North Korea indigenous aircraft

[lordroel]

What if North Korea decides to plan and manufacture an indigenous fighter/attack aircraft.I think it would seemed like this:

Getting the engine would be a problem, even today if i am right, China needs to buy Russian engines for its fighters.

 

[supergaleb]

Getting the engine would be a problem, even today if i am right, China needs to buy Russian engines for its fighters.

China buys Russian engines for some of their fighters because they can produce airframes, avionics and armarment faster than they could produce huge jet engines to fit them and for lesser projects oriented at export they prefer to have Ukrainian and Russian that are readily available.

As for North Korea, it is known that they are able to produce RD-9 turbojet since at least early 1980s, RD-9 is used in Mig-19 / J-6 along Yak-25 and Q-5 while also Su-25 prototype. They recently tested land attack cruise missile with 1500 kilometer range and boasted about producing turbofan engine, longer range than Iranian LACM that is using R95-300 engine and demonstrated 1200 kilometer range while Chinese LACM has at least 1500 kilometer range and probably TRDD-50 equivalent engine.

 

[lordroel]

Getting the engine would be a problem, even today if i am right, China needs to buy Russian engines for its fighters.

China buys Russian engines for some of their fighters because they can produce airframes, avionics and armarment faster than they could produce huge jet engines to fit them and for lesser projects oriented at export they prefer to have Ukrainian and Russian that are readily available.

As for North Korea, it is known that they are able to produce RD-9 turbojet since at least early 1980s, RD-9 is used in Mig-19 / J-6 along Yak-25 and Q-5 while also Su-25 prototype. They recently tested land attack cruise missile with 1500 kilometer range and boasted about producing turbofan engine, longer range than Iranian LACM that is using R95-300 engine and demonstrated 1200 kilometer range while Chinese LACM has at least 1500 kilometer range and probably TRDD-50 equivalent engine.

So why have we not seen a North Korean clone of, lets say the Mig-29, is it because North Korea knows that in a war the air force will be outnumber and mostly used for defense while balletic missiles and cruise missiles can be used for offensive warfare.

 

[Hood]

They recently tested land attack cruise missile with 1500 kilometer range and boasted about producing turbofan engine,

A cruise missile turbofan engine only needs to keep running as long as it takes to cover the 1,500km, it needs to work for probably less than 3 hours. Its expendable, you don't need to worry too much about quality control at all.
Smaller turbofans for cruise missiles are not super advanced, nations like South Africa for example were able to develop extensive series of such engines relatively inexpensively.

A turbofan for a fighter needs far better quality control and service life of tens of thousands of hours. North Korea would have built its own lighter aircraft, trainers or helicopters by now if it really had a working aero engine industry but instead they are modding up old An-2s as UAVs.
The RD-9 is a museum piece, they were building them in the 1980s when the design was already over 30 years old!

 

[CV12Hornet]

And in fact the Soviet R-15 engine demonstrated exactly that problem. The engine had been originally designed for an expendable Mach 2 drone, and required considerable design work both to have acceptable (by Soviet standards, even) reliability and to be able to handle the variable speeds of a fighter rather than the constant cruise of the drone.

Fighter engines have not gotten any less sophisticated, and the need for long service lives has only increased.

 

[supergaleb]

So why have we not seen a North Korean clone of, lets say the Mig-29, is it because North Korea knows that in a war the air force will be outnumber and mostly used for defense while balletic missiles and cruise missiles can be used for offensive warfare.

They invest in ballistic missiles and cruise missiles because it is most cost effective and most potent way to increase military power for them at the moment as those will be most potent weapons when ever if ever Korean War continues without any restriction, all out war.

We don't know capabilities of their defense industry as a whole, we can only guess and assume on basis of what they have been willing to show and guess if they could do this or that based on what they have achieved that could be applicable to manufacturing of aircrafts.

A cruise missile turbofan engine only needs to keep running as long as it takes to cover the 1,500km, it needs to work for probably less than 3 hours. Its expendable, you don't need to worry too much about quality control at all.
Smaller turbofans for cruise missiles are not super advanced, nations like South Africa for example were able to develop extensive series of such engines relatively inexpensively.

A turbofan for a fighter needs far better quality control and service life of tens of thousands of hours. North Korea would have built its own lighter aircraft, trainers or helicopters by now if it really had a working aero engine industry but instead they are modding up old An-2s as UAVs.
The RD-9 is a museum piece, they were building them in the 1980s when the design was already over 30 years old!

First of all there is no evidence that North Korea is modding up An-2's as UAVs and you are likely confusing them with Azerbaijan or you saw North Korean modifying An-2s with terrain radar for their special forces to fly as low as possible during night and heavy fog.

You know what this assertion reminds me about? That people in general when comes to North Korea act like they know something when they really know absolutely nothing along when I stumble upon idiocy such as North Korea has American GAU-19 gatling when it is their indigenous 6 barrel gas recoil operated rotary heavy machine gun in 14.5x114mm that has nearly twice kinetic energy as 12.7x99mm.

As for their aero engine industry, we don't know much except very few details that I have mentioned while you choose to grasp straws by essentially asserting that they can't do this or that simply because I have not made assertion that they could do something else too.

North Korea apparently acquired Tu-143 UAV drone from Syria in 1994 along in 2012 it was reported that they acquired MQM-107 with oddly specific being 107D alleged from Syria when far likely source being Egypt while in Syria they directly got hands on the examples though another possibility of it being HESA Karrar as it has same engine as MQM-107D.

Tu-143 is reusable and has TR3-117 turbojet engine that generates 5.8 kN of thrust and Russia later produced improved model 243 with TR3-117A pushing 6.3 kN while MQM-107D is disposable with Tri-60-5 outputting 4.4 kN. Same year North Korea unveiled reconnaissance and suicide variant of the UAV, year later during exercise the suicide variant was used.

North Korea tested their clone of Kh-35 in 2014 that flew 130 kilometers and improved model in 2017 that flew 240 kilometers while their land attack cruise missile tested previous month flew 1500 kilometers that is eleven time increase in span of just 7 years that gives indication about how serious they are involving cruise missiles and compact jet engines, they stated LACM flew little over 2 hours.

Kh-35 has R95-300/ MS-400 outputting 4 kN while Kh-35U for reference has TRDD-50 and it is possible that Iran may have supplied technical data of analysis or even sole example of TRDD-50 variant used on Kh-101(Kh-55 derivative) that crashed in Iran in 2015.

As for RD-9, variants of it were used for K-10S along prototype or initial version of Tu-141 and for Su-25 prototype hence that museum piece has a lot of potential considering K-10S is supersonic anti-ship cruise missile and consider that if North Korea made such class of ASCM powered by RD-9 with modern sensor suite that their Kh-35U equivalent with thermal seeker being used in terminal stage.

