Dprk 2021 Submarine missile launch

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
Heres the first pic of the latest Dprk submarine ballistic missile launch.
FCGOMLPXoAANB5v

Interestingly its not the new medium or intermediate ranged missile that has been shown off in the parades,but a new smaller missile that was only unveiled very recently and which looks to be the sub launched version of the kn23 iskander look-a-like.
E79F6786-2A4F-4119-8B4A-915D05ED04F8.jpeg
We also get a good shot of the sabot as well,no hot launch in a flooded tube for the dprk :D.
misil_crop1634688525384.jpg_554688468.jpg

One wonders why they even bothered frankly,but then I suppose that they felt compelled to show that they can match the roks attempt at matching the dprks submarine launched missile program.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
One wonders why they even bothered frankly
They wanted their retaliation capability to be able to survive sudden American attack.
Yes,I realise that.
I was instead wondering why the dprk evidently felt compelled to match what was clearly a south korean attempt at matching earlier north korean sub launched missile successes,especially when the dprk already has dedicated sub launched missile designs that are considerably more advanced than anything that the south is likely to field in the medium term[at least in its current non-nuclear state].
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I was instead wondering why the dprk evidently felt compelled to match what was clearly a south korean attempt at matching earlier north korean sub launched missile successes,especially when the dprk already has dedicated sub launched missile designs that are considerably more advanced than anything that the south is likely to field in the medium term[at least in its current non-nuclear state].
Most likely just to remind South Korea not to be too eager about their new capabilities. Also, probably to make US expert wonder about new missiles.
 

natewillcome4you

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
193
Reaction score
159
When your enemies include South Korea and Japan, you don’t need a missile with long range, you need one that’s able to penetrate sophisticated defenses, and part of that includes being used in numbers, which necessitates being affordable, especially for North Korea
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
When your enemies include South Korea and Japan, you don’t need a missile with long range, you need one that’s able to penetrate sophisticated defenses, and part of that includes being used in numbers, which necessitates being affordable, especially for North Korea
NK is dreaming if they think anybody around them isn't perfecting content to see them eat each other. Nobody wants to conquer them.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
I always wonder if there is any rationale behind NK's missile programmes? They seem to be churning out new designs every other week, are they actually attempting to standardise any of them for production? How many different types of rocket do they realistically need?
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
always wonder if there is any rationale behind NK's missile programmes? They seem to be churning out new designs every other week, are they actually attempting to standardise any of them for production? How many different types of rocket do they realistically need?
They are expeimenting, trying to refine designs in complex technology. Most of those missiles are most likely just experimental prototypes. But... demonstrating them helped to confuse US analytics about what NK really have and in what numbers) Each new missile means that US must re-evaluate what they consider to be NK capabilities. From the deterrence point of view, holding yor opponent unsure about your capabilities is pretty practical.
 

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
I was instead wondering why the dprk evidently felt compelled to match what was clearly a south korean attempt at matching earlier north korean sub launched missile successes,especially when the dprk already has dedicated sub launched missile designs that are considerably more advanced than anything that the south is likely to field in the medium term[at least in its current non-nuclear state].
Most likely just to remind South Korea not to be too eager about their new capabilities. Also, probably to make US expert wonder about new missiles.
Yes,you`re probably right.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
930
and because rocketry needs testing. Propaganda purpose or not.. one should test its rocket.
 

natewillcome4you

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
193
Reaction score
159
I always wonder if there is any rationale behind NK's missile programmes? They seem to be churning out new designs every other week, are they actually attempting to standardise any of them for production? How many different types of rocket do they realistically need?
It’s party for export purposes, to potentially bring cash in. Also good for gunboat diplomacy when your navy doesn’t have much that isn’t just that. Also, rocket scientists who do good work get to eat
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224
Pure speculation on my part here but the evolution towards a smaller/shorter range missile is interesting. Could this be because:

a) The larger missile's launch caused insurmountable structural problems/damage on launch?
b) The larger missile/its launch caused insurmountable stability/handling issues with the small submarine?
c) At least some of the larger missiles' launches were obvious failures. Did any of them in fact perform satisfactorily?
d) It is quite possible that the larger missiles were only launched from a submersible barge, they didn't dare to risk their sub at all?
e) Have Norks found building larger submarines to be impossible, so have to downsize missiles to fit more in?
f) Other?
e) At least some or all of the above?
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
The North Korean SSBs - 24 August Hero of the Sinpo-B class and the rebuilt Romeo Sinpo-C, are conventionally powered subs with one or three launch tubes. By Western standards they're noisy, and because they're conventional they can't stay submerged without snorting.

