Depends on the trajectory.
The new ICBM was fired from the Sunan area in Pyongyang at 2:33 p.m. and fell at 3:44 p.m. in the waters after flying about 1,100 km in range and reaching an altitude of 6,200 km during its 71-minute flight, according to the Japanese and South Korean governments.
North Korea fires new type of ICBM in large-scale test
North Korea fired a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile on Thursday, Japan's Defense Ministry said, making it the biggest-scale launch in terms of flight time and altitude at a time when international attention is focused on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.english.kyodonews.net
An ICBM launched by Pyongyang in November 2017 flew 53 minutes and reached an altitude of over 4,000 km.
1000-1200Km is merely the most optimum trajectory for an ICBM to achieve the longest range. But it's not necessary to use that trajectory. NoKo was just making a different point by using higher altitudes, but if a target is 8000Km away and you have a 16000Km missile, you're not necessarily gonna be using a regular trajectory.
What they tested for should cover for most possible applications though. Russian silos or mobile launch pads are typically far enough away that they rely on orbiting the RV bus to achieve range. Newer Chinese ICBMs are more of a problem but there are more than enough assets between PRC and US in the Pacific to take them out at Boost/Ascent phase anyway.
The currently-deployed Chinese deterrent (JL-2 and DF-31) are almost perfectly represented by the ICBM-T2.
The exo-atmospheric intercept achieved at an altitude of 97 km...Hit-to-Kill Successfully Demonstrated By DRDO’s PDV Interceptor | Delhi Defence Review
delhidefencereview.com
Which means the TGT achieved an altitude of well above 100Km.
Furthermore:
...validated among other things, the improved guidance algorithm used for this test-mission, since the incoming missile target had deviated significantly from what would have allowed an intercept along a typical minimum energy trajectory (MET) for an ABM interceptor. Instead, the PDV test-vehicle had to slam into the target at the far end of its engagement boundary and at a lower altitude than what a ‘standard’ MET intercept would have entailed.
Which implies the intercept was actually planned for well above 100Km, but the TGT deviated.
Another test:
Indeed, the late April test involved a 'near miss' at an altitude of 120 km.
We are talking about an apogee of 150Km at least, if not more.
Anyway, you're on Twitter, just shoot a message to Jha and it will be solved.
The S-400 news there is fake news. Delivery is delayed, but not by years.
Interesting, never read these altitude reports before. Thanks for the links.
Yes, these altitudes should represent a Shaheen-I pretty well. The larger ones (Shaheen-II and above) are still a problem though as their longer range + relative proximity to Indian targets will mean they will have to boost to much higher apogees, and they'd have already achieved a good chunk of terminal velocity by the time they get to ~100km altitude.