We don't know what else they may produce, we can speculate on basis of what they have and since they became capable of producing RD-9 turbojet engine in early 1980s thus it would be wise that we don't assume that they didn't reverse engineer and produce more relevant jet engines around 40 years after they started producing RD-9. So who knows, maybe right now they produce R-25-300 ...

And in fact the Soviet R-15 engine demonstrated exactly that problem. The engine had been originally designed for an expendable Mach 2 drone, and required considerable design work both to have acceptable (by Soviet standards, even) reliability and to be able to handle the variable speeds of a fighter rather than the constant cruise of the drone.

Fighter engines have not gotten any less sophisticated, and the need for long service lives has only increased.

It doesn't change fact that they gain knowledge and experience that is applicable to larger engines by applying what they learned.

 

[DWG]

production of turbopumps for rocket engines is not entirely separate from jet engines

Superficially, but there's likely a profound difference in the blade metallurgy you need for a couple of minutes of rocket boost with continuous acceleration longitudinal to the vehicle, and the blade metallurgy you need for a couple of hours of flight with sudden acceleration transients coming in from a variety of directions in an aircraft manouvering under high-gee. Amd especially if you want the ability to go out and do it again tomorrow, and the day after, etc. This particularly applies if the rumours a considerable chunk of NK rocket technology actually came from the Ukraine are true, as it may mean NK has the knowledge to manufacture turbopumps, but not necessarily to design them, and their metallurgy, from scratch.

The difficulty China has had reaching similar standards to Russian engines, even with an export relationship and an existing jet engine manufacturing capability, illustrate that there is not simply a logical progression from one techology to the other.

 

[CV12Hornet]

As for RD-9, variants of it were used for K-10S along prototype or initial version of Tu-141 and for Su-25 prototype hence that museum piece has a lot of potential considering K-10S is supersonic anti-ship cruise missile and consider that if North Korea made such class of ASCM powered by RD-9 with modern sensor suite that their Kh-35U equivalent with thermal seeker being used in terminal stage.

We don't know what else they may produce, we can speculate on basis of what they have and since they became capable of producing RD-9 turbojet engine in early 1980s thus it would be wise that we don't assume that they didn't reverse engineer and produce more relevant jet engines around 40 years after they started producing RD-9. So who knows, maybe right now they produce R-25-300 ...

The K-10S is an antique of a missile dating back to the 1950s, which doesn't speak well to the viability of its engine in the modern day. The Hound Dog missile was a contemporary, also supersonic, and its J52 engine is long since out of production with the remaining engines on aircraft either twenty years retired or else replaced with more modern engines.

The fact that the Soviets did, in fact, replace the RD-9 on the Su-25 prototype almost fifty years ago also doesn't speak well to the current viability of the RD-9.

As for the R-25, that's no spring chicken of an engine either. It was first run in 1971, and is wholly inferior not only to current engines, but also last-gen engines like the RB199, F404, and RD-33.

 

[supergaleb]

Superficially, but there's likely a profound difference in the blade metallurgy you need for a couple of minutes of rocket boost with continuous acceleration longitudinal to the vehicle, and the blade metallurgy you need for a couple of hours of flight with sudden acceleration transients coming in from a variety of directions in an aircraft manouvering under high-gee. Amd especially if you want the ability to go out and do it again tomorrow, and the day after, etc. This particularly applies if the rumours a considerable chunk of NK rocket technology actually came from the Ukraine are true, as it may mean NK has the knowledge to manufacture turbopumps, but not necessarily to design them, and their metallurgy, from scratch.

The difficulty China has had reaching similar standards to Russian engines, even with an export relationship and an existing jet engine manufacturing capability, illustrate that there is not simply a logical progression from one techology to the other.

Ukraine and Russia both made it very political about from whom allegedly North Korea acquired covertly information about liquid fuel rocket technology involving RD-250 among other things, no solid evidence ever released of any of their rocket scientists from either country coming to North Korea unlike when through proxy purchase of Foxtrot and Golf class submarines as scrap metal in 1990s.

North Korea on their own reverse engineered SCUD-B/R-17 from examples acquired from Egypt in late 1970s and over the years it went from SCUD-B to SCUD-D span of 30 years along has developed upscaled SCUD in every way which is Hwasong-7 MRBM.

Back to RD-250, they initially made de-rated turbopump with single nozzle and four verniers connected to turbbopump with verniers being derived from R-27 SLBM which were used on Hwasong-12 IRBM and Hwasong-14 ICBM while Hwasong-15 it was complete RD-250 with added feature of both rocket nozzles being gimballed, that is each can swivel like RD-180 along according to calculations that length of rocket boost was 190 seconds that is more than 120 or 130 second that was standard for RD-250 on R-36 ICBM and Tsyklon-3 SLV.

Again about engines and China, they went straight for largest size for fighter jets when Europeans stuck with something similar in size to RD-33 and China did not develop turbofan of comparable size and complexity for RD-33 to learn from such. No shit they have issues.

Though that is now more or less solved and now from single engine J-10 to stealth fighter J-20 same jet engine is used...

The K-10S is an antique of a missile dating back to the 1950s, which doesn't speak well to the viability of its engine in the modern day. The Hound Dog missile was a contemporary, also supersonic, and its J52 engine is long since out of production with the remaining engines on aircraft either twenty years retired or else replaced with more modern engines.

The fact that the Soviets did, in fact, replace the RD-9 on the Su-25 prototype almost fifty years ago also doesn't speak well to the current viability of the RD-9.

As for the R-25, that's no spring chicken of an engine either. It was first run in 1971, and is wholly inferior not only to current engines, but also last-gen engines like the RB199, F404, and RD-33.

The fact is your reply doesn't make sense considering what I wrote and I suggest you to read again my reply, in case you are not able to understand it even after reading it again then I simply suggest you to not bother replying as it would again not make any sense.

I did not say that North Korea should build K-10S missile as I have stated that they could produce equivalent with better electronics considering they developed and produced equivalent to Kh-35U and that we know they can produce RD-9 turbojet engine thus they have what they need to design, test and produce a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile and possibly also additional land attack role.

China continues to use RD-9 for their Q-5 ground attack jet aircraft and there are other jet engines from around same time that are used to this day including J85 on F-5s that still fly to this very day while single RD-9 is roughly comparable to two J85 engines used by F-5.

I did not comment anything about R-25 directly as I focused on your comment about jet engine designed for cruise missiles is difficult to adapt for use by fighter jets while R-25 is huge, those small jet engines are not viable for that role and I have stated that none the less they could learn something useful that can be applicable to larger jet engines by trying on small scale then gradually scale it up.

Anyway since it is known that Iran sends own rocket scientists to North Korea where they jointly develop some stuff since things like Paektusan showed up in Iran as Safir, Unha-3 as Simorgh and Hwasong-10 as Khorramshahr that I wonder if it goes other way around involving jet engine technology since Iran reverse engineered J85 turbojet and FJ33 turbofan engine with rumors of Iran attempting to reverse engineer RD-33 which is bonkers if true as it is great leap like Chinese did when developing WS-10 turbofan engine.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Bluntly, the ability to produce cruise missiles is not an indication of ability to produce a decent fighter. Which is what we're talking about, not a supersonic antiship missile. As for more specific points...

China continues to use RD-9 for their Q-5 ground attack jet aircraft and there are other jet engines from around same time that are used to this day including J85 on F-5s that still fly to this very day while single RD-9 is roughly comparable to two J85 engines used by F-5.

And the F-5 is not a competitive fighter anymore, what's your point?

The Q-5 is retired, according to every public source I can find. Also, no, a single RD-9 is not comparable to two J85s. A single RD-9 is less thrust (6600/8300 versus 7000/10,000) for more weight (1600 lbs versus 1280 lbs) and fuel consumption (1.02 lb/(h·lbf) versus .96).

 

[Hood]

As for their aero engine industry, we don't know much except very few details that I have mentioned while you choose to grasp straws by essentially asserting that they can't do this or that simply because I have not made assertion that they could do something else too.

Exactly, we have almost no evidence of any indigenous aircraft industry at all.

A lack of indigenous piston-engined basic trainers, jet-powered advanced trainers, light STOL aircraft, turboprop-powered passenger aircraft, jet-powered passenger aircraft, military transports or helicopters.
In most cases these have been acquired by nefarious means (P-750s and MD-500s) which suggests that the air force has received relatively low priority - whether by design to focus industrial efforts elsewhere and air force doctrine or by political protocol that places the army's needs higher. There is some effort at upgrading but no wholesale modernisation and buying new airframes is probably too expensive.

MiG fighter pilot hours have historically been low due to shortages of spare parts and fuel, in some cases sortie rates seem to have improved and several MiG-29s are still operational (even keeping the older MiG teen series operational must be a tough job) but whether suggests that NK has managed to produce its own engine spares in sufficient quantities or buy them is unknown.

Its probable that the Nongo-class missile boats and Nampo-class corvettes rely on diesel rather than gas turbine engines, which again suggests that high-end gas turbine technology is not being pursued at this time.

There is no denying that NK's expertise has been channelled into rocketry and missiles for much better returns on their investments in these areas.

 

[supergaleb]

Bluntly, the ability to produce cruise missiles is not an indication of ability to produce a decent fighter.

Yes and why do you say that? Did I anywhere assert it to be the case? No.

You are framing it as such when I stated what is know about what they achieved and it certainly was not focused on jet engines for cruise missiles as you and other choose to grasp straws about that while ignoring other elements besides jet engines such as ability to produce passive electronically scanned array radars such as 30N6E and 48N6 equivalent surface to air missile along recently testing new surface to air missile reminiscent of 9M96E2 with addition of large solid fuel booster thus they have decent radar and anti-air missile technology.

Which is what we're talking about, not a supersonic antiship missile.

We? No, just you grasping straws by focusing on one thing because you don't have good argument.

And the F-5 is not a competitive fighter anymore, what's your point?

Why are you focusing on F-5 when you were talking about viability of RD-9? Because I pointed out that J85 is still in use while being still in use just as is when Chinese produced RD-9 designated WP-6 with JJ-6 and Q-5 still in service as decommission process is gradual.

That is my point when you complained about RD-9 not being viable while its still being used just like J85.

As for F-5 when you mention about it not being competitive fighter, do you mean in original configuration made by its manufacturer or localized upgrades since Brazil arranged extensive upgrades of F-5s that those can use Derby BVRAAM and they outlived Mirage 2000.

The Q-5 is retired, according to every public source I can find.

I did not say it wasn't retired and just because it is retired does not mean that it is not being used.

Retired in 2017 and there were still 300 examples being used in 2019.

Also, no, a single RD-9 is not comparable to two J85s. A single RD-9 is less thrust (6600/8300 versus 7000/10,000) for more weight (1600 lbs versus 1280 lbs) and fuel consumption (1.02 lb/(h·lbf) versus .96).

RD-9 is 25% heavier than two J85-GE-21 combined.

Two J85-GE-21 combined produce 6 percent more thrust without afterburner and RD-9 consumes 6 percent more.

RD-9 when using afterburners consumes (1.66 lb/h·lbf) per kN.

J85-GE-5 on T-38 Talon for example consumes (0.57 lb/h·lbf) per kN and (1.34 lb/h·lbf) per kN using afterburners.

Apply that 2.3 fold increase to J85-GE-21 used on F-5E Tiger II and that would be (2.23 lb/h·lbf) per kN when using afterburners.

J85-GE-21 would be consuming 34% more per kN with afterburners while generating 20% more afterburner thrust than RD-9.

Exactly, we have almost no evidence of any indigenous aircraft industry at all.

Large suicide drone using same airframe as UAV.


Some UAVs development...

 

[CV12Hornet]

Yes and why do you say that? Did I anywhere assert it to be the case? No.

You are framing it as such when I stated what is know about what they achieved and it certainly was not focused on jet engines for cruise missiles as you and other choose to grasp straws about that while ignoring other elements besides jet engines such as ability to produce passive electronically scanned array radars such as 30N6E and 48N6 equivalent surface to air missile along recently testing new surface to air missile reminiscent of 9M96E2 with addition of large solid fuel booster thus they have decent radar and anti-air missile technology.

Then why the hell do you keep talking about cruise missiles when this is a thread about the North Koreans developing a fighter? I assumed you were in some way tying it to fighter development, because otherwise this is extremely off-topic.

If I'm ignoring something, it's because it's either not relevant, in the case of the SAMs, or I've already conceded it in the case of the PESA radar. See, this is my point: why on earth is their ability to develop a surface to air missile relevant to their ability to develop a fighter? It's not.

Why are you focusing on F-5 when you were talking about viability of RD-9? Because I pointed out that J85 is still in use while being still in use just as is when Chinese produced RD-9 designated WP-6 with JJ-6 and Q-5 still in service as decommission process is gradual.

That is my point when you complained about RD-9 not being viable while its still being used just like J85.

As for F-5 when you mention about it not being competitive fighter, do you mean in original configuration made by its manufacturer or localized upgrades since Brazil arranged extensive upgrades of F-5s that those can use Derby BVRAAM and they outlived Mirage 2000.

I'm focusing on the F-5 precisely because you pointed out that the J85 is in use - it is in use on a fighter that's not competitive in air to air and is on the way out. As for the J-6 and Q-5, well, I'll admit to being a little hasty in declaring the Q-5 out of service, but the J-6 definitely is (pg.15), and this brings me back to my original point: just because the engine is being used does not mean it's a viable fighter engine. The Q-5 is old, a dedicated ground attacker, being shoved out of service as fast as the Chinese can afford to do so, and was produced at a time when China couldn't do any better than modify the MiG-19. None of this points to it being useful for a current fighter project.

And I mean both - Brazil's F-5s are rocking a small pulse-doppler radar set and frankly would get eaten alive by any sort remotely modern fighter. They've outlasted Brazil's Mirage 2000 fleet not on any sort of technical merits, but because the Mirage 2000s were hand-me-downs from the French Air Force (And thus old) and the maintenance contract with Dassault was about to run out.

RD-9 is 25% heavier than two J85-GE-21 combined.

Two J85-GE-21 combined produce 6 percent more thrust without afterburner and RD-9 consumes 6 percent more.

RD-9 when using afterburners consumes (1.66 lb/h·lbf) per kN.

J85-GE-5 on T-38 Talon for example consumes (0.57 lb/h·lbf) per kN and (1.34 lb/h·lbf) per kN using afterburners.

Apply that 2.3 fold increase to J85-GE-21 used on F-5E Tiger II and that would be (2.23 lb/h·lbf) per kN when using afterburners.

J85-GE-21 would be consuming 34% more per kN with afterburners while generating 20% more afterburner thrust than RD-9.

You have zero evidence that that 2.3-fold increase carries over the -21 model. And even if it did that doesn't change all the rest of the advantages the twin J85 setup has over a single RD-9.

 

[KonTim]

Some sources indicates that North Korean MIG-29 fleet is growing by assembling imported parts from Russia. These sources claims that the North Koreans have managed to locally produced improved versions of MIG-29 by a rate of five aircrafts per two years for the past 25 yeras. It seems that North Korea MIG-29 fleet numbers more than 100 samples(36 of the initial order from USSR in 1988+ 12 MIG-29S imported from Kazhakstan along with 70 MIG-21bis in 1992 + 60+ planes locally being assembled). That means that North Korea has managed to seriously developed her aerospace industry so the designing and production of an indigenously fighter aircraft must be considered as likely.

Is North Korea’s MiG-29 Fleet Growing?

License production contracts with Russia and technical assistance deals may be strengthening North Korea’s air force.

thediplomat.com

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That means that North Korea has managed to seriously developed her aerospace industry so the designing and production of an indigenously fighter aircraft must be considered as likely.

Is North Korea’s MiG-29 Fleet Growing?

License production contracts with Russia and technical assistance deals may be strengthening North Korea’s air force.

thediplomat.com

Erm... no? You forgot to apply Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

The MiG-29s only seem to be based at Sunchon AB along with the Su-25s with 2 battalions of each type. Serious estimates suggest 18-35 MiG-29s (satellite evidence exists for 31 Su-25s being flyable and 12 MiG-29s). Licence production of the MiG-29 most likely was assembly from knock-down kits supplied by the USSR, and I'm not convinced there is any evidence that "the designing and production of an indigenously fighter aircraft must be considered as likely".

Most countries start with something simple like a piston trainer and work up from there. India, Turkey and South Korea all demonstrated wide capabilities in general aerospace, large quantities of licensed builds, and engaged major partnerships with US and/or European industry to get to the point where they could design an indigenous fighter. North Korea at best could aspire to be an Iran.

 

[Dilandu]

North Korea doesn't seems to be interested much in refitting their air force. The possible reason is, that they realize, that attempts to produce ingenious combat aircraft would consume a lot of time and resources - and would not bring significant advantages. The aerial superiority of potential adversaries is just too great, and North Korea territory is too small to provide for sufficient aircraft dispersion. So, they invested mostly in missiles, which are just more cost-efficient.

 

[supergaleb]

Then why the hell do you keep talking about cruise missiles when this is a thread about the North Koreans developing a fighter? I assumed you were in some way tying it to fighter development, because otherwise this is extremely off-topic.

That is the problem, you assume too much by going with reading between lines attitude to assert something I didn't.

It is loosely tied to fighter development, issue is how you try to portray it as direct when it is not as you miss my point or are disingenuous.

When I mentioned cruise missiles, it is not about fighter development as you jumped to that conclusion as it is about their defense industry and technology used that in current state would not be use of for development of fighter jet thus I stated contextually that should be very obvious to you that by continuing to further develop and advance related technologies that at some point will be of use for fighter jet.

Why don't we look at Iran for example, at first they developed manufacturing capacity to reproduce various small turbojet engines for cruise missiles and they continued to invest in capability to produce jet engines which resulted in them being able to domestically make J85-GE-21 turbojet engine that is much larger and more complex than Tri-60 series used in Iranian cruise missiles and target drones.

Iran has reverse engineered FJ33 that is downscaled older FJ44 thus Iran has option to invest resources in upscaling it to FJ44 then attempt to reach performance of FJ44-4 that is larger than and as heavy as J85-GE-21 while providing same dry thrust at the half fuel consumption.

Then finally they would need to develop afterburner component for it and considering it being turbofan and diameter of FJ44 that thrust from afterburning should be considerably greater than 22kN that J85-GE-21 is capable of producing, at least 30 kN seems reasonable.

If I'm ignoring something, it's because it's either not relevant, in the case of the SAMs, or I've already conceded it in the case of the PESA radar. See, this is my point: why on earth is their ability to develop a surface to air missile relevant to their ability to develop a fighter? It's not.

It is relevant as armament is one of factors involving development of fighter jets as you could have AAM with range of 300km at most against AWACS / AEW yet radar that is not competent enough to detect and track it to guide AAM to shot those down or you could have radar with range to detect and track yet don't have AAM that could reach those hence not fully utilizing potential of one or another.

Its absurd to write off AAM from fighter development process, might as well be fine with F-22 without BVRAAM.

I'm focusing on the F-5 precisely because you pointed out that the J85 is in use - it is in use on a fighter that's not competitive in air to air and is on the way out. As for the J-6 and Q-5, well, I'll admit to being a little hasty in declaring the Q-5 out of service, but the J-6 definitely is (pg.15), and this brings me back to my original point: just because the engine is being used does not mean it's a viable fighter engine. The Q-5 is old, a dedicated ground attacker, being shoved out of service as fast as the Chinese can afford to do so, and was produced at a time when China couldn't do any better than modify the MiG-19. None of this points to it being useful for a current fighter project.

And I mean both - Brazil's F-5s are rocking a small pulse-doppler radar set and frankly would get eaten alive by any sort remotely modern fighter. They've outlasted Brazil's Mirage 2000 fleet not on any sort of technical merits, but because the Mirage 2000s were hand-me-downs from the French Air Force (And thus old) and the maintenance contract with Dassault was about to run out.

I said JJ-6 that is two set trainer jet of J-6 and which Q-5 as there is Q-5B with Type 317 and 317A radar thus is a strike fighter.

Q-5 came around same time as J-7 and production of both ended around same time.

EL/M-2032 is used by by Thai and Chilean F-5E's and Grifo-F is being used in Brazilian and Singaporean F-5E's.

EL/M-2032 was also implemented for Chinese J-7G and had 60km range.

Grifo-7 radar with weight of 55kg implemented for Pakistani F-7P and had range 55km range..

Weight of Grifo-F in F-5E's is 87kg hence you can speculate how much larger and more powerful is compared to Grifo-7.

Same for EL/M-2032 between implementation in J-7 and F-5E's.

Elbit states maximum range for look up air target detection at most 120 miles that is 220 kilometers. Not specified on what platform.

You have zero evidence that that 2.3-fold increase carries over the -21 model. And even if it did that doesn't change all the rest of the advantages the twin J85 setup has over a single RD-9.

Yes, without consideration of 2 engines compared 1 engine involving provisions to mount those 2 engines along there being 2 intakes.

Also we don't know if figures you cited are for J85-GE-21 and if you took those figures from Wikipedia where it is vague by not being specific which model of J85 is as maximum thrust is stated as 11-22 kN as 11kN is J85-GE-5 dry thrust and 22kN is J85-GE-21 afterburner.

Some sources indicates that North Korean MIG-29 fleet is growing by assembling imported parts from Russia. These sources claims that the North Koreans have managed to locally produced improved versions of MIG-29 by a rate of five aircrafts per two years for the past 25 yeras. It seems that North Korea MIG-29 fleet numbers more than 100 samples(36 of the initial order from USSR in 1988+ 12 MIG-29S imported from Kazhakstan along with 70 MIG-21bis in 1992 + 60+ planes locally being assembled). That means that North Korea has managed to seriously developed her aerospace industry so the designing and production of an indigenously fighter aircraft must be considered as likely.

They certaintly did not license from USSR to domestically produce Mig-29 and I know individual that worked as journalist before being game developer for an MMO that did some research, from what they could figure out from trade documents and what not that North Korea may have received technical data to produce some components of Mig-21 such as airframe along likely that North Korea got technical data along manufacturing tools to produce R-60 short range air to air missile.

North Korea showed of R-60M with warhead that has depleted uranium liner. Hot spicy stuff right there.

Most countries start with something simple like a piston trainer and work up from there. India, Turkey and South Korea all demonstrated wide capabilities in general aerospace, large quantities of licensed builds, and engaged major partnerships with US and/or European industry to get to the point where they could design an indigenous fighter. North Korea at best could aspire to be an Iran.

Iran is producing reverse engineered J85-GE-21 turbojet engine and has also reverse engineered FJ33 turbofan engine.

Iran and North Korea send scientists to each other along military officers to military academies, you can see that for example for Iranian space launch vehicles are based on North Korean design such as Safir based on Paektusan and Simorgh based on Unha-3.

Anyone that pays attention to rocket and missile development in Iran and North Korea should be aware of their cooperation in those two fields if somehow someone is unaware of that despite observing progress made by both countries and since they do it opens up question about on what else they cooperate with each other besides space launch vehicles and training of military officers together.

FJ33 minimum thrust is just 450kgf that is more than Ukrainian R95-300 / MS-400 and comparable to Russian TRDD-50 thus if Iran also cooperates with North Korea involving jet engines then 1500km range land attack cruise missile that North Korea tested in September may have well been FJ33 propelling and powering it as North Korea stated that it was propelled by turbofan jet engine.

North Korea doesn't seems to be interested much in refitting their air force. The possible reason is, that they realize, that attempts to produce ingenious combat aircraft would consume a lot of time and resources - and would not bring significant advantages. The aerial superiority of potential adversaries is just too great, and North Korea territory is too small to provide for sufficient aircraft dispersion.

North Korea is much larger than for example Taiwan that at most it is 390 kilometers from one end to another at most and shortest is 130 kilometers compared to North Korea being 700 and 300 kilometers respectively hence argument based on size is flimsy one.

So, they invested mostly in missiles, which are just more cost-efficient.

They are and there is no arguing about that yet they have limitations, ballistic missiles are useful against land targets are too cruise that can also target ships yet then aircraft carriers come into play as you may not have range to target them with cruise missiles unless you are Russia or China that even has anti-ship ballistic missiles along Iran that has short range ones.

At some point they will have to invest in designing and producing fighter jets.

So maybe Iran and North Korea besides space launch vehicles, rocket engines and ballistic missiles also dabble with jet engines.

TF-30 or RD-33 are best candidates for reverse engineering, specially former since Iranian F-14A Tomcats are still flying. lmfao

 

[DWG]

At some point they will have to invest in designing and producing fighter jets.

Why? The alleged Iranian projects to date have been somewhat wobbly. The furthest they've gotten in actual flyable hardware is minor changes to the F-5, which was already obsolescent back when the Shah was still in charge. If Iran needs competitive combat aircraft I'd expect them to buy from China, because (looking across the Gulf) there is no chance of Iran being able to build an aircraft, plus AAMs, indigenously that's capable of taking on late-model F-15s, F-16s, Rafales, and Typhoons using AIM-120.

But Iran is not North Korea. Iran can probably maintain an air force big enough to meet its needs as a regional power, as long as it does not use it offensively. North Korea, on the other hand, cannot build an air force large enough to be operationally useful. It can make a token effort, but faces being swatted aside on Day 1 by 50+ F-15Ks and 200+ F-16C/Ds all toting AIM-120 (minus however many have been converted to F-35s and KF-21 Boromaes - eventually 100+ F-35s between ROKAF and 7th AF, and 120 Boromaes), and that's assuming no reinforcements and no local CVBGs. Korea's only remotely modern fighters are the 25 Fulcrums, with perhaps 60 R-27 Alamos (according to SIPRI), and after that they're down to 45 MiG 23s with R-23 Apex, and several hundred MiG-21s with SRAAMs, mostly Atolls. All operating via GCI. It's a recipe for the Great DMZ Turkey Shoot.

To change the air balance of power, North Korea needs 300+ modern fighters with modern AAMs. And they're not building that from their current aerospace tech base, nor are they likely to be able to source it abroad given 1) cost and 2) willingness of major powers to be seen arming North Korea and engender US displeasure.

With that as a given, the question becomes why challenge ROKAF/7thAF in the air? The existing KPAF OOB is a sunk cost, but why throw good money after bad? Looking at Iraq as a model, the results from challenging overwhelming Western model AFs vs just hiding in your HASs are little different. In which case Kim may as well spend the money on something that may make a difference, such as NK's nuclear and missile programmes.

 

[CV12Hornet]

That is the problem, you assume too much by going with reading between lines attitude to assert something I didn't.

It is loosely tied to fighter development, issue is how you try to portray it as direct when it is not as you miss my point or are disingenuous.

When I mentioned cruise missiles, it is not about fighter development as you jumped to that conclusion as it is about their defense industry and technology used that in current state would not be use of for development of fighter jet thus I stated contextually that should be very obvious to you that by continuing to further develop and advance related technologies that at some point will be of use for fighter jet.

Why don't we look at Iran for example, at first they developed manufacturing capacity to reproduce various small turbojet engines for cruise missiles and they continued to invest in capability to produce jet engines which resulted in them being able to domestically make J85-GE-21 turbojet engine that is much larger and more complex than Tri-60 series used in Iranian cruise missiles and target drones.

