North Korea Air Force aircraft

Geo said:
So according to this source
https://www.dailynk.com/20250528-5/- In the short term (this year) upgrade of MiG-29s (new/upgraded radars, HUDs, jammers, datalinks, BVR capability, new missiles).
- In the medium term, acquisition of "aircraft platforms capable of fighting beyond visual range" (exRussian Flankers?).
- In the long term, upgrade them with their own radars, jammers, communication and weapons systems.
It's hard to say how reliable the source is, but it all makes sense.
Click to expand...
I'm leaning more towards Chinese Flankers than Russian.
 
lancer21 said:
Unlikely because of sale and license terms which aiui specify no re-exports. Unless of course there would be a mutual agreement for such a transfer.
Click to expand...
You think that China will care about those terms?

Plus, in another couple of years, I expect Russia to not have any Flankers left to sell!
 
Scott Kenny said:
You think that China will care about those terms?

Plus, in another couple of years, I expect Russia to not have any Flankers left to sell!
Click to expand...

Yes? Because they adhered to these terms for the last decades. Why do you think their exports are drones, J-10s and JF-17s, and none of the million Flanker versions they produced? The cost of potentially upsetting their closest geopolitical ally isn't worth the pocket money of selling a couple Shenyang jets to third parties.

As for production, Russia has no plans of closing the production lines of the Su-35 and Su-30 any time soon, with the Su-57 line having been set up in parallel, same with the ungoing expansion of production. Not to mention that Russia for example has now more Su-35s than 3 years ago because they produce more than they lose to attrition or the very rare combat loss.

Older Su-27SMs are my bet, maybe up to SM3 standard. Especially given the ongoing production of the superior Su-35S. Alternatively Russia and China could agree of a transfer of J-11s or the old Chinese Su-30MKKs to the DPRK. Alternatively these would be transferred first back to Russia, refurbished, then go to North Korea. After all China isn't keen on controversy, direct arms transfer to North Korea is still somewhat controversial. Russia and North Korea have a mutual defense agreement though and deepened their cooperation, so it doesn't matter for them.

I personally think MiG-29M/M2/35 would make the most sense still, given that the DPRK is familiar with the types and generally speaking the range and payload capacity of the Flankers isn't relevant on the Korean peninsula when Seoul is literally in artillery range. But one could argue that the real cost of operating one over the other is smaller than it is on paper and the Flanker is being supported decades into the future too. While the Fulcrums are more or less dead, with the LTS sealing that fate for good upon first flight really.
 
EmoBirb said:
Yes? Because they adhered to these terms for the last decades. Why do you think their exports are drones, J-10s and JF-17s, and none of the million Flanker versions they produced? The cost of potentially upsetting their closest geopolitical ally isn't worth the pocket money of selling a couple Shenyang jets to third parties.

As for production, Russia has no plans of closing the production lines of the Su-35 and Su-30 any time soon, with the Su-57 line having been set up in parallel, same with the ungoing expansion of production. Not to mention that Russia for example has now more Su-35s than 3 years ago because they produce more than they lose to attrition or the very rare combat loss.

Older Su-27SMs are my bet, maybe up to SM3 standard. Especially given the ongoing production of the superior Su-35S. Alternatively Russia and China could agree of a transfer of J-11s or the old Chinese Su-30MKKs to the DPRK. Alternatively these would be transferred first back to Russia, refurbished, then go to North Korea. After all China isn't keen on controversy, direct arms transfer to North Korea is still somewhat controversial. Russia and North Korea have a mutual defense agreement though and deepened their cooperation, so it doesn't matter for them.

I personally think MiG-29M/M2/35 would make the most sense still, given that the DPRK is familiar with the types and generally speaking the range and payload capacity of the Flankers isn't relevant on the Korean peninsula when Seoul is literally in artillery range. But one could argue that the real cost of operating one over the other is smaller than it is on paper and the Flanker is being supported decades into the future too. While the Fulcrums are more or less dead, with the LTS sealing that fate for good upon first flight really.
Click to expand...
Good point. I'll just add:
1. Flankers can be very relevant. It's not about the Korean peninsula, but a much larger radius is important with respect to Japan (historically the biggest threat to Korea) and the US Navy strike groups. For example, theoretically, in conjunction with this - see the picture. Not to mention the much more powerful radars of the Flankers, which can mean a great benefit in mountainous terrain from an air defense point of view.
2. As for the LTS, yes. It is an ideal way for the DPRK to obtain fifth-generation technologies in the future and to obtain production know-how in the case of localization of production (to some extent) in Panghyon. For Russia, this may also be an attractive option, because it would mean a significant reduction in the cost of the entire program.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20250531_161403.jpg
    IMG_20250531_161403.jpg
    9.1 KB · Views: 42
I wonder if DPRK expects to realistically operate away from its home turf (preferably closer to Chinese border) on war footing. Launch one-way cruise missiles, sure. But few valuable fighters?

