DPRK Navy ships

sahureka said:
From the images of the weapons exhibition open to the public during the commissioning of the second destroyer, it can be seen that the North Koreans have developed three new versions of the CIWS system with 30 mm rotating cannons: ranging from the simplest version to one equipped with a radar and opto-electronic sight mounted directly on the system itself.
View attachment 823516
Click to expand...
What are the chances North Korea will reveal a version of the LD-2000 in a future parade?
 
https://www.janes.com/defence-intelligence-insights/defence-news/sea/north-korea-builds-new-class-of-fast-gunboats-at-nampo-shipyard
bsp_122482-jdw-38041.jpeg
 
In Nampo, construction of a new warship (outdoors, not in a construction hall) has begun, and while it's too early to judge what is being built, NK News points to the possibility of a 10,000-ton class cruiser. The third Choe Hyon-class ship, which was supposed to be under construction in Nampo, had been slated for completion by "October 10 next year" last year, so it should be nearing completion soon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2103478795122713043
View: https://x.com/KPA_bot/status/2103478795122713043
 
Place your bets: what will this new cruiser look like?
  • A bigger and longer Choe Hyon?
  • A North Korean's Sejong the Great?
  • A North Korean's Type 055?
 
Considering how many weapon systems they crammed into the Choe Hyun, i dread (in a good way) to think what they'll put on a 10,000 tons (or thereabouts) cruiser. I think one can say the DPRK DDGs and possibly upcoming CGs have their design characteristics heavily skewed toward arsenal ship?
 
lancer21 said:
Considering how many weapon systems they crammed into the Choe Hyun, i dread (in a good way) to think what they'll put on a 10,000 tons (or thereabouts) cruiser. I think one can say the DPRK DDGs and possibly upcoming CGs have their design characteristics heavily skewed toward arsenal ship?
Click to expand...
It usually goes the opposite way; with experience, ship designs become more streamlined and sensible.
 
Ainen said:
It usually goes the opposite way; with experience, ship designs become more streamlined and sensible.
Click to expand...
On the engineering side, yes. On the political side, not so much. Consider most of the designs in the Nazi Era Plan Z.
 
DWG said:
On the engineering side, yes. On the political side, not so much. Consider most of the designs in the Nazi Era Plan Z.
Click to expand...
?
Not a single Z plan ship was somehow overarmed or out of (very moderate) German design practices/philosophy. If anything, they're on the opposite side, over engineered for what they were bringing to action.

If there were overarmed German ships, they were reischmarine light cruisers (lack of experience) and Narviks (pre Z; desperate lack of cruisers/lack of experience).
 
Ainen said:
Not a single Z plan ship was somehow overarmed or out of (very moderate) German design practices/philosophy. If anything, they're on the opposite side, over engineered for what they were bringing to action.
Click to expand...

Wiki, citing Garzke and Dulin: "Hitler demanded guns larger than any possible adversary, but guns of the caliber demanded by Hitler would have required displacements of over 80,000 long tons (81,000 t) and drafts so deep that it prevented the use of Germany's ports without significant dredging. Fuchs eventually convinced Hitler that the 40.6 cm gun was the optimal choice for the H-39 design"

The Z Plan was ridiculous over-reach, consistently demanding performance that would have challenged the best British or American designers.

6x H-39 BB: 53,300t, 30kts, 19,000nmi @ 19kts, 12x diesel
3x O Class BC: 28,900t, 35ts, 14,000nmi @ 19kts, 1x steam + 8x diesel
12x P Class CA/ACR: 22,145t, 33kts, 25,000nmi @ 13kts, 12x diesel
6x M Class CL: 9,300t, 36kts, 12,000nmi @ 19kts, 2x steam+ 4x diesel
6* x Spahkreuzer DD/CL: 5,700t, 36 kts, 7000nmi @ 17kts, 2x diesel

All displacements standard.

For comparison:
Iowa: 48,110t, 33kts, 14,890nmi @ 15kts, 4x steam
KGV: 36,727t, 28kts, 6,000nmi @ 14kts, 4x steam

And then there's the design escalation of H-39 (4x2x406mm/16"):
H-41: 4x2x420mm/16.5", 68,800t, 28.8kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
H-42: 4x2x480mm/18.9", 90,000t, 31.9kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
H-43: 4x2x480mm/18.9", 111,000t, 36.7kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
H-44: 4x2x508mm/20", 131,000t, 28.8kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
 
DWG said:
6x H-39 BB: 53,300t, 30kts, 19,000nmi @ 19kts, 12x diesel
Click to expand...
53.3k design with VIII 16" is overarmed? Your comparison (Iowa; a ship specifically criticized for insufficient firepower increase for a huge gain in size) carries more guns in a lesser designed displacement. Where that would place South Dakota then (actual contemporary design, btw); crazy dictator Rusvelt?

Same with regard to all other ships on your list.
German ships in terms of armament are outright dull. The interesting(and controversial) part there is equipment and fire control.
DWG said:
And then there's the design escalation of H-39 (4x2x406mm/16"):
H-41: 4x2x420mm/16.5", 68,800t, 28.8kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
H-42: 4x2x480mm/18.9", 90,000t, 31.9kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
H-43: 4x2x480mm/18.9", 111,000t, 36.7kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
H-44: 4x2x508mm/20", 131,000t, 28.8kts, 20,000nmi @19kts
Click to expand...
42cm is same gun rebored, and it's already Yamato/Montana size; both are much heavier armed.
Rest are toilet paper, and in any case - they maintain the same proportions.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom