What's new

North Korean ICBM Hwasong-15 may be a 100 ton monster

.
But can a missile at mach 23 be intercepted/destroyed?
Yes.

American GMD interceptors can intercept any kind of ballistic missile during the midcourse stage of its flight. The ICBM that was intercepted in a test in 2017 was traveling at the speed of mach 24 during the midcourse stage of its flight.

Intercepting a ballistic missile is not a matter of speed only because objective is not to chase a target but to track its movement in real-time (or close) and calculate a point of its interception in advance. Next is to deploy the right kind of interceptor for the job. GMD makes it possible to intercept a target early on due to its incredible speed and range whereas THAAD can intercept a target during the terminal phase of its flight due to its swiftness. The intercepter will lock-on the incoming ballistic missile during its flight and close-in for the kill in a span of few seconds.

GMD interceptors are extremely fast because they are expected to cover vast distance to reach an ICBM during the midcourse phase of its flight.
 
.
The ICBM that was intercepted in a test in 2017 was traveling at the speed of mach 24 during the midcourse stage of its flight.

At mach 24 missile will leave earth orbit and start wondering space... mach 22 is fastest u can go...

There are only one regiment with 15 interceptors in silo at moment deployed..for GMD. in 20 plus years and 100 billion USD in research and development.... there is a reason for that
 
.
Respect for NK. This monster can almost match the Russian Topol-M and slight behind our DF-41.

The fact they complete this with 20million population and a very much small economy.
 
.
Donated by China.... China will cause devastation in US through NK..

If Americans don't understand this, then God save them!

With two headaches gone, US and NK, China will be the sole power on Earth.
 
.
At mach 24 missile will leave earth orbit and start wondering space... mach 22 is fastest u can go...
This is news to me.

There are only one regiment with 15 interceptors in silo at moment deployed..for GMD. in 20 plus years and 100 billion USD in research and development.... there is a reason for that
That count is expected to increase to 44 by the end of this year or already has.

GMD interceptors are fielded in two distinct locations:-

49th Missile Defense Bn in Alaska
100th Missile Defense Bde in Colorado

slide_5.jpg


I think that the investment is worth it and GMD is just a component of the holistic initiative.

Back in 1980s, intercepting a ballistic missile was thought to be a virtually impossible task. The original PAC-1 systems that were deployed for the said purpose for the Persian Gulf War in 1991 were mere 'concept demonstrators' in this regard.

Today, not only the PAC-3 system represents an enormous leap in capabilities from PAC-1 but a number of other and relatively more powerful systems have emerged that are capable of intercepting increasingly capable ballistic missiles over time, to the point that even advanced forms of ICBM will be fair game in the near future. The Cold War era MAD phenomenon is likely to diminish at some point.

The American BMD architecture has considerably evolved over the course of years with its assets expanding to the extent that different kinds of missiles can be detected at launch from virtually any part of the world and interceptors can be brought to bear against them in various regions. This is a powerful NETWORK in the making.

With computing technologies (and others) advancing at a rapid pace, imagine the capabilities of the aforementioned NETWORK like 20 years from today.

Just look at the evolution of the MBT over the course of years. :)
 
.
Back in 1980s, intercepting a ballistic missile was thought to be a virtually impossible task.
Actually -- no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nike

The Nike missile was already on the way to achieve literally a kinetic intercept of a descending ballistic warhead. It was a treaty with the Soviet Union that cancelled its development into a full fledged ABM system.
 
.
22.5 meter length with diameter of 2.4 meters and weight of 72 tons according to Norbert Brugge.

Janes Intelligence Group estimates thermonuclear/hydrogen/Teller-Ulam bomb(presentation mock up model?) weight between 255 to 360 kilograms.

I would not be surprised if its 500 to 700 complete re-entry vehicle and it is estimates that 1 ton payload for 13,000 kilometers so Mar A Lago could get nuked by two 250-300+ kiloton bombs or if North Korea designs one ton one megaton bomb.

Alaska is fucked as 4-5 peanuts could be delivered by Hwasong-15.
 
.
It's same weight class as satan 2

Satan 2 Hz enuf pay load to kill a country size of France in single hit

Although I doubt NK has miniaturized nukes to extent thay russian have...

It can also carry alot of counter measures... practically unstoppable
Not even close, throw weight of rs-28 is about 10 tonnes. This one does not even come close.

Lastly, all we know is that NK has this huge rocket which can take 3 tonnes of weight really high up. What we don't know is if they have guidance technology to bring it down at the point they want it to be. That is a much bigger challenge than just taking something really high up in the sky.

And we don't know what kind of bomb NK has. All we know is they have something that causes 100-300KT of explosion. It can be thermonuclear or boosted nuclear. A 100-300KT boosted nuclear is not light enough to allow for 10+ warheads at 3 tonnes of throw weight.

If fatty-un had actually made a thermonuclear weapon, the test device would have been 1 megatonne strong. Just to send a very clear message to USA that they have the bomb now.

But still a 100-300kt boosted is still pretty great. Even with 2-3 MIRV makes them a very potent deterrence.
 
Last edited:
. .
not a matter of speed only because objective is not to chase a target but to track its movement in real-time (or close) and calculate a point of its interception in advance

Just for the protocol, the problem with a higher speed is the faster closing speed. The interceptor has less time to divert* (fix guidance errors) what requires a greater divert capability, a greater seeker range (to allow for more time to divert), or a combination of both.

Also, the faster closing speeds reduce the number of interception opportunities, dramatically increasing leakage.

*The threat can be detected earlier, allowing for more time to divert, but then the IP prediction is less accurate. Thus, still requiring an increase in divert capability.
 
.
well practically you don't need to do it on your own,secondly even if you know how to do,you will need to test it to be sure,and if you do it then you are in trouble,instead getting an functional ICBM will do the trick,do not you think so?if you understand where i am pointing to.
Good, then why not Bangladesh try her luck on ICBM.
 
. .
This is news to me.


there may be many facts in world that you might not know off.... does not make them any less fact

@Peak speed for an ICBM is in the ballpark of 6-7km/s (any faster and the payload would go orbital), and it takes about 10 minutes to accelerate to that speed. New York to Moscow is 7500km, at 6.5km/s is ~20 minutes. Add in the acceleration time and you're looking at about 30 minutes total.Sep 17, 2015"

22Mach= 7.486380km/s
 
.
there may be many facts in world that you might not know off.... does not make them any less fact

@Peak speed for an ICBM is in the ballpark of 6-7km/s (any faster and the payload would go orbital), and it takes about 10 minutes to accelerate to that speed. New York to Moscow is 7500km, at 6.5km/s is ~20 minutes. Add in the acceleration time and you're looking at about 30 minutes total.Sep 17, 2015"

22Mach= 7.486380km/s
Of-course, bro. Never claimed otherwise. Whatever we know, is never enough.

Thanks for your insight. I will delve into this matter and get back to you.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom