North Korea 2020 Parade

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
Heres the video of the live stream of the parade.The good stuff starts at around the 2 hour mark and there is a whole lot of new stuff to see including,but not limited to,a brand new main battle tank.
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
1,062
Well, you could get an entire pack of Top Trumps Ballistic Missiles out of that parade!

Chris
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,362
Reaction score
1,500
Where is the design technology coming from? This looks quite sophisticated for a missile from a country where teenage girls are used to shovel coal into trucks.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,453
Reaction score
1,409
An extremist regime that worries little about it's citizens will always outdo those who do care but not to forget that it is also a tactic in use by the government of the PRC/USSR/Russia to destabilise western governments/nations. Essentially Korea in it's two nation guise has been a pawn for a long time.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,550
Reaction score
1,250
Some screenshots of the new stuff:
I am still not convinced, that these new vehicles, especially the new tank and that self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon system, are fully developed. :confused: I have to see them during drills and tests, which will IMHO take place earliest after the election in the USA.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
An impressive set of vehicles.
I share the surprise of so many different vehicles and chassis, for a planned economy there seems to be little standardisation at all. Some of them must have been acquired from China surely?
An impressive arsenal of missiles and rockets, again we don't know how many exist and whether the stuff in the tubes is any good or not - but it looks a formidable threat in terms of the damage it could do.
The MBT looks vaguely familiar but also looks 'odd' in a movie prop kind of way. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large amount of Chinese tech in it. Whatever the case the development of all these systems must have been taking place for some time.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
925
I am not convinced about that new supposed ICBM is it real or is it fake? :confused:
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Seems that a lot of those machinery - Abrams-lookalikes, for example - might be just a decoy, to confuse Western intelligence about what exactly is real, what is only the prototypes, and what is only a product of PRK's people imagination.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
925
I am not convinced about that new supposed ICBM is it real or is it fake? :confused:
I'd say what was displayed is mock-up, but the real thing will be tested in the following months.

Never thought about the missile being a mock-up, it will be interesting to see when they reveal the actual missile what the range is going to be. and if it is going to affect Europe because all the missiles that North Korea have at present have only affected the Pacific rim countries.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,978
Reaction score
3,509
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
What will be fun is if the norks demonstrate this ICBM successfully... then start selling it. Be the first dirt world kleptocracy on your block to be able to threaten the EU!
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
264
Given the state of the N Korean economy chances are that ICBM is a giant toilet roll tube, they probably spent all the money on the lorry (If lorry is the right term)!!!!
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
1,062
That is the tune to sing while giving CPR. Apt?

Chris
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
261
Reaction score
483
The new ICBM may not be real, but the Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-15 very much are. The most interesting new thing is the TEL. North Korea bought 6 WS51200 trucks (2 in May 2011 and 4 in October 2011) from China for "logging". They've added extra axles for larger missiles, but only had 6 TELs capable of launching ICBMs. There were 8 at the parade (4 carrying Hwasong-15s and 4 carrying the new ICBM). Regardless as to whether this new ICBM is real or not (the large canisters in the 2017 parade certainly were) they are no longer limited to 6 launchers.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
673
Why are people calling it fake?
I am not aware NK has a history of displaying fake weapons in parades, but I stand under correction.
It seems to me that people are extrapolating the relentless media tone often used with reporting anything to do with North Korea.
I am aware NK may display stuff still in testing, or prototypes, or stuff that then goes on to be refined further, but not outright fakes?
But again, I am operating from memory, so stand open to correction.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
I'm pretty sure Bestest Korea has deploy dummy missiles in parades before. I seem to remember analysts noting that some missiles looks like mismatched stages of other projects strung together. I wouldn't score a missile as operational until it was tested at least once and I have a hard time believing that new, massive ICBM is within their current engine capabilities. Though at this point I think most of Phat Kim's missile ambitions have been met.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,362
Reaction score
1,500
Unless a reference to an actual missile test can be provided, I suspect this is a mock-up of a design that may be near testing. Considering its range, where to fire it? In what direction? If this is a somewhat modified Chinese import then North Korea is just part of a planned expansion of China's defenses. A ridiculous article posted today in the US press stated this missile was designed to overwhelm US defenses as if the writer knew nothing about MIRVs during the Cold War. This apparent fake disconnect does not exist among current military planners.
 

lordroel

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
223
Reaction score
178
Now these new tanks they showed remind me of the Red Dawn remake when North Korea invaded the United States.

article_5f835e7c0a5187_53937734.jpeg
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,978
Reaction score
3,509
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
264
Now these new tanks they showed remind me of the Red Dawn remake when North Korea invaded the United States.

article_5f835e7c0a5187_53937734.jpeg

What are the two(?) tubes on the left hand side of the turret; an ATGW?
 

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
I'm pretty sure Bestest Korea has deploy dummy missiles in parades before. I seem to remember analysts noting that some missiles looks like mismatched stages of other projects strung together. I wouldn't score a missile as operational until it was tested at least once and I have a hard time believing that new, massive ICBM is within their current engine capabilities. Though at this point I think most of Phat Kim's missile ambitions have been met.
Considering that they are [very likely] using russian derived engines [RD250 for the hwasong 12,14,15] I`d say that is one aspect of these systems that is probably the most reliable,not to mention extremely powerful,as it was these engines and their later derivatives that powered the heavy weight R-36[ss-9 Scarp/ss-18 Satan] class of icbms.
The main part that we have yet to see demonstrated is warhead re-entry survivability.
 

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
Now these new tanks they showed remind me of the Red Dawn remake when North Korea invaded the United States.

article_5f835e7c0a5187_53937734.jpeg

What are the two(?) tubes on the left hand side of the turret; an ATGW?
It certainly looks like it,possibly for a local version of the kornet or perhaps for the upgraded locally built version of the AT4 Spigot.This has been upgraded with a new laser beam riding guidance system like the kornet and is now called the bulsae 3.It is interesting that they still dont appear to have gone for the gun launched atgms preferring instead externally mounted systems.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
The thing that puzzles me is that North Korea seems to be investing heavily in missiles and rocketry and presumably armoured vehicles too. The Army must be receiving a fair amount of all weapons R&D and production expenditure, the Navy less so but has built a couple of 'frigates' (more like gunboats) and of course is still build Romeo-class knock-offs (some with SLBM tubes stuck on). But there seems to have been almost no investment in the Air Force at all.
LED strips look fancy but its not exactly improving their air defence capability. I would have thought they would have been champing at the bit to get their hands on some modern Chinese kit, but it seems that North Korea very much is land warfare oriented with little thought to aerial warfare at all.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
4,324
@Hood :
South Koreans have F-35s. What would you them to put in front that won't be a loss of money? It is clear as you noticed that they have re-invested the expenses spent in an air force into ground capabilities and ICBM.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
673
I think it is smart, considering their resources.
They are putting their resources into the 2 aspects that make an invasion of their country either completely unfeasible, or a very costly prospect.
Their navy and air force thus take a distant back priority to land forces in the terrain they have, and a nuclear capability with the ability to deliver it on any potential invader, even if you ignore the bargaining chip that this obviously brings politically.
Whatever about other aspects of North Korea, I for one cannot fault the planning behind where they allocate their limited resources from a military aspect.
They seem to understand that big ticket naval or air force projects are pointless, considering their situation.
They seem to invest in sub warfare more than surface vessels (which would simply be targets), and may eventually "warm over" the air force, but clearly know where their priorities should be.
In my opinion, they don't need new Chinese kit for the air force, beyond an air policing role. Being next door neighbours to China is a thing all on its own.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
The thing that puzzles me is that North Korea seems to be investing heavily in missiles and rocketry and presumably armoured vehicles too. The Army must be receiving a fair amount of all weapons R&D and production expenditure, the Navy less so but has built a couple of 'frigates' (more like gunboats) and of course is still build Romeo-class knock-offs (some with SLBM tubes stuck on). But there seems to have been almost no investment in the Air Force at all.
LED strips look fancy but its not exactly improving their air defence capability. I would have thought they would have been champing at the bit to get their hands on some modern Chinese kit, but it seems that North Korea very much is land warfare oriented with little thought to aerial warfare at all.
A huge part of it are the sanctions which pretty much prevents the dprk from acquiring any new combat aircraft,tho they have gone to a lot of trouble to keep as much of their older mid cold war era air fleet operational as possible.Ultimately however the sheer costs of modern airpower,not only for the machines themselves but also in terms of the logistics and infrastructure,and the amount of airpower that would be required to even attempt to try and match the capabilities of the rok,never mind the sheer quantity and quality of the combined airpower that the us/rok/jsdf could field against the dprk really makes it all a total non starter.
By comparison precision guided ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are much cheaper to produce and can be produced indigenously and their infrastructure can be made far more resistant to attack than say an airbase,unless of course you are going to go to over the top extremes like putting it inside a mountain.
Now as for the role of air defence it seems clear that they have preferred to go for developing [acquiring?] new sam systems and upgrading their older sam systems as well using the same technology, as opposed to using manned aircraft as the front line of their air defence,instead they would be deployed purely in a back up role to deal with any leakers that got past the sam systems.
Ultimately just as with iran it is ballistic and cruise missiles that have taken over the offensive role of manned air power.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
I agree with the responses to my question that their GLCM/ICBM TELs will be devilishly hard to counter from the air, there are relatively few of them and North Korea is mountainous and doubtless they have several tunnels and hideaways already prepared. Offensively you can't fault the strategy. The MRLS and massed artillery will be well hidden but they are always going to be closer to the frontline and at the mercy of any ROK/USAF CAS airpower, SAM defences can only do so much.
Having a strong arsenal of instant sunshine is guaranteed to put people off invading you, but equally every campaign since 1990 has proved that if you don't contest air superiority then the game is up. Iraq in 1990 was one of the most heavily defended in terms of SAM and AAA defences in the world outside of the superpowers and it was ripped apart, Serbia had some good air defence kit but that didn't help either. No ground-based aerial defence system has ever defeated an enemy aerial offensive on its own since... 1917?

As far as I know the MiG-29s have never been upgraded? That would make them stock 1980s technology. I wonder if they still have some MiG-15s/-17s stashed in a tunnel somewhere, might get better use from them for a bit of ground attack.
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
1,062
This is an interesting read. And before a flame war starts...

IT'S FICTION!
1602664694867.png
IT'S FICTION!
 

Similar threads

Top