South Korea Pushing for MRBMs Under Agreement with U.S.

The missile itself is less of a technological issue, as the warhead/targeting system, to get a small CEP.

to get a small(er) CEP, missile itself is the issue.
😉

The missile itself is less of a technological issue, as the warhead/targeting system, to get a small CEP.

I’m not even so certain that the first 70-80% is that easy, as most of these technologies are still kept pretty tightly controlled. It’s not a matter of merely purchasing off the shelf items to reverse engineer, so a good understanding still needs to be developed.

not really.
basics is very easy.
any decent engineering school in an aspiring adeveloping country can build a decent sounding rocket. basic rocket technology is close to 70 years old now. if they are really lazy they can scour the nasa doc servers and find all the data they need to build a conservative re-entry blunt body re-entry vehicle (i.e. a warhead).
what it ultimately comes down to is funding and comitment.

The Japanese TACOM is considered by the Japanese to be a reusable multi-mission drone/UAV. It has a 1000 km range and weights in at 700 kg so in a way it side steps the MTCR.

Considering that the MTCR is basically a “gentlemen’s agreement” and doesn’t restrict a country reinventing the wheel as it were, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it keeping the lid on things, particularly in the case of east Asia between Japan, the Koreas and the PRC.

Except the US has very often pushed it as something like a binding law when it concerns countries whom they don’t want to acquire certain technology(‘allies’ included).

Like when they threatened Russia with sanctions to prevent it from transferring cryogenic rocket technology to India under the utterly retarded excuse of it ‘violating the MTCR’. Or when they blocked Israeli sales of the Arrow ABM under similar grounds.

I’m not even so certain that the first 70-80% is that easy, as most of these technologies are still kept pretty tightly controlled. It’s not a matter of merely purchasing off the shelf items to reverse engineer, so a good understanding still needs to be developed.

Just to play Devil’s Advocate- this particular argument tends to be dismissed in the case of the F-22/F-35/stealth/AESA/etc… vs. PAK FA/J-20. Advocates for the latter types seem to weight experience/learning curves lightly. I would agree with you though, that NK has a pretty significant lead in ballistic missile technology, that would likely require assistance from an outside source, to help close the gap.

Yeah you are partially correct.
to get up that 70-80% of the curve for the late commer is much easier, benefit of hind-sight and technology borrowing.

that is without outside proprietary inputs and just to do it on open dissemination alone.

the last 20-30% of the curve takes much more effort.
going up almost asymtotically.

but again alot of people are just looking for that 70% .

The difference is the Chinese have been working on all sorts of ballistic missiles for decades.

To suggest the South Koreans or Japanese could achieve what took decades and generations of cumulative R&D to develop on their very first attempt is fanciful at best.

Just to play Devil’s Advocate- this particular argument tends to be dismissed in the case of the F-22/F-35/stealth/AESA/etc… vs. PAK FA/J-20. Advocates for the latter types seem to weight experience/learning curves lightly. I would agree with you though, that NK has a pretty significant lead in ballistic missile technology, that would likely require assistance from an outside source, to help close the gap.

Considering what the Japanese have been doing on a very small budget, JAXA’s FY 2010 budget was $ 2.86 billion, they haven’t conducted as many launches, and thus when they have an issue with a launch, it tends to be a big one. All of the other space capable nations have been through this as well, only during the Cold War, they were launching a lot more and failing a lot more as well.

Just taking the Mu family of solid fueled satellite launchers as a start (and the follow on to the M-V, the Epsilon) and you’re basically there with the launcher. Add a development budget to fit a crash militarized program and I’d hazard to guess they’d be able to get a working system with a good CEP in a very short time.

and on top of it, its H-2 carrier rockets are execellent technologically wise, and their satellite program seems to on a a good footing.
the top end H-2B has a better LEO Lifting capability then the top end Long-March. They actually have the biggest rocket in Asia.

I honestly do not see any technological hurdle for Japan to develope a minimum nuclear weapon with requisit ICBM in 6-12 month if they really tried.

Interesting.

I’m curious now if Japan, possibly not realistically being able to afford a 5th gen development and/or acquisition any time soon, might rather wish to keep up with the Jones’s in the interim deterrence-wise, via taking this route too?

Posted for fair use…..
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110314_1144.php

South Korea Seen Changing Missile Range Guidelines
Monday, March 14, 2011

_____________

RoK is looking for the U.S. to agree to a range increase of from between 311 and 500 miles for indigenously produced ballistic missiles.

The difference is the Chinese have been working on all sorts of ballistic missiles for decades.

To suggest the South Koreans or Japanese could achieve what took decades and generations of cumulative R&D to develop on their very first attempt is fanciful at best.

Just look at the trouble the Japanese and South Koreans have been having with their space launch programmes to see how much of a technological challenge rocketry is and how being advanced in some fields do not automatically makes you a master in others, especially when you have relatively little experience in that field.

Considering what the Japanese have been doing on a very small budget, JAXA’s FY 2010 budget was $ 2.86 billion, they haven’t conducted as many launches, and thus when they have an issue with a launch, it tends to be a big one. All of the other space capable nations have been through this as well, only during the Cold War, they were launching a lot more and failing a lot more as well.

Just taking the Mu family of solid fueled satellite launchers as a start (and the follow on to the M-V, the Epsilon) and you’re basically there with the launcher. Add a development budget to fit a crash militarized program and I’d hazard to guess they’d be able to get a working system with a good CEP in a very short time.

Aren’t the Chinese building a conventional missile to hit carriers? No reason the Japanese or Koreans with US help couldn’t build one with a similar CEP.

The difference is the Chinese have been working on all sorts of ballistic missiles for decades.

To suggest the South Koreans or Japanese could achieve what took decades and generations of cumulative R&D to develop on their very first attempt is fanciful at best.

Just look at the trouble the Japanese and South Koreans have been having with their space launch programmes to see how much of a technological challenge rocketry is and how being advanced in some fields do not automatically makes you a master in others, especially when you have relatively little experience in that field.

What is the point in an SK or Japanese MRBM? They have no WMD afaik, and I seriously doubt they would be able to develop RVs with sufficient accuracy to make the missiles have a small enough CEP to be of much use as a tactical weapon with conventional warheads.

Why do they want these unless they are also thinking about a nuclear weapons programme?

Aren’t the Chinese building a conventional missile to hit carriers? No reason the Japanese or Koreans with US help couldn’t build one with a similar CEP.

What is the point in an SK or Japanese MRBM? They have no WMD afaik, and I seriously doubt they would be able to develop RVs with sufficient accuracy to make the missiles have a small enough CEP to be of much use as a tactical weapon with conventional warheads.

Why do they want these unless they are also thinking about a nuclear weapons programme?

Guess that’s kind of the question: When will Japan finally go nuclear? Primarily against China.

South Korea seems more of a ‘me-too’ thing.

What is the point in an SK or Japanese MRBM? They have no WMD afaik, and I seriously doubt they would be able to develop RVs with sufficient accuracy to make the missiles have a small enough CEP to be of much use as a tactical weapon with conventional warheads.

Why do they want these unless they are also thinking about a nuclear weapons programme?

Does Japan have MRBMS?

They have built many solid fueled satellite launch vehicles and a couple of very big sounding rockets (particularly the S-520) which would make a good starting point in converting to such a usage.

UCAV is a re-usable cruise missile, so they will need to be restricted to 500 kg payload 300 km in order to comply with MTCR

The Japanese TACOM is considered by the Japanese to be a reusable multi-mission drone/UAV. It has a 1000 km range and weights in at 700 kg so in a way it side steps the MTCR.

Considering that the MTCR is basically a “gentlemen’s agreement” and doesn’t restrict a country reinventing the wheel as it were, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it keeping the lid on things, particularly in the case of east Asia between Japan, the Koreas and the PRC.

UCAV is a re-usable cruise missile, so they will need to be restricted to 500 kg payload 300 km in order to comply with MTCR

No. It reckons they’re too offensive to fit its pacific constitution.

Does Japan have MRBMS?