New North Korean ballistic missiles

Until the difference between its intended point of impact and its actual point of impact is determined, the accuracy of a weapon can only be guessed at. Good luck to DPRK determining the precise point of impact on the far side of Japan.
 
Arjen said:
Until you determine the difference between its intended point of impact and its actual point of impact, the accuracy of your weapon can only be guessed at. Good luck to DPRK determining the precise point of impact on the far side of Japan.
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense.

Missile itself can send telemetry information.
After it is done accelerating the trajectory is set.
Since after all it is ballistic trajectory of the missile
 
You are then relying on the accuracy of sensors, as well as on the accuracy of your model of reality. Which need to be checked against the geographical coordinates of the actual point of impact .
 
Arjen said:
Until the difference between its intended point of impact and its actual point of impact is determined, the accuracy of a weapon can only be guessed at. Good luck to DPRK determining the precise point of impact on the far side of Japan.
Click to expand...
Actually, you could calculate impact point fairly well by measuring post-boost trajectory (three points would be enough). I suppose, North Koreans track the missile with long-range radars (with the help of onboard transponders) till its above the horizon. And maybe they sent radar-equipped ships in sea to continue tracking beyond the horizon. So they clearly have a good approximation of their missiles accuracy. Of course, re-entry create additional inaccuracy, but its pretty much inevitable for ballistic missiles.
 
Arjen said:
You are then relying on the accuracy of sensors, as well as on the accuracy of your model of reality. Which need to be checked against the geographical coordinates of the actual point of impact .
Click to expand...
No need; just track the trajectory good enough. Yes, the re-entry would add some inaccuracy, but at the point of re-entry the warhead is NOT guided by any means (unless we are talking about maneuver-capalbe RV's), so the majority of missile accuracy is determined during boost phase.
 
A small error during boost phase results in a bigger error on a long trajectory than on a short trajectory. Again, reliance on a model unchecked against reality.
 

Attachments

  • giant - model vs reality.jpg
    giant - model vs reality.jpg
    893 KB · Views: 24
Arjen said:
A small error during boost phase results in a bigger error on a long trajectory than on a short trajectory. Again, reliance on a model unchecked against reality.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this error would be visible on both high-angle high-altitude and low-angle long-range trajectory. I.e. you could launch your ICBM almost vertically, and track her to determine how good the guidance system handled the boost. And it would bring relevant data for long-range shots as well.
 
You are still relying on the accuracy of your sensor-setup and your guidance model, which need to be evaluated against physical determination of the point of impact.
A low-angle trajectory will be affected more by atmospherical conditions than a high-angle trajectory.
If a high-angle trajectory is all you intend to use, that's fine. Although that will affect a weapon's reach as well as susceptibility to countermeasures.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
It's not exactly rocket science to get a ship out near predicted impact and track the RV down.

Question is, has North Korea done that?
Click to expand...
The real question is what assets they are using to track it.
 
Considering that North Korea successfully launched Hwasong-17 that has considerably more performance than Kosmos-3M SLV.
They can launch small to medium weight class satellite into low earth to sun synchronous orbit at any time of their choosing.
Thus robust satellite with receiver and transmitter can be launched to receive telemetry from missile and transmit it to base.
 
Forest Green said:
zen said:
It's not exactly rocket science to get a ship out near predicted impact and track the RV down.

Question is, has North Korea done that?
Click to expand...
The real question is what assets they are using to track it.
Click to expand...
Well the tracking radar is frankly early 50's technology.
The hard part is fixing the ships location precisely.
 
Arjen said:
Are you now arguing DPRK have taken trajectory into account? Monitoring by satellite?
Click to expand...
You need to read again what I wrote because that is not what I wrote anywhere in this thread.

They have not satellite yet for that, I suggested it that they could launch one before they choose to do full range ICBM test.
Since North Korea has announced last year that it has set launch of a military grade satellite sometimes in April of this year.
They do highly lofted test because they can track those since it goes along width of North Korean territory on land and sea.

Hwasong-17 by itself is more than enough for that role, but changes at Sohae space launch vehicle station indicates larger SLV.
So it is possible that they have developed comparable system to Tsyklon-3(that is effectively repurposed R-36 heavy ICBM).
Hence would be possible for them to have communication satellite on sun synchronous orbit of roughly ton and a half.

They have rocket engines for a Tsyklon-3 tier SLV as Hwasong-17 has two RD-250 tier and there have been 3 successful launches.
Along 2 successful launches of Hwasong-15 that has single RD-250 tier engines, on both those have nozzles that can swivel.

Also for all we know each stage could have own transmitter.
First stage could relay to base telemetry from second stage.
Second stage could relay telemetry from third stage.
Daisy chain that would compensate insufficiencies.
 
In my day job I often need to get details exactly right. I have therefore developed a habit of paraphrasing messages, passing the paraphrased bits back to the messenger to check if I've understood right. To rule out misunderstandings.

No current DPRK monitoring of missile launches by satellite then.

I would like to leave judgement of your suggestions regarding ways and means of missile tracking to the experts.
 
Last edited:
Nothing beats tracking from a fixed location.
Deep out in the Pacific ocean your next best is from a ship on a clear night with star reference.
An OTHR could assist....depending.
And obviously a known satellite could deliver.
 
uk 75 said:
I am happy to learn more about the accuracy or otherwise of N Korean missiles.
Click to expand...

So are the North Koreans!
I, for one, do hope they are taking notes on this thread and implementing the suggestions.
 
If the North Korean targets are cities (New York, LA, Chicago, Washington DC), they don't need extraordinary amounts of accuracy... A few km CEP is perfectly acceptable.

Based on North Korea's progress elsewhere, it would be very foolish to assume they can't get ICBM accuracy down to "large metro area."

Though, I agree that RV testing is probably not as robust as they would like, a full-range shot seems necessary at some point.
 
Some Iraqi Scuds missed by more than the range of the missile, which is impressive.
 
An alternative explanation is that, because of faulty / lack of intelligence, they were fired in the wrong direction. I have no information to rule out either way. Do you?
 
either way the Iraqis and the North Koreans are two different animals in terms of budget/technology/access to information and methods of information gathering. seems almost unfair in terms of comparison......
and also not to mention most of their technology was Russian Surplus.

question is. do we really know Kim Jong un's true intentions? so far they have built and launched multiple ICBMs. it is a direct threat to international ties/securities.


and in terms of ship tracking as was discussed above.
is there any sort of record of military ships nearby the impact points? that could be a clue as to if they are in fact using it or not.
also how many satellites are owned, in orbit, and/or operational by the north Korean government?
 
Last edited:
North Korea had successful insertion of satellite into low earth orbit in 2012 and 2016 while as of now they don't have any operational satellites, though this month they will probably launch it if no delays.
 
Conspirator said:
question is. do we really know Kim Jong un's true intentions? so far they have built and launched multiple ICBMs. it is a direct threat to international ties/securities.
Click to expand...
Well, the first goal is obvious: to ensure safety of North Korea by deterring any possible US hostility (I think we all could safely conclude, that North Korea have zero reasons and zero desire to attack USA first?). By deploying their mobile solid-fuel ICBM's with presumably single warhead & multiple penetration aids, North Koreans essentially ensured that no attack against them could be cost-effective.

The second goal is pragmatically civilian. North Korea is trying to implement its relatively high-tech industry - let's be honest, a very few countries on Earth have comparable capabilities - into economical and civilian advantages. Like using sattelites to observe weather and gather data on crops vegetation. For a small country with very limited fertile soil areas (and which already suffered terribly from famine), it's pretty logical to have such space capabilities.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, the first goal is obvious: to ensure safety of North Korea by deterring any possible US hostility (I think we all could safely conclude, that North Korea have zero reasons and zero desire to attack USA first?). By deploying their mobile solid-fuel ICBM's with presumably single warhead & multiple penetration aids, North Koreans essentially ensured that no attack against them could be cost-effective.

The second goal is pragmatically civilian. North Korea is trying to implement its relatively high-tech industry - let's be honest, a very few countries on Earth have comparable capabilities - into economical and civilian advantages. Like using sattelites to observe weather and gather data on crops vegetation. For a small country with very limited fertile soil areas (and which already suffered terribly from famine), it's pretty logical to have such space capabilities.
Click to expand...
Not sure of the logic. If the US was going to invade NK, it would have done so long before now. The early '90s would have been the optimal time if such a notion was even remotely likely to be entertained.

Fairly sure that information is already available elsewhere too. I think a strong argument could be made that there's more profit in other commercial tech areas. I mean the investment to develop and test this many different missile types is huge, even for a country with a much bigger economy.

Whenever I consider the why the only reason I keep coming back to is that the nukes are to prevent a US defence of South Korea in the event of an invasion by the DPRK, which is very dangerous logic.
 
Forest Green said:
Not sure of the logic. If the US was going to invade NK, it would have done so long before now. The early '90s would have been the optimal time if such a notion was even remotely likely to be entertained.
Click to expand...
Well, North Korea prefer to be sure, so they put efforts into NOT being invaded for any possible reason. You can't blame them for being cautious about their defenses.

Forest Green said:
Fairly sure that information is already available elsewhere too.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Yes it's available, but problem is, that it's available on commercial basis. Which means North Korea A - need to pay for it regularly, and B - need to rely on foreign sources, which could cease cooperation under US pressure. Therefore possible, but not reliable. And since North Korea already have space-launch capabilities (space booster and ICBM are basically the same tech), they could just build satellites of their own. Which would be cheaper in long run, and gave North Korean engineers valuable experience.

