North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

That modernized Najin was interesting enough that I went back to it one more time.



The rear twin 57mm turret (red circle) was removed and replaced with two smaller turrets. AK-630?
But most notably, my upgrade proposal mentioned anti-submarine torpedoes, but I wonder if the ship is already equipped with them (blue circle)?

Anyway since North Korea manufactures Allison 250-c20b clone for their Saetbyol-9 UCAV's then later on could design transportation aircraft since for example 2 engine GAF Nomad had 16 passenger capacity or 1.6 ton payload capacity at distance of up around 1500 kilometers. 4 engine with modern contemporary airframe would probably allow for 40 passenger capacity or 4 ton payload.

Valiant 1002 said:

That modernized Najin was interesting enough that I went back to it one more time.

View attachment 149852

The rear twin 57mm turret (red circle) was removed and replaced with two smaller turrets. AK-630?
But most notably, my upgrade proposal mentioned anti-submarine torpedoes, but I wonder if the ship is already equipped with them (blue circle)?

Click to expand...

these are modifications that appeared on the net in 2015, in another forum I had pointed out the changes in the weapon systems,
The 2 CIWS are not North Korea's 6x30mm Gatlings, they merely moved the 2 AK-230s that were already on the ship in place of the 57mm system, they installed a MANPADS x6 system, then 2 structures to house the canisters for modern Kumsong-3 /KN-19 anti-ship missiles and aft 2x2 TLS 533mm.

before


2015 Kim Jong-un visit the ship after the works




My simple 2015 interpretation of how it may look after the changes

yugocrosrb95 said:

Anyway since North Korea manufactures Allison 250-c20b clone for their Saetbyol-9 UCAV's then later on could design transportation aircraft since for example 2 engine GAF Nomad had 16 passenger capacity or 1.6 ton payload capacity at distance of up around 1500 kilometers. 4 engine with modern contemporary airframe would probably allow for 40 passenger capacity or 4 ton payload.

Click to expand...

It seems uneconomical, even if technically feasible.

North Korea's territory is very small and narrow, they don't need so many transport planes. Ideally they could make the design multi-role by designing other variants such as maritime patrol, bomber, EW, etc. but the overall demand is unlikely to exceed 30-40 units.

It takes a lot of effort and money to research, test, and build manufacturing lines and maintenance facilities... just for 30-40 units?

Valiant 1002 said:

It seems uneconomical, even if technically feasible.

North Korea's territory is very small and narrow, they don't need so many transport planes. Ideally they could make the design multi-role by designing other variants such as maritime patrol, bomber, EW, etc. but the overall demand is unlikely to exceed 30-40 units.

It takes a lot of effort and money to research, test, and build manufacturing lines and maintenance facilities... just for 30-40 units?

Click to expand...

Sometimes wonder why even bother communicating with anyone on topic of DPRK as it seems nearly all I encounter is people with narrow perspective that has only small number of possibilities and reasons taken into consideration.

For any potential suggested is being met with illogical and irrational response.

For example you do not even consider it doing transportation outside of DPRK and even then clearly not aware that width of the country is over 700 kilometers along inventory it could replace which your 30 to 40 assertion is absurdly low.

On top of that how much less resources such aircraft would consume compared to Il-28 as an example with amount of jet fuel consumed and being far more useful than any potential modification of Il-28 to make such any relevant at all.

Il-28 has no future and there are 80 of them along using Il-76's for parachute exercise is also wasteful when a new purpose built aircraft could perhaps have 60 parachutists standing inside cargo bay. Far less jet fuel would be consumed.

It would improve logistical capabilities and allow more flexibility for North Korea.

If they were to recycle Il-28 then there would have been material to perhaps even allow to produce 3 times as many aircraft with little additional resources in terms of materials needed for manufacturing of such aircraft at beginning.

If there were 240 of them then 960 tons could be transported, on par 20 Il-76TD.

yugocrosrb95 said:

Anyway since North Korea manufactures Allison 250-c20b clone for their Saetbyol-9 UCAV's then later on could design transportation aircraft since for example 2 engine GAF Nomad had 16 passenger capacity or 1.6 ton payload capacity at distance of up around 1500 kilometers. 4 engine with modern contemporary airframe would probably allow for 40 passenger capacity or 4 ton payload.

Click to expand...

In any case, it should be remembered that the DPRK has a large number of AN-2/Nanchang Y-5s that can also carry out civil transport services, transporting up to 12 passengers depending on the internal configuration or cargo, and can take off and land from short and unprepared runways.
However, in the past, the DPRK has already produced some twin-engined aircraft using radial engines of the Yak-18 and probably using this aircraft as an example for some components, even if these aircraft were for military training.


Today, since they have a sepur small aircraft industry
( North korean copy of a Cessna 172)


and have copies of the Allison 250-c20bse for fixed-wing aircraft, if they feel it necessary to make a small regional aircraft, I think they could make it.

Well, as Sahureka said, there are plenty of An-2/Nanchang Y-5s in use for the role you're talking about, and if it still works well, then why replace them?

4 engines, carrying 40 passengers or 4 tons of cargo sounds like the capabilities of an An-26 (obviously there are differences here - it has only 2 engines but can carry up to 5.5 tons of cargo). Which brings up the problem I was talking about: there aren't many roles for which North Korea needs an indigenous aircraft that big, which means the numbers they would need to buy would be small, making it uneconomical to pursue.

It must also be taken into account that Air Koryo's fleet is still operating peacetime transport and airlift missions, and could very well be mobilized in wartime (though obviously not for airdrop operations or the like). Maybe Air Koryo could buy a few more, but... Not to mention that North Korea has long relied little on air transport for domestic transport – it prefers roads and especially railways; these would also be the two main logistical methods for the North Korean military in any situation.

But I admit, suggesting "bomber" in the category is lame because 1) I forgot I was talking about a turboprop aircraft and 2) No one uses a turboprop for that mission anymore.

If you still want to replace those useless Il-28s (which I agree with), maybe you should think about giant UCAVs. So giant that it can carry one or two ALCM/ALBMs.

You have provided zero arguments and only have shown how uninformed you are as evident by what you wrote since question you have made is already answered. If you were to assert it was not then such would be blatant lie as only answer you will ever get is what I have said previously which clearly you have not taken into account unlike me which has done so for Air Koryo that is insufficient for rapid logistics.

I am not interested in what you have talked about as only reaction to such is disappointment at intellectual level because of many details that you d not take into account such as North Korea can not easily import aircraft compared to lets say Iran that has managed to conduct many operations to covertly acquire aircraft that are same or of compatible model that their airlines along air force have in active service.

Problem with this kind of logic is nonsense absolutism since just because they have seeming preference for logistics on road and rail is really not an argument as it is same for any military of any country since it is cheap and efficient. Though many do invest in logistical aircraft due to need for rapid reaction of military assets for deployment of elite or upper echelon of highly trained military units near potential zone of conflict along delivery of assets such as munitions and missiles from storages far away where time is crucial, road and rail don not suffice.

UCAV's are not reliable for such missions otherwise for example B-21 would have been unmanned stealth bomber and not manned one.

Retiring Il-28's and producing 4 engine turboprop transport aircraft would allow An-2's to be retired with gasoline redirected to trucks and cars that run on gasoline, at 4 ton payload capacity it can be used to have variant that is a tanker with enough fuel being carried to fully fuel JF-17 or J-10 or MiG-29A as an example. Also suitable for anti submarine warfare where it might be possible for it to have ASW suite and a full size 533mm torpedo hence much higher probability of sinking a submarine than doing suppression and deterrence with 340mm caliber.

Anyway what could take 120 minutes to deliver as an example by road or rail could be done in 20 minutes by use of aircraft.

Not bound by preset road or rail, only starting point and end point if payload is not being parachuted.

As for mentioning ALBM then 2 of those Hwasong-11D type or 1 optimized telephone pole guided rocket "KN-25" derived 500+ km range.

yugocrosrb95 said:

UCAV's are not reliable for such missions otherwise for example B-21 would have been unmanned stealth bomber and not manned one.

Click to expand...

The B-21 is a global strategic bomber with a large payload capacity. It is not surprise for it to be manned as it requires much more operational complexity. While North Korea’s goal is simply to drop some bombs and missiles on South Korea (or at most Japan), at such “closer” distances, a large UCAV would suffice.

yugocrosrb95 said:

Retiring Il-28's and producing 4 engine turboprop transport aircraft would allow An-2's to be retired with gasoline redirected to trucks and cars that run on gasoline, at 4 ton payload capacity it can be used to have variant that is a tanker with enough fuel being carried to fully fuel JF-17 or J-10 or MiG-29A as an example.

Click to expand...

Retire the Il-28s, ok. Retire the An-2s, no. You are taking away from North Korea a super simple but super effective aircraft with extremely unique flight characteristics, which is very useful in a variety of situations, such as dropping commandos behind enemy lines.

If North Korean airspace is so small, what do you need a refueling plane for?

yugocrosrb95 said:

Anyway what could take 120 minutes to deliver as an example by road or rail could be done in 20 minutes by use of aircraft.

Click to expand...

And who or what will the North Koreans transport with them?

yugocrosrb95 said:

Not bound by preset road or rail, only starting point and end point if payload is not being parachuted.

Click to expand...

You will need a runway/airport if it is not parachuted. Where do you plan to land?

I mean, if North Korea suddenly one day launches an An-26/32 at Panghyon, I'm happy for them... but surely someone else is funding them to do this.

There is no way North Korea could finance such a program on its own, mainly because of the "economical" problem I mentioned above. "Economical" here means the benefits of scale; the more you make/produce, the lower the cost. If North Korea paid for everything itself, they would have to take a huge loss, or they would have to buy the plane at a very high price to break even. Someone will have to shoulder that huge cost.