North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Stealthflanker said:

Good choice, carbon fiber, means light = more range. Also im curious on their energetic material (yes propellant) industries. Seems to be flourishing seeing those missiles.

Click to expand...

Maximum thrust for Hwasong-19 previously stated was 140 ton force and now they declare it is being upgraded to 200 ton force.
Hwasong-20 will probably be same length as 19 yet 2nd and 3rd stage will have same diameter as 1st stage unlike 19 for example.
At this point throw weight to eastern coast of mainland/continental USA is probably 3 tons and enough for cluster of 4 to 6 MIRV's.

yugocrosrb95 said:

Maximum thrust for Hwasong-19 previously stated was 140 ton force and now they declare it is being upgraded to 200 ton force.
Hwasong-20 will probably be same length as 19 yet 2nd and 3rd stage will have same diameter as 1st stage unlike 19 for example.
At this point throw weight to eastern coast of mainland/continental USA is probably 3 tons and enough for cluster of 4 to 6 MIRV's.

Click to expand...

Same length? I don't think so because the last time hwasong 19 was launched by 11-axel TEL, and if memory serves me well, there was a picture of a 12-axel TEL. Just a picture of the TEL next to Kim jong UN. Maybe I am mistaken

magmunta said:

Same length? I don't think so because the last time hwasong 19 was launched by 11-axel TEL, and if memory serves me well, there was a picture of a 12-axel TEL. Just a picture of the TEL next to Kim jong UN. Maybe I am mistaken

Click to expand...

Just because it could be on longer chassis does not mean missile itself will be longer.

You do not even consider increase in weight could require larger gas generator for ejection of missile.

In the future, the new destroyer is expected to serve as a secondary strike platform following land-based ballistic missiles, and for this purpose it appears to be equipped with multiple VLS cells for cruise missiles and SRBMs. However, without adequate escort forces at sea, in the air, and under water, this destroyer is likely to become an easy target for the ROK-U.S. combined forces. To address this, North Korea appears to be pursuing the construction of additional new destroyers and nuclear submarines, as well as seeking to acquire new fighter aircraft from Russia.

Click to expand...

Well, they are got a point. North Korea has shown no effort so far to build escort ships that could support these destroyers (let alone the larger vessels they aspire to).

But this...

Valiant 1002 said:

Well, they are got a point. North Korea has shown no effort so far to build escort ships that could support these destroyers (let alone the larger vessels they aspire to).

Click to expand...

But why escort an escort?

Gloire_bb said:

But why escort an escort?

Click to expand...

A destroyer like the North Korean one could actually be considered a capital ship by today's standards.

And like any capital ship, it needs companions. And like any capital ship, it needs companions. A host of smaller ships with similar capability to protect it and shoulder some of the load.

Valiant 1002 said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Well, they are got a point. North Korea has shown no effort so far to build escort ships that could support these destroyers (let alone the larger vessels they aspire to).

But this...
View attachment 160116

Click to expand...

Already presented in October 2021 at the "National Self-Defense Development Exhibition", it is therefore reductive and counterproductive to always seek a foreign supplier for North Korean products.

I don't know why they assume NK won't get those smaller ships, submarines and aircraft.

Valiant 1002 said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Well, they are got a point. North Korea has shown no effort so far to build escort ships that could support these destroyers (let alone the larger vessels they aspire to).

But this...
View attachment 160116

Click to expand...

Whoever made this "analysis" is terrible at judging approximate dimensions and scale, along uninformed on North Korea's weapons.

Valiant 1002 said:

A destroyer like the North Korean one could actually be considered a capital ship by today's standards.

And like any capital ship, it needs companions. And like any capital ship, it needs companions. A host of smaller ships with similar capability to protect it and shoulder some of the load.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything especially capital about it. Especially in DPRK, which launches them in a year.
Non-carrier surface capital shits are largely gone for 60 years at this point (reactivated Iowas served different role, and were largely relics of the past).

It's a frigate, it can protect itself. If it can't - horrible, but unless you're talking about USVs, it's quite hard to get any fundamental positive difference out of intermediate layer around these ships.
They can be substituted by smaller ships eleswhere where as much capability isn't needed - sure (and these smaller ships can carry strategic missiles just as well), but that's inner gradation of smaller and larger surface combatants.