South Korean ballistic missiles ...

[sferrin]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsuBR6qYLRI


Amazing how fast South Korea is moving to offset NK threats.

 

[TomS]

Looks like a bastard stepchild of Pershing and ATACMS.

 

[sferrin]

Looks like a bastard stepchild of Pershing and ATACMS.

Basically, it can hit any hard target in North Korea.

 

[DrRansom]

There was a previous South Korea missile that had more than a passing resemblance to an Iskander.

Maybe the US should just go to SK for the ATACMs replacement, rather than waiting almost a decade.

 

[sferrin]

There was a previous South Korea missile that had more than a passing resemblance to an Iskander.

Hyunmoo 2A/B.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AxTwpJoHXA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAAnb-AmkXI

Maybe the US should just go to SK for the ATACMs replacement, rather than waiting almost a decade.

It's almost criminal how slow the US is to get anything done these days. The much more complex and ambitious Pershing II went from contract award to fully deployed in the same amount of time.

 

[marauder2048]

At the very least, having allies whose missiles aren't contrained by the INF treaty is useful.

 

[DrRansom]

Hyunmoo 2A/B.

It's almost criminal how slow the US is to get anything done these days. The much more complex and ambitious Pershing II went from contract award to fully deployed in the same amount of time.

Thanks for that link.

Yes, it is as if CAD and all the advanced aerodynamic tools have not produced any development progress, rather even longer times than before.

Look at North Korea, for goodness sake. They test an engine this year and then fly it on two different vehicles, Hwasong-12 and -14. If this was the US, there'd be several years between the engine test and the first Hwasong-12 test and then, when that failed, years before the second test.

A medium range artillery rocket is not a high-tech development program. It isn't breaking new ground. It is merely trying to do what others have already done. There isn't the excuse of attempting uncharted territory.

 

[bobbymike]

Hyunmoo 2A/B.

It's almost criminal how slow the US is to get anything done these days. The much more complex and ambitious Pershing II went from contract award to fully deployed in the same amount of time.

Thanks for that link.

Yes, it is as if CAD and all the advanced aerodynamic tools have not produced any development progress, rather even longer times than before.

Look at North Korea, for goodness sake. They test an engine this year and then fly it on two different vehicles, Hwasong-12 and -14. If this was the US, there'd be several years between the engine test and the first Hwasong-12 test and then, when that failed, years before the second test.

A medium range artillery rocket is not a high-tech development program. It isn't breaking new ground. It is merely trying to do what others have already done. There isn't the excuse of attempting uncharted territory.

The US should have active conventional strike missile programs from HIMARS to the GBSD and every range in between with very large payload capacity they should be rolling off the assembly lines like sausages, leave the useless INF Treaty far......far behind

 

[sferrin]

I get the impression that talk and powerpoints move careers, and if you stretch a program long enough maybe you'll be able to move to the next fantasy project before you actually have to risk failure by performing.

 

[DrRansom]

I get the impression that talk and powerpoints move careers, and if you stretch a program long enough maybe you'll be able to move to the next fantasy project before you actually have to risk failure by performing.

If true, that approach will have all sorts of deleterious effects. For one, any engineer who wants to see their projects succeed (i.e. the best) are going to go to companies which actually develop new vehicles. The shining example here is SpaceX, which has developed launch vehicles at a rate which ULA cannot hope to emulate. I could imagine that there's a steady brain drain of top talent from defense contractors to non-defense companies. Better to see something fly than have the high-tech projects take a decade, then be cancelled.

 

[sferrin]

I get the impression that talk and powerpoints move careers, and if you stretch a program long enough maybe you'll be able to move to the next fantasy project before you actually have to risk failure by performing.

If true, that approach will have all sorts of deleterious effects. For one, any engineer who wants to see their projects succeed (i.e. the best) are going to go to companies which actually develop new vehicles. The shining example here is SpaceX, which has developed launch vehicles at a rate which ULA cannot hope to emulate. I could imagine that there's a steady brain drain of top talent from defense contractors to non-defense companies. Better to see something fly than have the high-tech projects take a decade, then be cancelled.

Yep.

 

[bobbymike]

I get the impression that talk and powerpoints move careers, and if you stretch a program long enough maybe you'll be able to move to the next fantasy project before you actually have to risk failure by performing.

If true, that approach will have all sorts of deleterious effects. For one, any engineer who wants to see their projects succeed (i.e. the best) are going to go to companies which actually develop new vehicles. The shining example here is SpaceX, which has developed launch vehicles at a rate which ULA cannot hope to emulate. I could imagine that there's a steady brain drain of top talent from defense contractors to non-defense companies. Better to see something fly than have the high-tech projects take a decade, then be cancelled.

Yep.

I've made the same comment on the nuclear enterprise. Hey want to take get your PhD in nuclear physics and then never work on a new design or weapon or ever test anything for the next 30 years?

 

[sferrin]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jCLimcGgPs

 

[bobbymike]

Seems like such a no-brainer to have this type of system (even longer ranged) in a '4-cell' VLS on a bunch of Navy ships. That is until the converted LHA with about 100 missiles is ready

 

[sferrin]

South Korea, U.S. to Scrap Warhead Weight Limit on South Korean Missiles - Blue House (excerpt)

 

[Moose]

Seems like such a no-brainer to have this type of system (even longer ranged) in a '4-cell' VLS on a bunch of Navy ships. That is until the converted LHA with about 100 missiles is ready

No US or ROK VLS currently in service can take "multi-cell" missiles.

 

[sferrin]

Seems like such a no-brainer to have this type of system (even longer ranged) in a '4-cell' VLS on a bunch of Navy ships. That is until the converted LHA with about 100 missiles is ready

No US or ROK VLS currently in service can take "multi-cell" missiles.

ROK has a new VLS with bigger cells than the US Mk57 PLS but even those aren't big enough for a 2C.

 

[TomS]

Seen any specs on K-VLS? I wonder if it's something LM had in it's files that they dusted off for the Koreans.

There was a notional six-pack VLS that the US Navy was looking at around 2000 to handle larger BMD interceptors up to 27 inches in diameter. That was supposed to fit in the same footprint as a Mk 41 but was also significantly deeper.

 

[Mach42]

There are no specs that I know of. Also, there are multiple Korean Vertical Launch Systems but due to the consequence of them not being marketed for export there are unhelpfully, no names to easily identify them.

There are 3 (or 4) Korean VLS in existence. The first was just simply called KVLS, which shares many similarities to the full 'strike length' Mk 41. (8 cells per module, 4 x 2 config, a shared central single shared vent) These are used in ROKN service for Korean VL-ASROCs and LACMs such as the 현무-3 순항미사일 (Hyunmoo-3 CM) and the 전술함대지유도탄 (yet un-named land-attack version of the C-Star AShM)

The second VLS (as far as can be deduced) has been purpose made as a low-footprint, low-penetration module for the 해궁 (Seabow if translated, marketed by LIGnex1 as the SAAM) and is a single cell module with a single vent to the side. It accepts a single quad-pack of SAAM (dual-mode seeker similar in size to the Sea Ceptor or MICA) that shares the single vent. It is expected that the ROKN will install 4 of these modules together for a loadout of 16 interceptors for combat ships and 1 or 2 modules for support ships. (The quad-pack SAAM canister in compatible the other VLS module, yet to be seen if it will be used in that way however)

The third VLS is probably still in the process of development. It’s probably sized to meet the needs of future high-velocity (think BhrahMos and beyond) attack missiles and large exo-atmospheric missile interceptors. The footprint of individual cells (not the whole module) will increase in area by 80%, they will deepen by 20%, the acceptable weight of the munition(s)/canister will go up by 85%, and will withstand and safely launch boosters with an increased thrust (in kN per sec) of 35%. Again it’s under development so we don’t know what it looks like or how many cells per module it has or what the configuration of the vent(s) are.

The final system that we know nothing about is the submarine integrated VLS for the KSS-III (Chang Bogo-III) class submarines. There has been talk of these subs having Ballistic Missile Launch capabilities (as impractical and unnecessarily antagonizing to neighbouring countries as this idea may be) but this may be just a potential capability and not a future operational reality. If I may put forward a prediction. It could be that Korea is designing this VLS as a scaled, miniature version of the Ohio SSGN, or an AIP equipped SSG in other words. Installing Hyunmoo-2 SLBM launch tubes but otherwise sailing around with canisters that adapt them to multiple Hyunmoo-3 SLCMs could be a plausible theory in my view.

 

[sferrin]

"The third VLS is probably still in the process of development. It’s probably sized to meet the needs of future high-velocity (think BhrahMos and beyond) attack missiles and large exo-atmospheric missile interceptors. The footprint of individual cells (not the whole module) will increase in area by 80%, they will deepen by 20%, the acceptable weight of the munition(s)/canister will go up by 85%, and will withstand and safely launch boosters with an increased thrust (in kN per sec) of 35%. Again it’s under development so we don’t know what it looks like or how many cells per module it has or what the configuration of the vent(s) are."

The dimensions I got from a guy who goes by the name of "Ambassador" over on the old mp.net was 29.5" x 29.5" x 309". Doesn't look like he's been active on The Mess for several months. He's the most knowledgeable person I know on ROK weapons.

 

[Mach42]

The dimensions I got from a guy who goes by the name of "Ambassador" over on the old mp.net was 29.5" x 29.5" x 309". Doesn't look like he's been active on The Mess for several months. He's the most knowledgeable person I know on ROK weapons.

OT: He hoped over to the spacebattles forum under "Pleiades" and he occasionally posts in the War Room sub-forum but news is slow these days. Suprised he didn't do an analysis of the items in the Japanese military budget yet.

 

[sferrin]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk3F6PokKyc


Note the 10-wheel vehicles there at 1:17

 

[bobbymike]

South Korean army reveals plan to develop 'Frankenmissile' targeting North Korea

South Korea's military plans to develop "Frankenmissile" to counter North Korea's escalating missile and nuclear capabilities in a bid to overwhelm the North during the initial phase of the war. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Still think we should develop this with Iran and NK in mind

 

[Renzef]

https://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0101_202107040009009174 (korean article)

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ts-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile-test/ (english article)

The first ship of the Dosan Ahn Chang Ho-class is fitted with 6 cold launch VLS (vertical launch systems) reportedly capable of launching both the Hyunmoo 4-4 SLBM and a submarine launched land attack cruise missile (SLCM) known as Hyunmoo 3C with a range of 1,500 Km. The follow-on class, known as KSS III Batch 2, will be fitted with up to 10 of those VLS, as Naval News reported previously. However, the MND still has not officially confirmed exact information about the development, size, and length of SLBMs, even whether the 3,000 tons submarines would be loaded with ballistic missiles.

No confirmed details about the dimensions / mass of the SLBM, the VLS cells, and etc (and the first time I've seen the Hyunmoo-4-4 designation). Most sources, including the Yonhap report, describe the SLBM as a 500-km range derivative of the Hyunmoo-2B.

There are r&d projects for larger VLS cells, but the public probably won't see anything for another decade (reported by a journalist named Sheldon, but he doesn't like people reposting his stuff). With the recent scrapping of missile guidelines (https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210522003451315), longer range SLBM's are likely in the works. Also wonder if they'll switch to something resembling the VPM for batch-3 KSS-III's.

Finally, some pictures of the VLS cells installed on Batch-1 KSS-III's.

Spoiler: VLS

https://twitter.com/x/status/1411538638324723715

View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1411538638324723715

 

[covert_shores]

see https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...lear-submarine-has-fired-a-ballistic-missile/

 

[covert_shores]

Qing class test sub accepted, but quite different

 

[Hobbes]

Would this also be the smallest sub to launch an SLBM?

 

[Archibald]

Interesting.

To me the real deal is not that a SSK fired a SLBM - it has happened before.

France first atempt at a nuclear sub - Q-244 - was a miserable failure but the hull wasn't lost. Someone paradoxically, it was turned into a SLBM test submarine... without nuclear propulsion. The Gymnote that test fired every single French SLBM until the M-4 and its retirement.

French submarine Gymnote (S655) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

More to the point - does South Korea has nukes to put on the SLBM ? Otherwise, what's the point ?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via CDR Salamander:

The Age of the Conventional SLBM is Here

I cannot stop thinking of the utility of what the South Korean navy is building here. A relatively large, modern SSK with 6 and soon 10 launch tubes for large cruise or ballistic missiles. Via Naval News, just look at this beautiful beast; If the day of assuming any SLBM launch being nuclear is...

blog.usni.org

 

[Maro.Kyo]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxKNf8Ij8M&ab_channel=YTNnews


Not only SLBM but a lot has been revealed today. The supersonic ASM, which was only rumored that such program exist for more than a decade (since 90s~mid 2000s depending on the criteria), has also been revealed (version in the video is a ground-launched variant), alongside KEPD-350 equivalent ALCM (Chunruyong) for KF-21 and an upgraded Hyunmoo-II variant bunker-buster BM, which is known to have a warhead that weighs 2 tons.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

From the video :


SLBM (commonly known as Hyunmoo 4-4)



Theater bunkerbuster BM (a 2 ton warhead Hyunmoo-II variant, it's official name unknown)


Supersonic ASM (could notice the similarities with Yakhont as this program originated from Korean-Russian cooperation in mid 2000s)

Btw the Supersonic ASM will not have any air-launched derivative since they are developing a different, ASM-3 esque missile with ducted ramjet for KF-21, separate to this missile.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Interesting.

To me the real deal is not that a SSK fired a SLBM - it has happened before.

France first atempt at a nuclear sub - Q-244 - was a miserable failure but the hull wasn't lost. Someone paradoxically, it was turned into a SLBM test submarine... without nuclear propulsion. The Gymnote that test fired every single French SLBM until the M-4 and its retirement.

French submarine Gymnote (S655) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

More to the point - does South Korea has nukes to put on the SLBM ? Otherwise, what's the point ?

Something that is often looked over is the airspace control and free airspace for operation. Air space over Korean Peninsula, especially that over FEBA, will get extremely packed once the war breaks out. Not only fighters but hundreds of BM and CM, even artillery shells, will take up their own airspace for the first few days after the D-Day while there will be bunch of pre-ATO targets and TSTs to strike.

SLBM that could launch from SoJ, east to the congested air space over land could thereby free up a lot of opportunities. This is also one of the reason (among others) the ROKA is pushing for a CV as well.

Apart from that, having a more secure means of launch than a TEL always help. Considering the fact that a lot of US/Russian nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs were and are allocated to strike the enemy ICBM silos, if the Korean SLBM could strike NK TEL or silos in which their nuclear warheads could potentially be, I don't think it's that pointless as some people are making it out to be.

 

[shin_getter]

I wonder about the 'fringe' logic floating around where much of South Korea's military spending is actually for countering Japan, with the contradictions between the two only kept down due to the US centric world order.

 

[Archibald]

I thought nobody wanted to fire ballistic missiles even without nukes - for fear of being mistaken for nuclear ones and blow the planet ?

(caricaturing a little of course, but you get the point)

 

[Fluff]

I thought nobody wanted to fire ballistic missiles even without nukes - for fear of being mistaken for nuclear ones and blow the planet ?

(caricaturing a little of course, but you get the point)

I assume Korea is a unique situation, so many guns, missiles etc, and I guess SK got some form of special agreement, at least from USA, to go ahead. Again I'm assuming that a non-nuclear BM is not very worthwhile elsewhere, as a low and possible slower flying non-nuclear Cruise missile has more of a 'surprise' factor. Assuming you have a decent radar, you can calculate both the target and the launch location for the BM.

 

[DWG]

Plenty of non-nuclear ballistic missiles out there, every GMLRS for a start, Scuds, any Frogs still in inventory, Tochka, Iskander etc. And they've been used in the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, and Nagorno-Karabakh in recent years. North Korea has 600+ Scud derivatives (Hwasong 5 to 9) and the Tochka derivative Hwasong 11 , so in any hostilities on the Korean peninsula there will be plenty of ballistic missiles flying.

It's when you get up to MRBM/IRBM range they start to become a bit rarer, and optionally nuclear, but there's the Israeli Jericho II, Saudi DF-3s, the Iranian Shahabs, the longer ranged bits of the North Korean Hwasong series, and the Chinese DF-3 and DF-26.

Hyunmoo 4 is supposedly a development of Hyunmoo 2C, which at 800km range falls into the SRBM category. Reportedly any limits on missile development agreed with the US were dropped when Trump visited in 2017. While North Korea might believe it could neutralise land-based Hyunmoo 2s with conventional or special forces attacks, it's much more difficult to do that if they're at sea, or under it. And of course South Korea believes it could become a nuclear power with about six months worth of development, and the platform will already be there, which has to give Kim Jong-Un something to think about.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I thought nobody wanted to fire ballistic missiles even without nukes - for fear of being mistaken for nuclear ones and blow the planet ?

(caricaturing a little of course, but you get the point)

I assume Korea is a unique situation, so many guns, missiles etc, and I guess SK got some form of special agreement, at least from USA, to go ahead. Again I'm assuming that a non-nuclear BM is not very worthwhile elsewhere, as a low and possible slower flying non-nuclear Cruise missile has more of a 'surprise' factor. Assuming you have a decent radar, you can calculate both the target and the launch location for the BM.

It's not that simple really. Modern BM strike in an all out war would always be accompanied with CM rush to overwhelm the defense. BMs in Asia are deemed as a serious threat against airfields and harbours and that ain't much different elsewhere around the globe. BMs are otherwise the best choice to strike TSTs, especially considering the accuracy of modern day BMs and on top of that could work as a great bunker busters. That's not what the CMs could do.

 

[sferrin]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxKNf8Ij8M&ab_channel=YTNnews


Not only SLBM but a lot has been revealed today. The supersonic ASM, which was only rumored that such program exist for more than a decade (since 90s~mid 2000s to be exact), has also been revealed, alongside KEPD-350 equivalent ALCM for KF-21 and Hyunmoo 4-1 bunker-buster BM, which is known to have 2.5+ tons warhead.

Very impressive stuff.

 

[supergaleb]

...

North Korea is in process of replacing liquid fuel missiles with solid fuel types as it has own equivalent to 9K720 Iskander and Hyunmoo-2 series designated by USFK as KN-23 that they successfully launched 10 of them without single failure along 2 more successfully that had longer missile body and heavier warhead to compete against Hyunmoo-4 whose initial test was one failure and success.

KN-23 demonstrated 800 kilometer range and heavier variant 600 kilometer range with 2.5 ton heavy warhead hence heavier variant with payload weight reduced by half would be an MRBM and not SRBM that could replace both Hwasong-7 and Pukguksong-2.

TELs dedicated to carrying Pukguksong-2 will likely get land based variant of Pukguksong-3 at very least as simple upgrade or considering performance of heavier KN-23 variant, an IRBM utilizing advanced airframe and solid fuel that can fit inside canister and reach Guam.

 

[bobbymike]

Via CDR Salamander:

The Age of the Conventional SLBM is Here

I cannot stop thinking of the utility of what the South Korean navy is building here. A relatively large, modern SSK with 6 and soon 10 launch tubes for large cruise or ballistic missiles. Via Naval News, just look at this beautiful beast; If the day of assuming any SLBM launch being nuclear is...

blog.usni.org

Why we should double or triple our Columbia purchase