A short thread on North Korea's "hypersonic" missile test. It's a MaRV.
All long-range missiles are hypersonic! The range of a ballistic missile is, to a first approximation, a function of the velocity of a missile at burnout. Any ballistic missile that travels more than a few hundred kilometers will be traveling faster than Mach 5 (1.75 km/s).
What North Korea tested was a hypersonic glider. The system flew 700 km. The warhead separated at some point and glided for a few hundred kilometers, including a 120 km cross-range glide. I mocked up some trajectories; they're only sort of to scale.
This is the *second* glider that North Korea has tested. This one is conical with little fins. We saw it for the first time at the Defense Expo (left). That's a very different shape than the wedge-shaped system tested in September 2021 and also see at the Defense Expo (right).
Here is another side-by_side comparison of the conical HGV and the wedge-shaped HGV.
This sort of conical glider used to be known as a "maneuvering reentry vehicle" (MaRV) like the US deployed on the Pershing-II in the 1980s. South Korea's Hyunmoo-series has MaRVs, too.
This isn't even North Korea's first MaRV. In 2017, North Korea showed us a Scud in with fins on the warhead. The system tested this week is, of course, a lot more capable.
While "hypersonic" is the buzzword of the moment, there is a growing interest creating reentry vehicles that can execute extreme maneuvers. The US has published about these capabilities. And so has South Korea.
While the US and ROK papers are describing much fancier maneuvers than the simple turn made by the DPRK glider, I still can think of uses for a 120 km cross-range maneuver on a 700 km trajectory.
One of my complaints about the "hypersonic" framing is that it wrongly emphasizes speed when what we really are discussing is maneuverability and accuracy. So, yeah, the new DPRK glider is hypersonic. But more importantly, it's a MaRV.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was quoted in this @defense_news story about Morocco's expanding air defense capabilities. Don't feel like writing a blog post, so here's a thread on what little I was able to add with OSINT. defensenews.com/global/mideast…
In December, a Spanish-language publication reported that Morocco had taken delivery of some very capable Chinese surface-to-air missiles (HQ-9B/FD-2000B). defensa.com/africa-asia-pa…
Defensa.com said the missiles were deployed at Morocco's "first military base dedicated to long-range air defense ... near the city of Sidi Yahya el-Gharb" and published a May 2021 satellite image from @googleearth of the site.
This amazing reporting by @ZcohenCNN is exactly the kind of collaboration that @JamesMartinCNS wants to continue with @CNN and @planet. I think it is civil society at its best. A short thread.
In 2013, @JanesINTEL identified a missile base at this location; a few years later @fab_hinz noticed that the sit had changed significantly. We ultimately assessed the place was a Chinese constructed missile facility: washingtonpost.com/world/national…
Our story prompted people in Congress to start asking questions. Eventually someone spilled the beans. The Trump Administration was actively withholding this information from Congress, @ZcohenCNN reported. cnn.com/2019/06/05/pol…
First, there is no upside to threatening force at this late date. The Iran nuclear deal appears very much to be dead and I strongly suspect that the Iranians are en route to nuclear latency/opacity. Threatening the use of force is unlikely to alter that outcome in my opinion.
One problem with nonproliferation wonks is that we warn US officials about the dangers of a certain course of action, but after they do it anyway, we advise about how to mitigate those dangers. We call it being "policy relevant." People who treat drunks call it "enabling."
No one should be surprised by orbital bombardment, although the glider is a nice touch. The Soviets deployed an orbital bombardment system in the 1970s. This is an old concept that is newly relevant as a way to defeat missile defenses.
I wrote a short thread last month on why I think orbital bombardment makes sense for Russia, China and North Korea -- especially if gliders mean they can improve accuracy.
But really, I've been banging on about orbital bombardment for several years now. It's obvious: The US put a missile defense system in Alaska to defend against missiles coming over the North Pole. What did you think Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang will do? Just give up?
"I must consider the possibility that l am communicating with an adversary who has intercepted my first message and is attempting to expose me. Would not such an adversary wish me to go to a place of his choosing, knowing that an amateur will be unlikely to detect surveillance?"
Funny story. George W. Bush dramatically reduced the size of the nuclear stockpile -- but never took credit for it because the stockpile size was secret. He cut the stockpile in half and then by a further 15 percent.
Bush's record on reducing the size of the US nuclear stockpile is excellent. But no one knew it. There were even stories that he had slowed the pace of dismantlement, stories that turned out to be false. The moral to the story is that doing the right thing isn't always enough.