in this case, but clearly when some people sign a treaty it's because they wish to restrict their counterpart, while for them it doesn't exist.Looks a whole lot like an RS-24. But hey, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. NPT after all.
Looks like a Minuteman ICBM .....
I don't recall MM3 being launched from a TEL, have the rings pop-off like an RS-24, or ride on a "puck" like an SS-18.Looks like a Minuteman ICBM .....
This.
I mean, the US is clearly not going to have lent a hand, but the point is, it objectively has about as much in common with a Topol-M or Yars as it doas with a MM III.
On the case of these last two pictures, the North Korean Missile is liquid-fueled, with engines likely derived from the SS-9, parts of which they are known to have stolen from Ukraine, whilst the RT-23 is solid-fueled.Fairly similar.
Hwasong-17 is effectively Kosmos-3M.Stole it all the way from Ukraine huh? So, an SS-18 propulsion system in an RT-23-alike missile. An 'inevitable' follow-on that happens to share dimensions with the RS-24.
It isn't RT-23-alike, it's liquid fueled, and powered by a pair of reverse-engineered RD-250s. If it was RT-23-alike, it would be Solid-fueled.Stole it all the way from Ukraine huh? So, an SS-18 propulsion system in an RT-23-alike missile. An 'inevitable' follow-on that happens to share dimensions with the RS-24.
Your own source mentions Russia. And why would a small cash-strapped nation be developing not 1, not 2 but 3 separate types of ICBMs (Hwasong-15/17/18)? It doesn't even make sense.It isn't RT-23-alike, it's liquid fueled, and powered by a pair of reverse-engineered RD-250s. If it was RT-23-alike, it would be Solid-fueled.
The solid-fueled "follow-on" is Pukguksong-derived.
As for stealing Ukrainian missile components, this is pretty widely reported:
North Korea ICBM success
How has North Korea managed to make such astounding progress with its long-range missile programme over the last two years? Here, Michael Elleman shares the first solid evidence that North Korea has acquired a high-performance liquid-propellant engine from illicit networks in Russia and Ukraine.www.iiss.org
I'm not sure why it is surprising that an industrialised country with albeit, limited and illicit access to 21st century technology is capable of reproducing examples of 1940s (nuclear weapons) and 1960s (solid-fueled ICBMs) technologies, especially when they been seen to produce and test the various intermediate stages (for example the large diameter solid-fueled IRBMs of the Pukguksong-series).
Your own source mentions Russia.
And why would a small cash-strapped nation be developing not 1, not 2 but 3 separate types of ICBMs (Hwasong-15/17/18)? It doesn't even make sense.
Basically because they wanted their nuclear arsenal to be secure and not very costly to maintain.Your own source mentions Russia. And why would a small cash-strapped nation be developing not 1, not 2 but 3 separate types of ICBMs (Hwasong-15/17/18)? It doesn't even make sense.
I cant agree moreBasically because they wanted their nuclear arsenal to be secure and not very costly to maintain.Your own source mentions Russia. And why would a small cash-strapped nation be developing not 1, not 2 but 3 separate types of ICBMs (Hwasong-15/17/18)? It doesn't even make sense.
* Hwasong-15 was essentially a stopgap measure; storable liquid-fueled ICBM that could be launched only from stationary positions. I.e. vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes. And since North Korea is quite small country, they are quite worried about their arsenal durability.
* Hwasong-17 is a solution; storable liquid-fueled ICBM, that could be transported and launched from mobile TEL. It allowed much better survivability than previous ICBM.
* Hwasong-18 is a next step - solid-fuel mobile ICBM, that would add reduced maintenance requirement to the already-achieved survivability.
Basically, North Koreans are firm followers of cost-efficiency. They prefer to spend money on development, but get the most cost-effective solution for actual deployment.
P.S. Also, their liquid-fuel ICBM program gave them a rather good foothold in terms of space-launching capabilities. I speculate that North Korea may be the next space power to achieve manned spaceflight (they already have technical capabilities to launch a Mercury-type capsule).
So strange that Putin would ask for Viktor Bout to be released if he were trying to clamp down on such illicit networks.Yeah - expressly in the context of *illicit* technology acquisition, not deliberate tech transfer