South Korea and Japan effectively box north korean air to the Mig Alley area of operations(and maybe even CONOPS), for any serious life expectancy. Even mig alley is reliant on wide deployment of new DPRK defenses(to a point where bluefor SEAD capability will at least start encountering inconveniences) and China's position.

As one would expect from the name, mig alley is perfectly fine with mig range. I.e. long-ranged, bigger, hard to hide fighters may have limited ad bellum use. After the opening of hostilities - i don't think so.
 
Ainen said:
I wonder if DPRK expects to realistically operate away from its home turf (preferably closer to Chinese border) on war footing. Launch one-way cruise missiles, sure. But few valuable fighters?

South Korea and Japan effectively box north korean air to the Mig Alley area of operations(and maybe even CONOPS), for any serious life expectancy. Even mig alley is reliant on wide deployment of new DPRK defenses(to a point where bluefor SEAD capability will at least start encountering inconveniences) and China's position.

As one would expect from the name, mig alley is perfectly fine with mig range. I.e. long-ranged, bigger, hard to hide fighters may have limited ad bellum use. After the opening of hostilities - i don't think so.
Click to expand...

That's what I think too, they'd utilize the smaller and easier to transport MiGs to disperse them and operate them for hit-and-run tactics in ambushes. Similar to how Vietnam operated on several occasions. Popping up when enemy aviation is in bound and clearly targeting for example SRBM launchers or artillery positions.

I think the DPRK is well aware that they're better served with more and better SAM systems, land or seaborne, and missile technology in general. So aircraft would have to play a part in that picture, as point defense interceptors and ambush predators. And I believe that Fulcrums are suited for that and a modern MiG-29 or even a MiG-35 poses a significant threat to Japanese and Korean F-15s, F-16/F-2s and depending on how an ambush is set up, even an unsuspecting F-35 when the MiG can utilize it's ability to track and shoot in the IR spectrum.

Arguably, North Korea is the ideal place for MiGs these days, while vast Russia never really was.
 
EmoBirb said:
Yes? Because they adhered to these terms for the last decades. Why do you think their exports are drones, J-10s and JF-17s, and none of the million Flanker versions they produced? The cost of potentially upsetting their closest geopolitical ally isn't worth the pocket money of selling a couple Shenyang jets to third parties.

As for production, Russia has no plans of closing the production lines of the Su-35 and Su-30 any time soon, with the Su-57 line having been set up in parallel, same with the ungoing expansion of production. Not to mention that Russia for example has now more Su-35s than 3 years ago because they produce more than they lose to attrition or the very rare combat loss.

Older Su-27SMs are my bet, maybe up to SM3 standard. Especially given the ongoing production of the superior Su-35S. Alternatively Russia and China could agree of a transfer of J-11s or the old Chinese Su-30MKKs to the DPRK. Alternatively these would be transferred first back to Russia, refurbished, then go to North Korea. After all China isn't keen on controversy, direct arms transfer to North Korea is still somewhat controversial. Russia and North Korea have a mutual defense agreement though and deepened their cooperation, so it doesn't matter for them.

I personally think MiG-29M/M2/35 would make the most sense still, given that the DPRK is familiar with the types and generally speaking the range and payload capacity of the Flankers isn't relevant on the Korean peninsula when Seoul is literally in artillery range. But one could argue that the real cost of operating one over the other is smaller than it is on paper and the Flanker is being supported decades into the future too. While the Fulcrums are more or less dead, with the LTS sealing that fate for good upon first flight really.
Click to expand...

Sometimes (actually quite often), countries are not solely choosing an aircraft on its capabilities, there's also logistical, strategic/political, economical considerations.
An Su-30 or Su-35 might still be appealing because MiG does not have a very positive record on long term support and sustainment, even as a part of UAC. In contrast the Flankers (both the Russian and Chinese flavors) are in widespread use and will be around for a while.
 
Mig-35s to the DPRK ....
Interesting Russian article concerning the reasons for a possible supply to the DPRK of the North
Please find attached the self-translated English version and the original version, as some references in the translation may be difficult to understand.
There is also a passage in the article that surprised me, when the author in pointing out the aircraft currently in the DPRK's force mentioned the SU-20 “Plus a bit of Su-20, this is an export variant of the Su-17”, an aircraft that had never been mentioned as being exported to North Korea (who knows if this is a typo or if it is true), however the article as a whole is certainly interesting and the Mig-35 could be an option for the DPRK which is already very familiar with its predecessor the Mig-29 , moreover as it has done in the past with this one the North Korean aviation industry could participate in the assembly-
https://en.topwar.ru/267544-mig-35-vozvraschenie-chansu.html?utm_referrer=topwar.ru
https://topwar.ru/267544-mig-35-vozvraschenie-chansu.html?utm_referrer=topwar.ru
 
sahureka said:
Mig-35s to the DPRK ....
Interesting Russian article concerning the reasons for a possible supply to the DPRK of the North
[...] however the article as a whole is certainly interesting and the Mig-35 could be an option for the DPRK which is already very familiar with its predecessor the Mig-29 , moreover as it has done in the past with this one the North Korean aviation industry could participate in the assembly
Click to expand...

The MiG-35 makes a strong case for the DPRK, as we all agree on especially due to familiarity.

However, at this point one has to ask, given the age of the MiG-35 and the ongoing development of the LTS, if it wouldn't be actually smarter for the DPRK to invest into a smaller pool of genuinely far more capable single engine aircraft. The ROK fields F-35s and soon KF-21s, the MiG-35 may simply not be adequate to face such threats. And while a total aviation arms race doesn't make sense for the DPRK, as in there is no reason to attempt to outdo the ROKAF, it may be more reasonable to at least go with the most capable aircraft available in the near term, which would be LTS (or as most know it, Su-75).

And while unlikely due to Chinas far more cautious and unwelcoming attitude towards the DPRK, the JF-17 would arguably the most suitable last generation supplement for the more advanced stealth fighters. Given their cheap, multirole, single engine nature. And the Block IIIs are certainly capable. There would obviously need to be a way to integrate Russian, Chinese and indigenous missiles into each of these to make logistics not the same kind of headache as seen in countries like India or Indonesia.

If I was Russia I'd push LTS anyway as it would reduce the cost for potential Russian orders as well. Which is the cheap aircraft the author of the linked article thirsts for, the MiG-35 has comparatively little reason to exist in a force where the Su-35 does everything it does but better and with already established logistics networks.
 
sahureka said:
Mig-35s to the DPRK ....
Interesting Russian article concerning the reasons for a possible supply to the DPRK of the North
Please find attached the self-translated English version and the original version, as some references in the translation may be difficult to understand.
There is also a passage in the article that surprised me, when the author in pointing out the aircraft currently in the DPRK's force mentioned the SU-20 “Plus a bit of Su-20, this is an export variant of the Su-17”, an aircraft that had never been mentioned as being exported to North Korea (who knows if this is a typo or if it is true), however the article as a whole is certainly interesting and the Mig-35 could be an option for the DPRK which is already very familiar with its predecessor the Mig-29 , moreover as it has done in the past with this one the North Korean aviation industry could participate in the assembly-
https://en.topwar.ru/267544-mig-35-vozvraschenie-chansu.html?utm_referrer=topwar.ru
https://topwar.ru/267544-mig-35-vozvraschenie-chansu.html?utm_referrer=topwar.ru
Click to expand...

The article is full of emotion and contains more wishful thinking than rational arguments (it somewhat resembles the output of that guy who calls himself “Military Watch Magazine”).

If North Korea needs anything in the short term, it's dozens of Fulcrum airframes (whether 9.12, 9.13, or 9.41 doesn't really matter). They need to understand and learn everything about Zhuk-AM radars—how they work, how they're manufactured, how to integrate them with their developing ARH MRAAMs... for example.

Looking at the report on KJU’s visit to KnAAZ, one can’t help but feel that most of the NKoreans’ attention is focused precisely there. It's unlikely they’ll acquire Su-35S (for reasons far beyond just sanctions), but they could reciprocally obtain a limited number of older, maintained Flankers (ranging from Su-27P to SM/SM3, and even Su-30M2), and eventually—with Sukhoi’s assistance—upgrade them to something on the "level of the J-11BG". That would make sense, because they would gain: 1) an effective air defense platform (once integrated with their Il-76 AEW&C, Pyoljji 1-2 systems, and Choe Hyon-class destroyers), and 2) an airborne launch platform for long-range land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles. All this in the medium term.

As for the long-term outlook, that remains an open question, with many “what if” alternatives on the table. The most logical one seems to be localized production (of components or even final assembly) of the Su-75. That would be highly beneficial for both sides—one side would gain the opportunity to significantly reduce the program’s cost, diversify production of a strategically significant asset, and utilize backup infrastructure in the highly protected underground complex at Panghyon; while the other side would gain the technology and know-how to manufacture a very modern aircraft (designed with an emphasis on open architecture) and the aircraft itself.

In the realm of wild speculation and wishful thinking, there’s the possibility of transferring some unrealized project that has remained under long-term development (and therefore remains classified). One such project is the E-721, which could serve as a viable counter to the new stealth aircraft of South Korea and Japan. It’s more of a utopian idea—but who knows.
 
Heres another interesting pic.
We can see something being carried on the inner pylons of both the mig29 & su25
Some sort of EW pod?
G6_s7Yxa0AAnz_w
 
At the 8th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea in January 2021, tasks were set for the upcoming five-year plan concerning development in 5 areas:

- solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles
- HGVs
- reconnaissance satellites
- reconnaissance UAVs with a range of 500 km+
- nuclear-powered submarines.

The 9th Congress is approaching.
What will the tasks be for the next five-year plan?
 
Geo said:
At the 8th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea in January 2021, tasks were set for the upcoming five-year plan concerning development in 5 areas:

- solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles
- HGVs
- reconnaissance satellites
- reconnaissance UAVs with a range of 500 km+
- nuclear-powered submarines.

The 9th Congress is approaching.
What will the tasks be for the next five-year plan?
Click to expand...
Aside from a cruiser for the Navy, I think it will be the five-year plan to strengthen manned military aviation.
 
The key question is whether North Korea is running a program for the development of modern engines for manned aircraft, including turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines.
Doubts about NK's ability to manage this could be very misleading, considering the development of modern powerpacks with powerful (1200 hp+) engines for tanks, COGAG systems for destroyers and - especially - nuclear propulsion for a new submarine. The last one in particular is an extremely challenging and complex task (and it must be clear to anyone with a brain that using retired reactors from Soviet submarines is utter nonsense).
So whether it becomes public or not, the next five-year plan will undoubtedly focus on this area as well.
As for the appearance of future aircraft, rather than new designs we can expect more or less accurate copies of existing models, since this allows saving many months or even years of aerodynamic design and testing — just as is the case with the Saetbyol-4 and Saetbyol-9 UAVs.
 
It seems they're also working on something in the aviation engine department.
From images, it appears they're building a clone of the Allison 250-C20B/Rolls-Royce M250.
But to power the Saetbyol 9 UAV/UCAV, a more powerful version would need to be used.
With this engine, they could also build a light training aircraft (in Italy, it powered the SF-260TP), but it could also be used to re-engine the Yak-18A/CJ-5. Or, using two engines, they could build something similar to the Harbin Y-12 for light military transport and passengers (pilots and about 15 passengers).
For a more powerful turboprop engine, Russia could soon come to the rescue with its new engines, and together with Iran, they could collaborate to build the Simorgh version, produced in Iran (currently two prototypes, one of which has already been flight-tested) with the AN-140's rear ramp.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnHU0l3k00
 
Translation:
Il-28 Beagle/H-5 (Hongzha-5)... It is speculated to be capable of carrying AGP-250 guided bombs in addition to unguided bombs, as well as 金星 3 air-to-ship missiles and rocket-propelled torpedoes. The tail gun has been removed for weight reduction, and terrain-following radar and a UHF antenna are also equipped.
https://twitter.com/x/status/2007582300754620743
 
Sineva said:
Translation:
Il-28 Beagle/H-5 (Hongzha-5)... It is speculated to be capable of carrying AGP-250 guided bombs in addition to unguided bombs, as well as 金星 3 air-to-ship missiles and rocket-propelled torpedoes. The tail gun has been removed for weight reduction, and terrain-following radar and a UHF antenna are also equipped.
https://twitter.com/x/status/2007582300754620743
Click to expand...
Are they being converted into drones?
 
Gwalker18 said:
Are they being converted into drones?
Click to expand...
I would tend to doubt it.
One possibility could be modernizing some of the fleet as stand off weapons carriers for cruise missiles & aero-ballistics.Its range even with its old turbojets is okay,plus its got an internal bomb bay as well,now imagine it reengined with compact modern turbofans & modern avionics.
 
Another drone demonstration is all good, though i hope to see something more exciting, like at least the MiGs firing the new missiles, or even some new DPRKAF birds that are being repeatedly rumoured lately.
 
lancer21 said:
Another drone demonstration is all good, though i hope to see something more exciting, like at least the MiGs firing the new missiles, or even some new DPRKAF birds that are being repeatedly rumoured lately.
Click to expand...
"SI Analytics also reported that the jets stationed at Panghyon have recently undergone maintenance at a factory attached to the base."

I think the results of the comprehensive modernization of the MiG-29 will be presented.
Whether that part of the presentation will be public or not is another question.
 
lancer21 said:
Another drone demonstration is all good, though i hope to see something more exciting
Click to expand...
From my perspective the biggest sensation would be the unveiling of the completed Saetbyol-4 powered by a domestically produced turbofan.
We shall see.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom