North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

sahureka · 2025-04-11T19:18:08-0400

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.

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.

yugocrosrb95 · 2025-04-12T02:39:25-0400

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

Nonsense question. Do your own research instead asking me to do it for you.

pipaster · 2025-04-12T08:48:55-0400

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.

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.

sahureka · 2025-04-12T09:27:16-0400

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.

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.

North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

sahureka

Junior Member

yugocrosrb95

Junior Member

pipaster

Junior Member

sahureka

Junior Member