Forest Green said:
. I mean the investment to develop and test this many different missile types is huge, even for a country with a much bigger economy.
Click to expand...
Well, they apparently operating under the concept "we aren't rich enough to pay for shoddy work". They prefer to spend money on research & development, so when it came to deployment, they would be able to deploy the best, reliable solution.

Forest Green said:
Whenever I consider the why the only reason I keep coming back to is that the nukes are to prevent a US defence of South Korea in the event of an invasion by the DPRK, which is very dangerous logic.
Click to expand...
DPRK have absolutely zero reason to invade South Korea. What would they gain from it? Most of their military advantages are positional ones, which means they would not be able to implement it as soon as fighting moved southern of the demilitarized zone.
 
Dilandu said:
Forest Green said:
Not sure of the logic. If the US was going to invade NK, it would have done so long before now. The early '90s would have been the optimal time if such a notion was even remotely likely to be entertained.
Click to expand...
Well, North Korea prefer to be sure, so they put efforts into NOT being invaded for any possible reason. You can't blame them for being cautious about their defenses.
Click to expand...
Could only be done with ROK support and they absolutely wouldn't support it because it would be their country in the firing line and their very nice cities getting flattened. It was the DPRK who began the war last time remember.
Dilandu said:
Forest Green said:
Fairly sure that information is already available elsewhere too.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Yes it's available, but problem is, that it's available on commercial basis. Which means North Korea A - need to pay for it regularly, and B - need to rely on foreign sources, which could cease cooperation under US pressure. Therefore possible, but not reliable. And since North Korea already have space-launch capabilities (space booster and ICBM are basically the same tech), they could just build satellites of their own. Which would be cheaper in long run, and gave North Korean engineers valuable experience.
Click to expand...
Costs more than a space program? I'm also sure Chinese and/or Russian satellites could and would provide them with such information in a way that's immune to sanctions.
Dilandu said:
Forest Green said:
. I mean the investment to develop and test this many different missile types is huge, even for a country with a much bigger economy.
Click to expand...
Well, they apparently operating under the concept "we aren't rich enough to pay for shoddy work". They prefer to spend money on research & development, so when it came to deployment, they would be able to deploy the best, reliable solution.
Click to expand...
Spending a load of money developing stuff and then scrapping a lot of it costs a fortune. That sure as hell doesn't save money, just ask the US.
Dilandu said:
Forest Green said:
Whenever I consider the why the only reason I keep coming back to is that the nukes are to prevent a US defence of South Korea in the event of an invasion by the DPRK, which is very dangerous logic.
Click to expand...
DPRK have absolutely zero reason to invade South Korea. What would they gain from it? Most of their military advantages are positional ones, which means they would not be able to implement it as soon as fighting moved southern of the demilitarized zone.
Click to expand...
Same thing they hoped to gain in 1950, their goal of a unified Korea among other things. And they're hoping that with a nuclear deterrent and a stronger China, the US wouldn't intervene.
 
Surprised no one posted about the latest Hwasong-18 test. I put a russian link as it has everything in one place, text, pics, videos etc.
imp-navigator.livejournal.com

Второе успешное испытание северокорейской твердотопливной МБР

12 июля КНДР провела второе успешное испытание своей новой твердотопливной межконтинентальной баллистической ракеты Хвасон-18 (Хвасонпхо-18) . Традиционно для северокорейских испытаний, ракеты была запущена по очень крутой траектории, поэтому дальность ее испытательного полета составила…
imp-navigator.livejournal.com imp-navigator.livejournal.com
 
CiTrus90 said:
Does anybody know what this is?

It looks like an HGV, but I'm unfamiliar with the NK inventory.

Edit: to explain further, it doesn't look like any North Korean HGV I've ever seen previously.
Click to expand...
It looks like improved Hwasung-8 to me. It has a new vertical tail shape for example, which is a subtle difference.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
It looks like improved Hwasung-8 to me. It has a new vertical tail shape for example, which is a subtle difference.
Click to expand...
I don't know why the quote is in a different thread from where I posted, but still...
These are the differences I see: NK HGV.jpg
The HGV shown recently is more reminiscent of a wing-body configuration, unlike the wedge shape of the Hwasong-8.
Granted, payload and guidance system might still be the same, but the aerodynamic differences are significant enough to consider it a new platform in my opinion.
 
Or perhaps the first one was the initial version, and the second one is the refined production version?
 
CiTrus90 said:
I don't know why the quote is in a different thread from where I posted, but still...
These are the differences I see:View attachment 704748
The HGV shown recently is more reminiscent of a wing-body configuration, unlike the wedge shape of the Hwasong-8.
Granted, payload and guidance system might still be the same, but the aerodynamic differences are significant enough to consider it a new platform in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It is worth noting that the model written on the display board is not Hwasong-8 but Hwasong-12B (12 나)
53cfa7a772a46d68~2.jpg
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom