A grave mistake

[G-CPTN]

What would be the weight of that missile?
Nominally, each axle would be capable of carrying 12 tons - maybe 15 tons at a stretch - and of course the weight includes the transporter/erecter.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

That's a Hwasong-17, range about 15,000km (i.e. all of the contiguous US)
The mass of the missile is estimated at 80-150 tons.
I would guess that the lower end is estimated from the minimum structure and fuel for the estimated range of the missile.
Given Nork manufacturing is less efficient than western, it's probably well above this.
The upper end would possibly be estimated from the vehicle, and the data you have mentioned would fit with that.

[John Hill]

According to my best information the Hwasong-15 missile has a mass of about 72 tons and a payload of about 1 ton.

[John Hill]

Given Nork manufacturing is less efficient than western,

I wonder who told you that.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

For comparison, the Hwasong-15 has a 9 axle TEL.
The axles would put the Hwasong-17 in the 90+ tonne bracket.

You will indeed have to wonder, John, and are therefore at liberty to ignore me completely.

[John Hill]

Calculating the load bearing capacity of a long vehicle is a bit more than counting the axles.

Those vehicles do not appear to have much suspension travel although it is possible they may have but unlikely judging by the clearance above the wheels.

Of course we know the state of the roads in DPRK (aka North Korea) so we have to take that into account or maybe can we discount that and assume that they would only be called upon to transport a full load a short distance from the storage area and along prepared in advance pavement.

[k3k3]

Thanks John, I hadn't seen that one before.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

and assume that they would only be called upon to transport a full load a short distance from the storage area and along prepared in advance pavement.

Seems most likely. The trick, of course, is in not making the prepped sections obvious, whilst avoiding the expense of prepping much more than one needs.
It's like the sections of road throughout western Europe which were (and some still are) capable of operating fast jets from.
There are assorted clues, such as long straights, turnaround areas, and set-back lamp-posts, e.g. (SE end)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/62%C2 ... ?entry=ttu

Similarly, a new section of highway in Norkland, with assorted short tunnels between straight sections, would fit the bill nicely, e.g.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2 ... ?entry=ttu
I'm not saying this is, but it's the right kind of thing.

[John Hill]

We need to know more about these vehicles, turning circle, driven axles, ground pressure and so on. The prepared surface might be no more than compacted and grassed.

I doubt that it needs a highway.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

It would need to be accessible year round. That would restrict it to plowable surfaces. Access to a main highway from a tunnel, or an airfield surface from underground hangarage, is much more likely, especially a surface which would routinely be plowed anyway. NK has quite enough places fitting these parameters to preclude the Yanks striking them all.

[John Hill]

It would need to be accessible year round. That would restrict it to plowable surfaces. Access to a main highway from a tunnel, or an airfield surface from underground hangarage, is much more likely, especially a surface which would routinely be plowed anyway. NK has quite enough places fitting these parameters to preclude the Yanks striking them all.

The vehicles are somewhat constrained by weight and maneuverability but those tires could each carry more than 20 tons if called upon to do so, they do not have to be hi-way rated truck tires good for all day at 120Kph as they are more like tires on earth moving equipment, so heavy load, soft ground, 20Kph.

Being natural surface capable does not mean they would be excluded from highway use. I would have to check but I think these missiles are liquid fueled which presumably are not filled until close to launch time meaning highway transport might be empty. But if they want to fire from a clearing in the forest the TEL looks suitable for that.

Just my humble opinion of course.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I agree with your tire assessment, but still feel the parameters I set are required for a credible second strike.

[John Hill]

I agree with your tire assessment, but still feel the parameters I set are required for a credible second strike.

Hmmm, why would the DPRK need second strike capability? Are you thinking of attacking them?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told the country's military commanders the most powerful means must be mobilized to destroy the United States and South Korea if they choose military confrontation, state media reported on Monday.
Kim said the danger of an armed confrontation on the Korean peninsula is fast becoming a reality because of hostile maneuvers by the enemies including the United States, requiring the country to "sharpen the treasured sword" to protect itself.
"If the enemy opt for military confrontation ... our army should deal a deadly blow to thoroughly annihilate them by mobilizing all the toughest means and potentialities without moment's hesitation," KCNA news agency quoted Kim as saying.

A second strike capability is implied as necessary from these statement by YFW two weeks ago.
Either that, and/or a first strike capability.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 024-01-01/

..and whether the "You thinking of attacking them?" applies to me personally or Canada, I think the answer is clearly no.

[John Hill]

I read his comments to mean that if militarily confronted they would be ready to deal the deadly blow, i.e. first strike.

Sorry, applies to Canada, Absurdistan or anyone else.

[John Hill]

By the way, does Canada take any part in the annual dick waving festivals in the region of Korea?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I would concur.
However NK, or the US, have never used language which would imply a pre-emptive first strike.
It therefore requires the strategists for both sides, and indeed all nuclear powers, to have a second strike capability.
To the best of my knowledge, only the Chinese have specifically excluded first use of nukes, and are therefore the only ones who would not need a first strike capability.
Although in fact they do have that capability with their Type 94 SSBNs.

Canada can barely get a boat afloat or an aircraft airborne these days, and I suspect we gave most of our serviceable tanks to Ukraine. Recruitment is the same disaster affecting the UK and the US.
Although judging from the number of sexual harrassment cases, there's a fair amount of dick-waving, by all genders, going on...but at home.

[Dushan]

Except two Challengers to go to MBJ for a “free” vacation.

[talmacapt]

Fox re 328.

I often drive along the road to the right (SE - NW) when going to talmatowers north.

The last time (either late Sept or early Nov 2023) there were diversions, lasting about 10 days, as they were using it as an airfield whilst there was a large NATO exercise going on.

Without trying too hard, I can think of at least 8 other roads that I have driven along that are used as airfields.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks for that.

Meanwhile, back at the Strip...

Israel has just withdrawn one of the four Divisions still in Gaza.
They are now switching to a program of securing the northern border and conducting targeted raids of Hamas positions.
Internet is still out across Gaza, which is probably why we aren't hearing the usual level of bleating from Hamas sympathisers.