Josh Smith

SEOUL (Reuters) – It is unclear if the apparent failure of a missile launch on Wednesday dealt a lasting blow to North Korea’s plans, but analysts say failures are an important part of any development programme and in the North’s case, have often hinted at progress in more indigenous designs.

South Korea’s military reported that the presumed ballistic weapon exploded in midair just after it had been tested from an international airport close to Pyongyang Wednesday morning. The reports have not been confirmed or commented upon by North Korea.

Although the apparent incident would have been a setback and could be dangerous for anyone who was in the path, analysts stated that missile engineers often learn from mistakes as well as successes. The test also highlights the progress North Korea has made amid stagnant international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development.

“A missile launch failure doesn’t imply that they don’t learn from the test; failures can be useful data points in improving their capabilities,” said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the U.S.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

According to U.S. officials and South Korean officials, North Korea could be preparing for its first intercontinental ballistic weapon (ICBM), full-scale test since 2017. Analysts believe the facility is being used to support ballistic missile testing.

Historically, North Korea’s missile program has had a remarkably low rate of known failures compared to many other countries that have built such weapons, said Melissa Hanham, a researcher at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) in California.

A Hwasong-12 intermediate long-range ballistic Missile failed to reach its target after being launched and collided with a population in one of the most notable incidents in North Korea’s 2017 weapons test flurry.

“Frankly, I remain surprised there are not more failures,” Hanham said.

Analysts have indicated that this is evidence that, at the very least, the North relied on Russia’s technology initially. Hwasong-14 is its first ICBM. It also has technology that was obtained through Iran cooperation.

Markus Schiller is a European-based missile expert and has studied foreign aid for North Korea’s program. “There are no perfect developments. And if one does appear, it usually turns out to have been a lot more work done elsewhere.” A failed launch could be a sign of an indigenous development, so that’s what we think.

ROCKET BOOSTERS TO BLAME?

North Korea did not reveal the missile used in Wednesday’s launch nor have it revealed the results of the most recent two tests, on February 27th and March 5th. Both were conducted from the same airport. Although North Korea claimed that the launches were to test spy satellite equipment it was not revealing what missile they used. However, U.S. officials and South Korean officials stated that these tests were secret trials of a new ICBM system known as Hwasong-17.

Panda stated that it makes sense for them to fail more as they move toward bigger, better missiles such as the Hwasong-17.

Schiller indicated that even if Wednesday’s test was a failure of the Hwasong-17 it is unlikely that this happened on either the first or second flights.

The quick interval between the tests is also unusual for a developmental programme, as it doesn’t give time for the engineers to tweak their designs, he said.

“Therefore, it seems that the missiles were already manufactured and ready for launch even before number one was launched, which would hint at a programme that is already beyond prototyping,” Schiller said. “Or it might hint at taking high risks.”

The missile’s first stage failed shortly after liftoff. This is likely to have been the Hwasong-17, Hanham stated. It has four large rocket engines and a complex set of rocket engines.

“Though North Korea heralded the tests of individual engines as successes, clustering four of them together for the first stage of the Hwasong-17 is very challenging,” she said.