- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3,193
Cryptic, explain.False, read what you wrote.
Last edited:
Cryptic, explain.False, read what you wrote.
There is nothing cryptic about it to any degree.Cryptic, explain.False, read what you wrote.
That can be done regardless of trajectory.Testing a warhead and reentry vehicle
The exoatmospheric path of ballistic missile is basically defined by pure ballistic + remaining atmosphere friction. The accuracy depend mostly on the accuracy of boosting phase.If you don't care about precision.
Absolute nonsense.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.
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.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.
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.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 .
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.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.
The real question is what assets they are using to track it.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?
Theoretically possible.Thus robust satellite with receiver and transmitter can be launched to receive telemetry from missile and transmit it to base.
Are you now arguing DPRK have taken trajectory into account? Monitoring by satellite?That can be done regardless of trajectory.Testing a warhead and reentry vehicle
Well the tracking radar is frankly early 50's technology.The real question is what assets they are using to track it.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?
You need to read again what I wrote because that is not what I wrote anywhere in this thread.Are you now arguing DPRK have taken trajectory into account? Monitoring by satellite?
I am happy to learn more about the accuracy or otherwise of N Korean missiles.False, read what you wrote.
I am happy to learn more about the accuracy or otherwise of N Korean missiles.
Because they didn't know how to maintain them.Some Iraqi Scuds missed by more than the range of the missile, which is impressive.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Fairly sure that information is already available elsewhere too.
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.. I mean the investment to develop and test this many different missile types is huge, even for a country with a much bigger economy.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.Fairly sure that information is already available elsewhere too.
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.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.. I mean the investment to develop and test this many different missile types is huge, even for a country with a much bigger economy.
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.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.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.
It looks like improved Hwasung-8 to me. It has a new vertical tail shape for example, which is a subtle difference.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.
I don't know why the quote is in a different thread from where I posted, but still...It looks like improved Hwasung-8 to me. It has a new vertical tail shape for example, which is a subtle difference.