That means that in a wartime scenario they have to stay inshore, because if they try for blue water it'll be a feeding frenzy for the USN and South Korean submarine forces. The best defence the NKs have for them is to either bottom out in the shallows, or to try and throw a screen of Sang-Os in the way if they sortie for blue water, not because they could stop allied subs, but because they might just absorb enough time to give the Sinpos at least a slim chance of breaking contact.

Honestly, the NKs might as well have built half a dozen more submersible rafts like the one they used for initial testing, because they could keep those submerged indefinitely and in shallower water and it would give them a greater throw weight. Or they could just build another half-dozen road-mobile launches and hide them in warehouses and tunnels.
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224
Pure speculation on my part here but the evolution towards a smaller/shorter range missile is interesting. Could this be because:

a) The larger missile's launch caused insurmountable structural problems/damage on launch?
b) The larger missile/its launch caused insurmountable stability/handling issues with the small submarine?
c) At least some of the larger missiles' launches were obvious failures. Did any of them in fact perform satisfactorily?
d) It is quite possible that the larger missiles were only launched from a submersible barge, they didn't dare to risk their sub at all?
e) Have Norks found building larger submarines to be impossible, so have to downsize missiles to fit more in?
f) Other?
e) At least some or all of the above?

Somewhat bad form to quote one's own post but many of the same questions, some answers and a lot of continuing (but refined) ambiguity in this podcast:

 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224
The Hermit Juchedom doesn't look kindly upon those who don't promptly deliver the awesome toys that Supreme Boy Wonder has announced he so desires. While evidently progress can be made by performatively demoting unsatisfactory top researchers into potato farmers (or worse) there must be a limit to the disposability of expertise, a point whereafter the probability of any subsequent "top expert" having to almost immediately engage in potato farming (or worse) is essentially always one.

This is of course relating to Norks' SSB/N project and the problems they're having with it. There's a new article about some new developments on the Daily NK site which is pretty hard to condense into anything more compact so I'll just quote it in its entirety.


N. Korea replaces, punishes 14 cadres and technicians working on nuclear-powered submarine program

The Central Committee criticized the technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production

By Jeong Tae Joo - 2021.11.15 10:48am

North Korea recently replaced or punished 14 cadres and technicians tasked with designing small nuclear reactors for nuclear-powered submarines, apparently for failing to meet party criterion. The authorities will likely now face difficulties in their plan to acquire the capability of stealthily striking enemies.

According to multiple Daily NK sources in North Korea on Thursday, the Central Committee’s Military Industries Department began screening designs for nuclear-powered submarines on Nov. 5.

Work on the designs has been ongoing since October of last year.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said during the Eighth Party Congress in January that “new planning research for a nuclear-powered submarine has been completed and is to enter the final examination process.”

Nuclear-powered submarines are highly stealthy as they need not surface for long periods of time, making them the most likely weapon to survive an enemy’s preemptive strike.

Focusing on advancing the country’s arsenal of asymmetrical strategic weapons, North Korea has assigned its top researchers to the project.

In particular, the authorities reportedly put experts on the task of producing small nuclear reactors, the key to building the submarines, imploring them to “exercise their top abilities, given their rich experience built up over six nuclear tests.”

However, the Central Committee apparently criticized the screening report, which included analysis of design flaws.

Firstly, the Central Committee reportedly said it would “take 10 more years” to build nuclear-powered submarines according to current designs, even though the goal is to complete them by 2025.

The Central Committee also criticized the designs for failing to meet three criteria put forth by the party to achieve its goals.

Though party leadership had stressed 1) improving the capabilities of conventionally powered mini-submarines that are currently deployed, 2) building a new class of submarines capable of carrying North Korea’s existing SLBMs and 3) building nuclear-powered submarines capable of carrying several nuclear launch systems, the Central Committee reportedly judged that these criteria had not been met on the ground.

The Central Committee also criticized technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production. That is to say, the committee took serious issue with designers handing over for final screening a complete comprehensive blueprint that called for large-scale imports of foreign technology and parts during the entire shipbuilding process.

Several basic errors were discovered as well, including a failure by designers to make the technical descriptions in the partial plans and assembly plans match when they drew the blueprints for the small nuclear reactors.

The Central Committee responded by excluding from the research team 14 cadres, researchers and technicians who took part in drawing up the plan. Six of them were kicked out of the party or disciplined.

One of the sources said the six who took responsibility for the failure were exiled with their families to remote areas. He added that the authorities now face snags in their plans, including the need to completely revise the designs for nuclear-powered submarines.

Please direct any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net.
 

Similar threads

Top