Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: North Korean Carrier Killed (SCUD-ER)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609

    North Korean Carrier Killed (SCUD-ER)

    How Capable are North Korean Scud-Based ‘Carrier-Killers’?

    North Korea asserted Tuesday that it has developed a means to strike moving targets at sea with precision. The capability was validated during a recent missile test conducted yesterday (Monday) when Pyongyang tested an upgraded Hwasong-7 (Scud-ER) type missile equipped with trajectory correction means transforming the ballistic missile into ‘precision-guided’ one.

    The rocket, fired from the country’s east coast early Monday morning, traveled around 450 kilometers to splash into the East Sea, according to the South Korean military. The North said it has halved the range for the test. It means the missile’s actual range is similar to a Scud-ER (extended range) at about 1,000 km.

    According to official sources, the upgraded missile is capable striking targets at sea or on land, including warships. North Korea is pursuing such capability for a long time, in an effort to negate the US capability to strike from the sea. However, missile experts are doubtful whether the upgraded Scud-ER will be able to target a ship-size target at sea. It could, however, be accurate enough to target naval and air bases with reasonable precision. On the recent test, the missile flew to a range of 450 kilometers (280 miles). The event planned to test the missile and the specially designed tracked launcher. The official announcement goes into unprecedented details saying the missile hit the target seven meters from the ‘bullseye’. While such lucky strike could be a coincidence, consistent accuracy like this cannot be taken for granted and is not achievable with current guidance controls.

    The North’s Nodong mid-range missiles are known to have an accuracy of 2,000 – 3,000 meters when flown over 1,000 km. A Scud missile would hit 450 to 1,000 meters from its target, after flying 300 km. China’s DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) reportedly has a CEP of 30-40 meters. Another improvement claimed by Pyongyang was the reduction in the pre-launch process, achieved by implementing automated processes. The Hwasong uses liquid propulsion that requires a lengthy pre-launch fueling process.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    311
    Killer not Killed.

    Maybe Kim himself wrote this release....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,377
    Lol... He has to find the carriers first and I guess he forgot that carriers move. Even if he knew "exactly" where a carrier is at launch, it will no be there when the scud arrives. At 30 knots the carriers will be at least 3 miles away from where they were at launch.

    Then there is the BDM coverage provided by Aegis.

    Good luck with that, but then again all these "tests" are for internal consumption anyhow.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,426
    The VLS volume on the CBG exists precisely for this protection (among other things). SM3, SM2/SM6, and in a few years even the ESSM would be able to cover an ASBM envelope. This is far less critical than a potential saturated attack on SoKo or Guam.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 31st May 2017 at 00:18.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    389
    They need bigger, more advanced missile that can carry pen-aid. Plus some sort of targeting system to keep track of carrier movement.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,060
    Even the old R-27K had a function of course-correction to account for carrier movement, without the aid of satellites; though there were considerable difficulties.
    Last edited by TR1; 31st May 2017 at 08:01.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    But the R-27K didn't need to be very accurate, with a 1MT nuclear warhead and all. But then, maybe Kim's SCUD-ER is also employing a nuclear warhead, although likely not of that yield.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The VLS volume on the CBG exists precisely for this protection (among other things). SM3, SM2/SM6, and in a few years even the ESSM would be able to cover an ASBM envelope. This is far less critical than a potential saturated attack on SoKo or Guam.
    In terms of defence of land targets from a major attack. How realistic is building a huge phased array laser on the ground and could a massive quantity of direct, focused electromagnetic radiation destroy a warhead's ability to detonate?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,426
    Both DEW, and EMRG based solutions are being looked at to complement existing defensive systems protecting high value targets. That either of these, if not both would play a role is a virtual guarantee. How quickly can something like this be put out there at a reasonable cost is still disputable but there should be a 200-500 KW sized DEW out there by mid to late next decade and with SSL's, and the higher effeciencies these can be scaled far easier than with COILs. On the EMRG side, the second railgun prototype heads to Army testing later this year or early next year at White Sands, and they are already in advanced stages of putting the HVP on existing guns much earlier. That is a current SCO project.

    In the meantime, the rocket powered kinetic options reign supreme .
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    I had more in mind something like a huge 100MW ground-based laser taking out warheads 1000+km away in space and something like HAARP being used to fry the electronics in incoming warheads. I was talking more about immobile land-based defence at key sites.
    Last edited by Ryan; 31st May 2017 at 16:50.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,426
    That is going to be a long long time away. In the short-medium term you will see more hardening, greater kinetic investment, EMRG and DEW programs that start off small for low-cost threats (UAV's, LCCMs etc) and gradually build up from there. Ballistic Missiles still represent the most expensive offensive options so from a cost-equation it is still reasonably good, especially when you get at medium to intermediate ranges.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,060
    R-27K had a warhead closer to 500 kilotons from what I recall, though I am unsure if it is the version with atmospheric course correction (which took a lot of space up and reduced range by 30%) or the simplified guided variant with a larger monoblock.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    389
    Im curious if the NK missile have terminal seeker.

    Anyway for sake of it.. i brew another excel spreadsheet, based on Fleeman's tactical missile design book. It's to estimate accuracy of a missile with mid course update. I tailored itu for ballistic missile use.

    http://www.mediafire.com/file/aqc8ol...MAccuracy.xlsx

    Very simple, and well clearly shows that some kind of mid course update is needed for smaller acquisition box for the missile's terminal seeker. smaller acquisition box means smaller seeker as it requires less power, lesser antenna movement, and perhaps lesser processing as the seeker only need to find smaller area.

    I made it for DF-21 case but. clearly it would be applicable for NK case.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    159
    Wow Sea Sparrow has come a long way. They ought to rename it and make it the primary anti-air weapon of the new frigate the Navy wants and mid-range defense for destroyers/cruisers.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,426
    The Saudi frigate that Lockheed is building will be carrying ESSM since it has VLS, but I don't think the Navy has shown interest in putting MK41 cells on its up gunned LCS variant. Beyond the ESSM Block II, which is expected to IOC in 2020/2021 time-frame they are looking for an additional kinematic upgrade, possibly through a dual-pulse motor for this particular size that the program has explored in the past.

    It would be something that would be of interest to users that don't acquire the SM2 or SM6 capability, but even otherwise the biggest advantage of ESSM is that you can place 4 in the same space as one SM2/6. Block II is also being labeled as a sub 250K upgrade to block I rounds already in service which is probably going to be one route explored by the user base since there is quite a large Block I installed base out there.

    The ESSM Block 2 programme is a co-operative effort between the US Navy (USN) and the 11 NATO SeaSparrow Consortium partners (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey) to develop an upgraded ESSM 'front end' to enter service around 2020 to counter emerging next-generation air threats. The Block 2 all-up round (AUR) builds on the existing semi-active radar homing RIM-162 ESSM Block 1, but will introduce a dual-mode active/semi-active X-band radar seeker that increases the diameter of the front end section of the missile to 10 inches. The introduction of an active seeker channel will support terminal engagement without the requirement for target illumination by the launch platform.

    Warhead improvements and an updated guidance and control section will also be embodied. In addition, the Block 2 missile will use a new dual-band transceiver (S- and X-band) for in-flight data communications to enable control and management of the missile during flight.

    Risk-reduction activities for ESSM Block 2 have been performed under a NAVSEA contract awarded to Raytheon Missile Systems in late December 2012. This work, performed with consortium partners, has sought to reduce technology risk and to determine and mature the appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into the Block 2 AUR.

    Negotiations on the new Block 2 EM&D MoU have been proceeding in parallel, based on the original intention to have a fully negotiated and signed MoU by June 2014 in order to start co-operative EM&D in fiscal year 2015 (FY 2015). In the event, Canada only signed in November 2014, at which point the MoU came into effect.

    NAVSEA told IHS Jane's : "Of the 12 member nations in the NATO SeaSparrow Project consortium, seven have signed the EM&D MoU as contributing participants [Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the United States]."

    "There are two MoU amendments currently in staffing to change the status of four more nations from non-contributing participant to contributing participant. It is expected that staffing and signature of those amendments will complete by the end of calendar year 2015."

    Negotiations on the EM&D MoU for ESSM Block 2 began in 2012 following unanimous agreement on Block 2 requirements from the partner nations at a November 2011 steering committee meeting.

    While not part of the ESSM Block 2 programme, a number of partner nations have also shown interest in a future kinematic upgrade. Previous studies have considered introducing a dual-pulse rocket motor.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 2nd June 2017 at 09:51.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES