North Korea Air Force aircraft

Scott Kenny said:
You really think that there will be anything left of the ones in storage but the bare airframe, with no electronics, engines, or even wiring?
Click to expand...
Russia has not only SU-27s in stock, but also operational and modernized SU-27s.
And
Mig-29SMT in storage at Millerovo airport Rostov region and Kursk airport before October 2022, then all were moved, it was thought to be reactivated for Russia itself, but the Russians currently do not use this type of in combat aircraft.
Therefore they could be made available for transfer or sale to friendly countries, certainly after major repair work
FfM6rdfXoAERZ09.jpeg

ffm7jvcxoaa1t5g~2.jpg
 
sahureka said:
Russia has not only SU-27s in stock, but also operational and modernized SU-27s.
And
Mig-29SMT in storage at Millerovo airport Rostov region and Kursk airport before October 2022, then all were moved, it was thought to be reactivated for Russia itself, but the Russians currently do not use this type of in combat aircraft.
Therefore they could be made available for transfer or sale to friendly countries, certainly after major repair work
View attachment 751746

View attachment 751747
Click to expand...
You really think that they haven't been cannibalized? Whether to keep the existing MiG-29s flying or had all the valuable parts stolen and sold on the black market?

Based on the conditions of the tanks Russia was keeping "in reserve" mothballs, you are being very optimistic in your assumption of the conditions of those airframes... Especially those in the second satellite image.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You really think that they haven't been cannibalized? Whether to keep the existing MiG-29s flying or had all the valuable parts stolen and sold on the black market?

Based on the conditions of the tanks Russia was keeping "in reserve" mothballs, you are being very optimistic in your assumption of the conditions of those airframes... Especially those in the second satellite image.
Click to expand...
Russia doesn't operate mig-29s(other than Ks in navy service) in combat capacity anymore, and if push comes to that - there's active supply chain, supporting them around the world. Migs were still being produced for export as late as 2022.
MIG-29SMTRs he's talking about were produced less than 10 years ago.

Based on condition of Spanish leopards, Europe is done for. Be careful with overstretching summaries.
 
Last edited:
Could there be a possibility that China is giving help to DPRK in military aviation issues, or that there is some interest in the J-10 or Chinese flanker versions?
 
serg.gonzp said:
Could there be a possibility that China is giving help to DPRK in military aviation issues, or that there is some interest in the J-10 or Chinese flanker versions?
Click to expand...
This could happen as they have an active Su-27(J-11) production line, as well as retirement of early Su-27Ks
 
SK2 said:
This could happen as they have an active Su-27(J-11) production line, as well as retirement of early Su-27Ks
Click to expand...
and the SU-27 was sold or inherited after the collapse of the USSR by numerous nations and produced in China, thus an ideal model to make it difficult for others to indicate with certainty who delivered what.
And perhaps also for this reason that even the US admiral is leaning towards the SU-27 and consequently also the Mig-29
 
KonTim said:
Good news for DPRK air force:

https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/russia-north-korea-agree-su-27-mig-29-transfer
Click to expand...

- This guy's information is purely speculative, but there is logic to it. Older MiG-29s and Su-27s can be a big boost for the next 10 years.

- The DPRK has been dreaming of Flankers for more than 20 years since Kim Jong Il's visit to the Komsomolsk, and the aircraft has been seen more than once as an object of art in North Korea (really).

- There is apparently a program to modernize existing aircraft and aim to strengthen their combat capabilities (see new MRAAM and SRAAM) and integration into the air defense system (see AWACS being built).

- On the other hand, the primary goal of the DPRK is to add the last stone to the mosaic of sci-tech and industrial capabilities, and that is the creation and development of its own aviation industry.

- There is no realistic obstacle to realizing a similar cooperation with Russia like between the United States and Taiwan in the 1980s and 1990s.

- DPRK wants know-how. Wants to know how to build airplanes. Wants independence in accordance with Juche ideology. Now has an unprecedented opportunity, and if he takes advantage of it, we'll be amazed in 10 years.
 
Does the Flanker really get the North Koreans any capability that Fulcrums can't provide? It doesn't seem like they could benefit much from the range the larger Flanker has.
 
Longer range could be important also, especially if they want to fight the 'other neighbour'
 
However considering the connection of Iran and NK, there are slight chance that they may get Su-35 also...and will exchange ideas on training and operation of the aircraft
 
Thing is it is technically possible to implement IRBIS radar used in Su-35 to Su-27 if one desires to do so.
Though considering North Korea is developing own radar and infrared guided air to air missiles.
Possible that North Korea could prefer to develop own aircraft radar for Su-27's and MiG-29's.

Unless Russia agrees to implement North Korean missiles into FCS and compatibility is created between them.
 
Based on their track record in developing air force equipment, I think they still need Russian help on it
 
With all those fancy models shown in expo and the major aircraft intercepting RC-135/P-3s still being Mig-19/21, with occasion Mig-29 appearance, mainly armed with R-60 (and sometimes R-73), this is probably a good guess on their need
 
Yeah, there were similar claims that the DPRK showed off mock-up UAVs... before a few hours later we saw the Saetbyol-4 flying majestically over Pyongyang and the Saetbyol-9 firing missiles similar to Hellfires.
 
Yeah, at the same time the real North Korean Air Force intercepted RC-135/P-3s with Mig-19/21, and occasional Mig-29 appearance, mainly armed with K-13 and R-60 (and sometimes R-73), we are clearly living in a parallel world
 
If its good enough to do the job why spend scarce resources on more ?

N.Korea is a small nation (about the size of Scotland) the hyped up 'threat' and response pitched by the west is in part pushed by the need to keep the country belligerent :/
 
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russia-realistically-ship-hundreds-mig29-nkorea
(...)The sheer numbers of Soviet-built MiG-29s Russia retains, the diminishing value of these reserves, and North Korea’s capacity to absorb 200 or more new fighters into its large fleet, raises the possibility that Russia could make very large scale transfers of MiG-29s to re-equip multiple North Korean units. The fact that the MiG-29’s operational costs are higher than the MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21 fighters they are expected to replace means that one-for-one replacements of the 400 or so legacy aircraft in service is unlikely, although the Korean fleet could realistically accommodate 100-200 MiG-29s alongside two dozen Su-27s. The very large quantities of aircraft Russia retains, and the low cost of modernization, makes this highly feasible, although North Korea may itself seek not to invest too heavily in the aircraft, and to leave a capacity in its air force to procure more advanced fighters such as Su-57s later on in more limited numbers.
Click to expand...
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...ll-former-top-fighter-squadron-nkorea-su27sm2
(...)Despite the Su-27 having been effectively absent from global fighter markets for close to two decades, there are multiple possible rationales for North Korea’s procurement of the aircraft. These are as follows:
  • For Russia, delivering only older aircraft to its neighbour avoids significantly disrupting relations with Japan, South Korea and the United States, with Su-27s having insufficient capabilities to remain survivable outside North Korean airspace, and being able to potentially challenge modern fighters such as F-35s or F-15EXs only if operating alongside North Korea’s ground based air defences. For political reasons, they may thus be the only heavyweight fighters that Russia has made available.
  • Su-27s can also be delivered more quickly than waiting for new Su-30, Su-35 or Su-57 fighters to be built, which is beneficial for Pyongyang due to the risk that Russia’s position on fighter exports may change should a ceasefire in Ukraine be reached.
  • The Su-27SM2/SM3 could be considered a stopgap acquisition to familiarise the North Korean fleet with the operations of ‘4+ generation’ fighters, paving the way to acquisitions of more advanced aircraft in future such as the Su-57. The fact that Russia’s Su-27s have already seen many years of service means that they could be procured at a very low cost, and may be phased out of elite frontline units relatively quickly once newer aircraft are procured.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Replacing MiG-21/J-7 for MiG-29 could be up to 75 aircraft in terms of maintenance and jet fuel consumption.
For MiG-23 it would be 1 to 1 ratio thus 55 aircraft and MiG-19 would be 4 to 1 thus 25 at most 25 aircrafts.
North Korea could easily accommodate 200 examples of MiG-29 in service without increasing workload.
 
I wonder if it's possible to do sm/smt/upg again, i.e. retrofit new gen mig avionics into old gen airframe.

Mig has a state of the art set from the mig-35, after all.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Replacing MiG-21/J-7 for MiG-29 could be up to 75 aircraft in terms of maintenance and jet fuel consumption.
For MiG-23 it would be 1 to 1 ratio thus 55 aircraft and MiG-19 would be 4 to 1 thus 25 at most 25 aircrafts.
North Korea could easily accommodate 200 examples of MiG-29 in service without increasing workload.
Click to expand...

There are no radar or only a simple range finder on Mig-19, that will be a big increase in workload
Replacing the Mig-23 is quite reasonable as the variable geometry wings are hard to maintain and the plane is hard for inexperienced pilots to control
 
SK2 said:
There are no radar or only a simple range finder on Mig-19, that will be a big increase in workload
Click to expand...
This sentence does not make any sense as there is no factual logic behind it.
It would take more time to do maintenance on two MiG-19 than single MiG-29.
Regardless of former having no radar and few electronics compared to latter.
 
BullpupRafale said:
This sentence does not make any sense as there is no factual logic behind it.
It would take more time to do maintenance on two MiG-19 than single MiG-29.
Regardless of former having no radar and few electronics compared to latter.
Click to expand...
Tell your logic to those avionics mechanics and see if they would agree your statement.
 
BullpupRafale said:
This sentence does not make any sense as there is no factual logic behind it.
It would take more time to do maintenance on two MiG-19 than single MiG-29.
Regardless of former having no radar and few electronics compared to latter.
Click to expand...
You appear to have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance.
 
SK2 said:
Tell your logic to those avionics mechanics and see if they would agree your statement.
Click to expand...
GTX said:
You appear to have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance.
Click to expand...
Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.
Click to expand...
I am not too sure about basic mathematics here, as two planes doesn't necessarily got more parts than one different plane.
And depends on version, but early foreign users of MiG-29 did suffer a lot from down time of N019 (India and East Germany).

What I am trying to say is, it's not simple maths that two MiG-19 workload equals to one MiG-29, there are different calculations on adding new aircrafts into inventory, and one shall not assume new machines equal to 'reliable' or 'easier to maintain'.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.
Click to expand...
Ok, but what about fuel consumption?
 
BullpupRafale said:
Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.
Click to expand...
And it is clear that you have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance, especially combat platforms. It is not simply about the number of parts.
BullpupRafale said:
Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
Click to expand...
And to ge the longer life also comes with greater maintenance demand...
BullpupRafale said:
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.
Click to expand...
And your source for this is?
 
BullpupRafale said:
It should be considerably lower than two MiG-19's.
Click to expand...
Looking at SFCs:

Platform (Engines)AFC (Dry)SFC (Afterburning)
MiG-19/J-6 (RD-9/WP-6 x 2)0.96 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 1.92 lb/(lbf⋅h)1.6 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 3.2lb/(lbf⋅h)
MiG-29 (RD-33 x 2)0.77 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.54 lb/(lbf·h)1.85 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.7 lb/(lbf·h)
Su-27 (AL-31 x 2)0.78 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.56 lb/(lbf·h)1.96 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.92 lb/(lbf·h)

So better in dry/military thrust but worse in afterburner.
 
GTX said:
Looking at SFCs:

Platform (Engines)AFC (Dry)SFC (Afterburning)
MiG-19/J-6 (RD-9/WP-6 x 2)0.96 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 1.92 lb/(lbf⋅h)1.6 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 3.2lb/(lbf⋅h)
MiG-29 (RD-33 x 2)0.77 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.54 lb/(lbf·h)1.85 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.7 lb/(lbf·h)
Su-27 (AL-31 x 2)0.78 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.56 lb/(lbf·h)1.96 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.92 lb/(lbf·h)

So better in dry/military thrust but worse in afterburner.
Click to expand...
You have not considered thrust increase for each engine as to how much afterburner provides compared to dry.
RD-33 worse in afterburner because there is 62.6 percent increase in thrust compared to 27.5 percent increase for RD-9.
AL-31 predecessor AL-21 has 1.86 SFC for afterburner while only increasing thrust by 43.7 percent and 0.86 SFC for dry thrust.
AL-31 in comparison has 60 percent thrust increase with afterburner engaged thus RD-33 has most effective afterburner.
GTX said:
And it is clear that you have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance, especially combat platforms. It is not simply about the number of parts.
Click to expand...
It is clear you have no argument as evident by your replies.
GTX said:
And to ge the longer life also comes with greater maintenance demand...
Click to expand...
This is why I say that you have no argument because it is not greater maintenance if you could do basic math as turbojet engines require more frequent maintenance due to having much shorter service life. Unlike turbofans that despite more complexity due to design goal being efficiency along greater service life is part reason there is a fan for better heat dissipation by cooling down engine components.

Though superiority of turbofans is also in part because of improvements in material science and applications of such on jet engines.
GTX said:
And your source for this is?
Click to expand...
None. it is logic.

If they keep MiG-19's for example while obtaining more MiG-29's along adding on top Su-27's then they will have to expand their air force thus more resources needed, compared to simply retiring MiG-19's at two to one ratio with MiG-29. If they were to import some 200 examples of MiG-29 then they could considerably downsize their air force or maintain size and improve readiness.

Also MiG-29 at full throttle dry would consume 37 percent more fuel in operation and skyrockets to over 250 percent once afterburner thrust is engaged when compared to MiG-19. Of course former is incomparably more capable yet in terms of flight hours latter is cheaper to operate in terms of fuel cost.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom