About NK, that is a mistaken assumption. NK's HS-14 ICBM flew 965 km downrange with an apogee of 3724 km. The reason for lofted trajectory test flights is the available testing space for initial tests. Anything greater than around 1000 km has to fly over Japan or China (while remaining clear of South Korea), so they need to be sure it won't crash midway. The HS-12 which flew over Japan was launched by their Strategic Artillery Forces as an exercise.
For an optimized trajectory, almost all western analysts are putting HS-14 at around 10,000km range, capable of hitting as far as New York. You can't dismiss this fact just by saying that they haven't tested it yet at full range. They most probably will as soon as they're confident that HS-14 is reliable enough.
They are very unlikely to test at full range, ever. Besides scaring the Americans shitless (never a good idea) it will end up near American waters, giving their undersea assets a chance to obtain intelligence from spent stages falling in deep ocean.
About Pakistan, the navigational warnings reveal a lot about trajectories. Rest assured, there is no hidden masala in Pakistani solid-fuel motors which we can activate to add 1000 more kilometers to the range. They are what they are.
No. Navigational warnings reveal a lot about the trajectory employed on the test. Not so much in the actual capabilities of the missile.
You are also wrong about what can and cannot be done with a solid fuel missile. The Posideon used the same third first and second stage as the later Trident C-4 weapon, but the later had 3000 km longer range and (IIRC) 30% greater throw weight. THis was accomplished
inter-alia by by use of a smaller third stage (absent in Posideon). There is a lot we can do to increase the Shaheen series range. This includes longer burn time of the motor, accomplished by denser packing, more efficient propellent (something we have spent a lot of time and effort on), improved body (the first versions of the Shaheen were basically fibreglass, the newer ones are composite material) addition upper stages, the addition of an aerospike (already done), better nozzels (already seen with Shaheen III). Everything comes with its own engineering challenges. But I can assure your, if and when Pakistan tests an ICBM, it will be basically based on Shaheen II/III. Making incremental improvements provides far greater performance than building a new missile every second day
More inaccuracies here, elaborated below.
Pakistan has:
1. No penetration aids as of present.
2. High Speed RVs (MRBM-class, no big deal, speed is a result of propulsion required for longer range).
3. No MaRVs (capable of maneuvering INSIDE atmosphere) as of present.
4. Faster response & launch times (absolutely true).
5. No capability to hit hard targets (as no MaRVs available for precision strikes) as of present.
6. Secure comms (no big deal, a must for nuclear command and control)
1) Yes we do. Chaff, decoys have been tested. While we don't have (yet) active penetration aids, no once else does either (except maybe the newer SS-27).
2) Thats not what high speed RV's are. You are mixing up max-speed during coast and with terminal velocity, basically the speed the RV is going when it strikes (this is different frophysicalal terminal velocity, which ideally a fast RV never reaches). Once RV renters, it tend to slow down due to the atmosphere. Typically it slows from its max speed, to sub-sonic before striking. A high speed RV will instead strike at very high (3-5) Mach numbers, reducing the time its exposed to ABM fire. To accomplish this requires special shielding for thermal effects as well as protection from the shockwave. We have demonstrated this, the NORKs are nowhere near doing so.
3) MaRV inside the atmosphere, IIRC Ghaznavi has displayed that. Shaheen series employs high speed RV as alluded above, which precludes atmospheric MaRV, but not exo-atmospheric ones, which reduce effectiveness of ABM.
4).Faster means minutes from cold to launch. As well as rapidly retargeting and being able to launch or less from anywhere, rather than merely prepared areas. (our missiles TEL can stop, erect, launch from any position)
North Korea has to launch from a pre-surveyed site only.
5) Shaheen has a CEP of 200m, which (presuming a 50 kt warhead) will place any target inside its blast crater or well inside (presuming a 100KT warhead which is more likely). So yes, we do have a hard target kill capability. Ae also have earth-penetrator warheads. Though on shorter-range missiles.
6) Its an extremely big deal., Secure comms mean secure and reliable comms in a
nuclear senario. Meaning comms which are hardened, and redundant against direct hits and useable in the intense x-ray radiation of a nuclear war. We have that (and so does India), which means we can make adjustments on the fly in our war plans. The NORKs will have to stick to pre-planned targets, meaning only soft targets like cities,
1. No penetration aids as of present.
2. Much higher speed RVs (ICBM-class).
3. MaRV (tested aboard HS-5G [KN-18][derivative of Scud-C], essentially Pershing-II type MaRV for precision strikes, potential ASBM)
4. Much slower response & launch times (liquid-fueled systems)
5. Capability to hit hard targets with precision. (see #3)
6. Secure comms (no big deal, a must for nuclear command and control)
1) None yes.probably working on chaff and balloons.
2) No. They use blunt RV's which has a sub-sonic pre-impact velocity.
3) Did not know, thanks.
4) Yup and they have no ability to attack time sensitibe targets and make adjustments on the fly
5) Crappy accuracy precludes that. I think their CEP is approximatley 1 mile at best and for longer range, literally, a city/
6 They have hardened, redundant comms? Sufficient to withstand the heavy radiation of a nuclear war?
