Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
We know plenty of cases where liquid fuel missiles were and still are used on mobile platforms - from SCUDs to R29 series SLBMs on Deltas. So I dont think that launcher survivability is a core concern here.
Any number of reasons, from obvious political ones to military ones (disinformation regarding capabilities). The trajectory parameters are not the sole point of contention - the sources also show different launch sites.
|
Presumably though these liquid fueled missiles are not using cryogenic fuels? Otherwise that would severely limit the operational time of the missile.
There's two theories on how the DPRK got a tech jump on the 14, and that's that they got some RD-250 engines or a whole R-36 from sources. So that means the Hwasong-14 probably uses N2O4 and UDMH (or heptyl) propellant, so the main problem there would be corrosion from the N2O4, but if you mix that to MON then it's a bit easier.
Makes one wonder the pros and cons of modern liquid fueled vs solid fueled designs. Russia seems to be the only nation still using liquid fueled SLBMs so they must find some use in them, every other nation (including the DPRK) are using solid fueled.
In regards to the reasoning, it is rather confusing since it doesn't really serve Russian interests much. Russia is the only nation to under-state the DPRKs missile capabilities, even the DPRK gives differing figures, so it's not to protect the DPRK from something because they're already boasting about the Hwasong-14s range. If it's to under-state the capabilities of Russias early warning defence then who does that benefit? Surely that makes Russia look weaker rather than stronger and encourages her enemies to regard her as such? It's a position that I can't really figure out I must admit. If they were over-stating the figures then I could understand that they were trying to increase the DPRKs deterrent power, but if anything they're reducing it.
Very strange.