North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

S

sahureka

Junior Member
Registered Member
Valiant 1002 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You write: "Cheap" here means the advantages of scale; the more you produce, the lower the costs.-
I think the main issue for the DPRK is to have the ability to modernize their military and the country and, due to very heavy sanctions and embargoes, they have to do almost everything they need at home.
So our way of thinking about "cheap" is not possible for the DPRK.
If the DPRK used our vision of "cheap" as a basis for making weapons systems, they would probably still only use T-55/T-59 tanks and Scud missiles.
Therefore, effectively excluded from the possibility of buying what they need abroad, North Korea has decided on the autarchic way to achieve the goal in any case, to do so it has had to invest in creating a good military industry.
Therefore I think it is a big mistake to write that it is anti "Economic" if only a few units are made, because in any case they are useful to gain experience and move on to the next step with the small steps method.
Then friendly countries will always be welcome if they want to lend a hand, in the past agreements with other sanctioned countries have brought benefits for everyone, today the newfound friends could make important steps in the aeronautical sector of the North Korean industry, and if hypothetically a civil / military transport aircraft is considered important for the needs of the country, they will certainly not start to do the math if it is "economically" convenient to do it even if it is a matter of a few dozen units.
As if to say, if nothing changes in the international arena (UN Sanctions), better a few than nothing.
 
Y

yugocrosrb95

Junior Member
Registered Member
Valiant 1002 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Clearly I have to repeat myself and state very obvious facts you do not think of.
UCAV with strategic weapons that can be armed with nuclear bomb is very risky.
There is always potential for such to be hijacked and used for false flag attack.
Due to pilot controlling UCAV remotely unlike manned aircraft that is on hands.
Also Iran has managed to crash American RQ-170 UAV uz GPS signal spoofing.

Valiant 1002 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is for an fixed wing aircraft yet that can be done with a helicopter for decades.
North Korea literally produces engine that initial AgustaWestland AW109 used.
They could also modernize Mi-2 with same engine to improve performance.
Even to produce a derivative with such engine, repeating myself due to you.
An-2 can be replaced by arguably more flexible aircraft that can do VTOL.

Valiant 1002 said:
If North Korean airspace is so small, what do you need a refueling plane for?
Click to expand...
I never said North Korean airspace is small hence such question is nonsense.
Why would one not want to have aerial refueling capacity to begin with at all?
It makes sense to introduce such capability for future proofing the air force.

Valiant 1002 said:
And who or what will the North Koreans transport with them?
Click to expand...
4 tonnes is enough for 20000 smartphones or limousine such as ZIL-41047.

Valiant 1002 said:
You will need a runway/airport if it is not parachuted. Where do you plan to land?
Click to expand...
Nonsense question. Do your own research instead asking me to do it for you.
 
P

pipaster

Junior Member
Registered Member
sahureka said:
You write: "Cheap" here means the advantages of scale; the more you produce, the lower the costs.-
I think the main issue for the DPRK is to have the ability to modernize their military and the country and, due to very heavy sanctions and embargoes, they have to do almost everything they need at home.
So our way of thinking about "cheap" is not possible for the DPRK.
If the DPRK used our vision of "cheap" as a basis for making weapons systems, they would probably still only use T-55/T-59 tanks and Scud missiles.
Therefore, effectively excluded from the possibility of buying what they need abroad, North Korea has decided on the autarchic way to achieve the goal in any case, to do so it has had to invest in creating a good military industry.
Therefore I think it is a big mistake to write that it is anti "Economic" if only a few units are made, because in any case they are useful to gain experience and move on to the next step with the small steps method.
Then friendly countries will always be welcome if they want to lend a hand, in the past agreements with other sanctioned countries have brought benefits for everyone, today the newfound friends could make important steps in the aeronautical sector of the North Korean industry, and if hypothetically a civil / military transport aircraft is considered important for the needs of the country, they will certainly not start to do the math if it is "economically" convenient to do it even if it is a matter of a few dozen units.
As if to say, if nothing changes in the international arena (UN Sanctions), better a few than nothing.
Click to expand...
Why not buy HESA Simourgh aircraft from Iran?

Iran is already heavily sanctioned along with Russia (the engine provider). This would be far cheaper and quicker than designing and producing your own.
 
S

sahureka

Junior Member
Registered Member
pipaster said:
Why not buy HESA Simourgh aircraft from Iran?

Iran is already heavily sanctioned along with Russia (the engine provider). This would be far cheaper and quicker than designing and producing your own.
Click to expand...
It's a question I asked myself too.
There is only one problem, Russia and Iran are not sanctioned by the UN regarding acquisitions or sales of weapons and in this case also in the military and civil aviation sector, while the DPRK is.
So while theoretically Russia and Iran can collaborate for the Simorgh aircraft which is a rear ramp derivative of the AN-140 (Russia produced numerous parts of this Ukrainian aircraft and could offer its own new turboprop engine); a direct collaboration for the DPRK to produce the exact same aircraft is more difficult at the moment, but from an indirect collaboration (for this I previously wrote about help from old and new friends) an aircraft could be born that could "resemble" the Simorgh/AN-140T, but with some modifications to be able to say that it is a "different" project and made in North Korea.
In this case, certainly the costs and times to produce it would be greatly reduced.
 
S

sahureka

Junior Member
Registered Member
Article from ‘NK Insight’ of 10 April 2025
Title:
"Significant Support from Russia needed for new N.K Naval Combatant Construction."
Reading the article, the author seems to build it around the idea that the new frigate has already been created and will be completed with Russia's indispensable and inevitable help.
Russia's help is possible, but many so-called experts persist in making the big mistake of underestimating North Korea.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


From the document above, a satellite photo of the frigate showing another part of the ship
Screenshot (1425).png

At the bow there are photos, so the configuration should already be clear, from this satellite image I start making assumptions
Green : command superstructure;
Brown : smoke exhaust chimneys;
White : elevated superstructure for radar electronic systems ;
Orange : other mast for electronic/radar systems ;
Magenta: assumption 1) opening for installing gas turbines- or - 2) space for VLS
Yellow: hangar for helicopters or drones (14 metres long and 11 metres wide (KA-27/28ASW(*) with folded blades is 3.8 m wide, 12.25 m long, maximum height 5.4 m)
on the sides with lower superstructure possibility to install CIWS
Light blue: flight deck (+/- metres 22x the width of the ship)
Amber: Extreme aft end of ship lower than flight deck

(*) North Korea has in the past received at least two KA-28 ASWs from Cuba (export version of the KA-27ASW) it is not known if they are operational today, however they are present in the country
ipotesi.jpg
 
S

sahureka

Junior Member
Registered Member
yugocrosb95 - Gloire_bb

As I have stated in the past, we are moving towards gigantism in naval construction, in the First World War they were destroyers ships of 800 tons, from 1200 tons in the Second World War, today they even exceed 6000 tons and they are still identified as destroyers, while in the recent past ships of that tonnage were cruisers.
I remain of the opinion that it is the type of armament installed, related systems and maximum speed achievable that could indicate whether it is a patrol boat, corvette, frigate or destroyer.
Indeed it seems that today many countries are ashamed to indicate as destroyers or even just as frigates their ships, I give an example of my Italy where Thaon di Revel Class ships of over 6200 tons, 143 meters long and in the Full version heavily armed, are identified as :cool:"multipurpose offshore patrol boats" (PPA).
Am I wrong or is it at least strange?

As for the new North Korean ship, perhaps it is better to wait until and if it will be operational and then eventually discuss what classification to give it with our current fashion in assigning:
Light Frigate;
Frigate;
Destroyer
or as the Italian PPA "multipurpose offshore patrol boats"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top