Iran has reverse engineered FJ33 that is downscaled older FJ44 thus Iran has option to invest resources in upscaling it to FJ44 then attempt to reach performance of FJ44-4 that is larger than and as heavy as J85-GE-21 while providing same dry thrust at the half fuel consumption.

Then finally they would need to develop afterburner component for it and considering it being turbofan and diameter of FJ44 that thrust from afterburning should be considerably greater than 22kN that J85-GE-21 is capable of producing, at least 30 kN seems reasonable.

*pinches nose*

So that's a yes, you're tying it into fighter development. Glad we've got that sorted out.

Anyway, the ability of Iran to reverse-engineer existing engines from full-scale samples, as would be the case for both the FJ33 and J85, does not mean that Iran has the expertise to upscale those engines, nor design entirely new ones.

Also, this is Iran. What the hell does this have to do with North Korea developing a fighter?

It is relevant as armament is one of factors involving development of fighter jets as you could have AAM with range of 300km at most against AWACS / AEW yet radar that is not competent enough to detect and track it to guide AAM to shot those down or you could have radar with range to detect and track yet don't have AAM that could reach those hence not fully utilizing potential of one or another.

Its absurd to write off AAM from fighter development process, might as well be fine with F-22 without BVRAAM.

Okay, but it still doesn't tie into the ability of North Korea to design and build an indigenous fighter.

I said JJ-6 that is two set trainer jet of J-6 and which Q-5 as there is Q-5B with Type 317 and 317A radar thus is a strike fighter.

Q-5 came around same time as J-7 and production of both ended around same time.

EL/M-2032 is used by by Thai and Chilean F-5E's and Grifo-F is being used in Brazilian and Singaporean F-5E's.

EL/M-2032 was also implemented for Chinese J-7G and had 60km range.

Grifo-7 radar with weight of 55kg implemented for Pakistani F-7P and had range 55km range..

Weight of Grifo-F in F-5E's is 87kg hence you can speculate how much larger and more powerful is compared to Grifo-7.

Same for EL/M-2032 between implementation in J-7 and F-5E's.

Elbit states maximum range for look up air target detection at most 120 miles that is 220 kilometers. Not specified on what platform.

What does any of this have to do with the ability of North Korea to develop an indigenous fighter?

Yes, without consideration of 2 engines compared 1 engine involving provisions to mount those 2 engines along there being 2 intakes.

Also we don't know if figures you cited are for J85-GE-21 and if you took those figures from Wikipedia where it is vague by not being specific which model of J85 is as maximum thrust is stated as 11-22 kN as 11kN is J85-GE-5 dry thrust and 22kN is J85-GE-21 afterburner.

Fair enough. This site has the data for the J85-GE-21: 35.15 g/kN/s (Pg. 16). The same site gives the RD-9F's SFC as 25.48 g/kN/s (Pg.12). So it looks like yes, the twin J85s would consume more fuel than the single RD-9.

That said, I still stand by my statement that the other advantages of the twin J85 layout at least match the higher fuel consumption.

And I still don't know how this ties into North Korea's ability or lack thereof to design their own jet fighters.

 

[supergaleb]

Why? The alleged Iranian projects to date have been somewhat wobbly. The furthest they've gotten in actual flyable hardware is minor changes to the F-5, which was already obsolescent back when the Shah was still in charge. If Iran needs competitive combat aircraft I'd expect them to buy from China, because (looking across the Gulf) there is no chance of Iran being able to build an aircraft, plus AAMs, indigenously that's capable of taking on late-model F-15s, F-16s, Rafales, and Typhoons using AIM-120.

Iran has been refurbishing, modifying and modernizing various models of F-5 and same for J-85 turbojet engines while main obstacle to domestic production of new fighter jets based on F-5 was J85 engine which Iran has few years ago reverse engineered to the J85-GE-21 equivalent while there are differences such as different sound of the jet engine and lack of black smoke trail from exhaust which I have to note that in general it is indication of better fuel efficiency and maybe also greater thrust compared to original as was the case with Russia involving RD-33MK compared to original RD-33 that also introduced digital FADEC thus if we refer to Iranian claim of 4th generation avionics in Kowsar for which digital FADEC would fit right in as one of crucial features of a 4th generation fighter jet avionics.

Iran already produces domestically various AAMs such as AIM-54 Phoenix substitute Fakour-90 aka AIM-23B based on MIM-23 Hawk SAM derivative Shahin along elements of AIM-54 Phoenix such as active radar homing during terminal phase, range of the missile is 150km and weight is 450kg that is same weigh as 450kg bombs that F-5E can carry on each wing and centerline pylon thus it could use them if they or its derivatives receive upgrades to the radar as was case with F-14A when Iran developed F-14AM upgrade for it.

Iranian modernization program for F-14A the F-14AM is very likely same as F-14A electronics were upgraded when F-14D upgrade was designed as it was process of replacing analog processing with digital processing that vastly increased range of radar in every aspect.

Current priority for Iran is to refurbish and modernize its F-5's and F-14's fleet along production of ballistic and cruise missiles.

Iranians stated that Kowsar has unspecified Grifo based radar with stated maximum range of 93 kilometers and ability to engage two targets simultaneously while there is no information if Iranian made AIM-7 SARH is integrated as too AIM-23B SARH/ARH with Kowsar. Iran could later upgrade Kowsar by removing one or both guns and respective ammunition in order to allow for integration of heavier more powerful radar along more efficient and potentially more powerful turbofan engine if they pursue upscaling of FJ33 to FJ44 with aim of FJ-44-4M performance while FJ33 is essentially downscaled more advanced derivative of older FJ-44 series.

 

[kaiserd]

Don’t understand how Iran is being used as an example of how North Korea could/ should build a genuinely modern fighter aircraft when Iran, with a far more developed aviation industry, has not proven able to build its own genuinely modern fighter. Rebuilds of very small numbers of F-5s with different tails that haven’t genuinely entered service doesn’t really count.

Similarly repeating Iranian claims of great avionic developments that don’t appear to be reflected in actual in-service aircraft has limited credibility and very limited relevance to North Korea.

And clams around the RD-9 engine are just perplexing. It appears to amount to great claims being being made for a 21st century re-hash of the Nanchang J-12, a class of aircraft the Chinese at the height of the Cultural Revolution insanity still had the sense to abandon in favour of copies of early model MIG-21s.

 

[supergaleb]

I won't even bother to reply on this subject due to extent of people in here being disingenuous along moderators removing my replies or editing out my answers from my replies as for North Korean aviation industry you can look at documentary involving event held one day after 76th anniversary of foundation of Workers Party of Korea when there was show floor for various new military hardware.

Some previously unseen ballistic missile, cruise missiles, anti-tank guided missiles, precision guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles, air to air missiles, precision sniper rifles and anti materiel rifles and so forth. So a lot of things previously unseen we see glimpse of in it.

 

[royabulgaf]

I didn't watch the video, and I can't comment on the rockets. However, you can get all the UAVs you want at HobbyAmerica, and back in the day Afghans in the boonies were making AK-47 knockoffs fromcar parts.

 

[DWG]

North Korean air force faces resources, obsolescence issues: DIA

A report from the USA's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) depicts the capabilities of the North Korean air force as marginal, with limited ability to project power beyond the isolated country's borders.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[_Del_]

It's possible, but unlikely, that NK could put together a serviceable tactical fighter.
Engines would be the hardest part to produce locally, but someone is already selling them RD-33's and parts thereof for the MiG-29 fleet. Conceivably, something like the JF-17 would possible if NK invested oodles of dollars/won and engineering effort.
But the bigger question is why? They could probably procure JF-17's for much cheaper than developing its own aircraft, and it wouldn't be markedly more capable than the Fulcrums.
Also, North Korea's entire defense strategy is built around nuclear deterrence, first, and a hedge that their neighbours in Beijing would rather not see a united Korean state on its own border. Their military is also is part of a decades long strategy to make a lot of noise, launch rockets near or over its neighbours, and be generally belligerent because as a general rule, the democratic and capitalist neighbours prefer sending them aid packages to shut them up than endure another crisis/tantrum.
Even with a locally developed F-15's with a magic wand, there is no doubt who would win a conventional conflict with the South, nevermind the US. A waste of money and effort, imo.
If NK was actually going to spend in aerospace industrial efforts, it would be something that aligns with their other efforts and goals. Perhaps a strike aircraft, a local Q-5, or even a crude medium bomber like an H-6 analogue (Or even more likely more ballistic missiles).
You can fly a conventional/nuclear-capable bomber formation to strut and possibly intimidate your neighbours and leverage that for concessions. A bomber fleet potential nuclear deterrent effect, even if dubious. An indigenous air superiority fighter like an F-5 doesn't really do either of those things well.

But again, that's a lot of money they don't have-- cheaper by far to collect second-hand leftovers by hook or crook.

 

[Geo]

Future North Korean aircraft designers and objects of their interests...

 

[BullpupRafale]

Reading this thread there is no doubt that a lot of people in here debating are doing so in so in bad faith knowingly or unknowingly if they are not aware of not being informed about the subject there are trying to debate in this thread and contribute absolutely nothing.

Anyone asserting that this or that person, entity and what not thinks, believes or strategy on this or that are disingenuous and misleading.

Good example is comment above with that arrogant attitude when opinions asserted as being factual when such stated don't make any sense such as procurement of JF-17 when it would not be sold to them and even if it was allowed for them to purchase it there wouldn't be economic wise decision in long run considering cost of labor being much higher outside along potential of local industry.

India could have simply imported Mig-21 instead of producing it domestically, same before with local variant of Foland Gnat.

Brasil had opportunity to simply import American fighters or have production rights for Gripen NG E/F, they took the latter.

Canada, South Korea and Taiwan produced F-5 domestically. Do you want to argue that they are in wrong for doing so? Please, go on.

This thread is definition of temper tantrum with narrative on North Korea can't do this or that and people that it without critical thought.

They were made fun of when their nuclear tests had approximate yield of bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with assumption of being those kind of primitive nuclear bombs until in one of their documentaries there was a shot of previous framed picture in museum of leader next to modern implosion bomb thus small enough to fit inside nose cone of a medium or short range ballistic missile in 2000s.

​

Then crescendo in September 2017 demonstrated 255-360 kilogram H-bomb that according to some analysis 245 to 271 kiloton yield.

This example should be telling not to portray own bold assertions as being factual and the truth by asserting they can't do this or that.

Should we go on about their progress with liquid and solid fuel ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, surface to air missile, etc?

Now on something more interesting here is when RD-9 was compared to J85, specifically RD-9BF-811 to J85-GE-21.

J85-GE-21 is extensive redesign to extent that it can be practically considered altogether a different engine as degree of changes I would compare it between Atar and M53 as there are fundamental changes, with J85 going with single spool and M53 being turbofan engine.

​

Here is actual specific fuel consumption figure of J85-21:

​

As for specificl fuel consumption of RD-9BF-811:

​

J85-GE-21 specific fuel consumption is 30% higher than RD-9BF-811 that is 25% heavier than two J85-21 that generate 10% more thrust.

Now R-11F2S-300:

​

RD-9BF-811 thrust to weight ratio dry is 4.13 and 5.2 with afterburner versus 3.51 dry and 5.5 with afterburner for R-11F2S-300.

Both have comparable specific fuel consumption for dry thrust while R-11F2S-300 is 48% higher involving afterburner.

Efficiency of afterburner of R-11F2S-300 is even worse than J85-GE-21 by over 10%.

Now Snecma Atar 09K-50:

​

Two RD-9BF-811 weighs 132 kilograms less than one Atar 09K-50 while providing providing considerably more dry and afterburner thrust with better specific fuel consumption, both of these along J85-GE-21 are 9 axial compressors with 2 turbines on single spool turbojets.

Atar 09K-50 is used on Atlas Cheetah and Dassault Mirage F1.

Single RD-9BF-811 has enough thrust for something like BAE HAWK 200 series.

Now, Iran produces domestically J85-GE-21 since 2016 and FJ-33 turbofan since 2020 while for decades they cooperate with North Korea involving ballistic missile technology that is far more critical than jet engine technology thus please amuse me if anyone wants to assert that it wouldn't make sense for them to cooperate in such area despite doing so for ballistic missiles.

Anyway if Israel keeps punish for war against Iran and the U.S. continues with its sanctions while violating JCPOA and UNSC resolutions then Iran may go nuclear hence forceful isolation despite same obvious cheating that was previously done with Agreement Framework involving North Korea where too the U.S. didn't abide its deal...

Then we can look forward to potential dynamic between Iran and North Korea where cooperation would be more intensive.

 

[lancer21]

As a romanian i can only compare communist Romania's tech level re combat aircraft as in 1989 with DPRK, which which imo it shared the objective and goal to develop an independent arms industry, and their weapons industries evolved quite similarly up to that period (DPRK now is of course far more advanced and capable). Romania was building the IAR-93 (with Yugoslavia), and IAR-99, were working on the supersonic IAR-95/IAR-S which probably would have flown in the 1990s, in later iterations being powered by an R-29 engine, although there are also documents showing the RD-33 was considered, so perhaps the very latest IAR-95 iteration was downscaled to something the size of the future FC-1. Romania also has just copied (not clear if they had licence from USSR or not, possibly not) the R-23 as A-911 and the R-60 as A-960/RAV-RS, and also as i understand the MiG-23's radar, these were supposed to go on the IAR-95. But of course all this was ended by the "revolution".
Granted, Romania had some acces to low end western tech, like the Viper engine, ejection seat, some onboard equipment items etc.

Now as i understand it DPRK and Romania had good relations back then which comprised a certain degree of cooperation /exchange of information (the DPRK tanks after the nineties seems to be quite similar to the romanian TR-77/85 series, though of course they evolved since then- i would not be surprised if DPRK was informed and/or was involved in the TR-125 project as well) in fact that book by Oryx claims that DPRK was interested in building the IAR-93 under licence.

My point is if Romania was that far in 1989 regarding aviation and aviation weapons/electronics, then surely DPRK of today can easily surpass that level, in fact as you know DPRK showed brand new WVR and BVR missiles this year, they wouldn't have been working on them if they didn't had clear plans for the future. It's quite likely that we may see DPRK combat aircraft flying this decade, they certainly have the technological capacity for that, they have very advanced ICBMs, cruise missiles, powerful nuke warheads, advanced short and long range SAMs and no doubt radars to go with them. It defies belief that they couldn't copy the RD-33 if they choose to do so, and build a competent single or twin engine combat aircraft powered by it. It doesn't have to be as good as the F-22 or J-20 or Su-57 or whatever and i'm sure they wouldn't aim for that, it just have to be decent, it would still transform DPRKAF by finally being able to replace all the old MiGs over the next decades (MiG-21bis/23/29 and Su-25 can still serve for a while if upgraded). There will be thousands of 4+ fighters that will still fly for the next 30 or 40 years, no reason why even such an aircraft wouldn't be perfectly suitable and within the means of DPRK- though i suspect they might go for an airframe with LO characteristics, either something akin to a single engine J-31 or maybe a twin engine airframe if they are a bit bolder, or maybe both, with the single engine one being a more like a supersonic LIFT akin to T-50 or T-7 etc.

As to Iran, since it's been brought here, imo they have been terribly misquided, wasteful and downright incompetent as far as aviation is concerned, the whole Tazarve/Shafaq/Saegeh/Qaher saga is a cringeworthy thing to watch -why the hell they haven't focused on building Shafaq or something similar, instead of that pathetic twin tail F-5, not to mention the even more cringeworthy Qaher? Obviously the answer is their leadership, apparently they were more interested in quick propganda tools hence them ordering the Saeqeh/Qaher etc. nonsense. That Kowsar trainer seems competent enough, not awe inspiring but at least it seems it has the potential to work, though things go so slowly with it.

The iranians have a few bright spots, their SAMs are quite competent and capable, and various short and medium range BM and CMs (but they don't worth much without nuclear warheads), and some of their drones, which hint at their true potential if properly harnessed and guided. Given their undoubted potential and much larger economic power compared to DPRK, if half as determined and focused compared to DPRK , they too would have had ICBMs, nukes, and likely competent aircraft in production by now, so the americans and israelis must be thanking their lucky stars Iran hasn't got that far, they certainly could if properly led and focused.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It defies belief that they couldn't copy the RD-33 if they choose to do so

You are underestimating the challenge of building a modern(ish) jet engine. Look at China for comparison.

 

[lancer21]

No doubt is a very difficult task, and it may be easy to say they could do this and from one's armchair, but imo China's path to build their own engines partly had an element of self-inflicted harm, same as for India's Kaveri for instance. In China's case, there was the huge disruption of the Cultural Revolution, but nevertheless they still prototyped the WS-6, sure it may not have been the best engine in the world but they got it to work satisfactorily, they chose to cancel it in the end alongside the J-9 fighter. They went to copy the WP-15 (ironically to replace WS-6 apparently) and again as i understand it was running OK, but they cancelled it as well. Then they went with the WS-10 with which they experienced development issues, but with an abundant supply of AL-31s, there wasn't the pressure to use it until all the issues were sorted and the performance goals attained.

If there was pressure, i don't see why China couldn't build the J-9 or J-13 or whatever with WS-6 and or WP-15 already from the eighties, or to use either the WP-15 or the WS-10, even if not meeting life and performance goals initially, on the J-10 if they had no other choice. But they chose not do those things because there were other options available ( J-8II with it's more mature engines instead of the J-9/13, and of course the AL-31 option for J-10)

India got into problems with the Kaveri so instead of persevering to fix the issues they got cold feet, they just buy engines from abroad.
For comparison, Cold War pressure compelled the USSR to use the RD-33 and AL-31 when they initially had very low life and reliability, they eventually greatly improved both. Even the american F-100 some serious issues at first as i understand.

So my point about a DPRK RD-33 copy is, even if the resulting engine might initially have lower life, reliability and performance compared to the original, it would have to do as a start because they don't have the luxury to buy from abroad or wait for something better, they could improve from that. It would still be a major advance for them.

 

[GTX]

so instead of persevering to fix the issues they got cold feet, they just buy engines from abroad.

Yes...'cold feet'....after 8yrs of development (1996 program start to initial F404 buy) which has turned into ~25yrs now and yet there are still no production Tejas flying with Kaveri engines.

 

[Fluff]

The number of manufacturers, that produce a jet engine big enough for a real aircraft, you would get them all onto what, 2 hands? and thats being generous? The combination of metallurgy, physics, airflow, thermal dynamics, etc etc, and most of these companies can trace themselves back to the 50's? Suggests its really not easy.

 

[Hood]

And even the big companies can occasionally mess up (e.g. Silvercrest).

 

[BullpupRafale]

Issue with Iran is rivalry betwen various sections of military...

Specifically traditional Army, Navy and Airforce versus IRGC that is favorite of conservatives.

North Korea and Iran have military cooperation from which Iran benefitted a lot, early on with gaining designs and tools to produce liquid fuel ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles while North Korea may have had benefit of Iranian focus on solid fuel.

As for aircraft manufacturing capacity involving North Korea is that we all can guess.

Also Kowsar-88 is now named Yasin and with Iran reverse engineering FJ33 that is downscaled improved FJ44 they could upscale their clone and more than double the range of Yasin once they replaced their non-afterburning J85-GE-21 clone.

 

[lancer21]

Indeed i was thinking of the Yasin, now the Kowsar is another F-5 development, at least apparently more useful as it includes an avionics updates without the stupid twin tails, as the whole Saeqeh should have been from the beggining, an avionics upgrade and nothing else.

As to the rivalrly between varios iranian branches, this is the idiocy i was talking about, they are faced with formidable foes armed with nukes who sanction them, threaten them, kill their scientists and sabotage their installations, and despite all that they find time for petty turf squabbles rather that a focused, coordinated effort!

Anyway, to keep to DPRK, one ATL scenario is perhaps that Mukhamedov guy ends up in DPRK rather than Iran, so then he can see his creation built in DPRK (refering here to the now defunct iranian Shafaq). Would have been interesting to see that thing fly, though wonder what folks think about that peculiar wing, would it have worked or not?

 

[BullpupRafale]

I am more with potential considering hardware they have...

They could go with reverse engineering R-35-300 turbojet engine that would give thrust equivalent of AL-31F.

Of course specific fuel consumption would be approximately 20% higher on dry and comparable on afterburner.

 

[GTX]

Rather than speculative musings about reverse engineering jet engines or similar, does anyone have any real information on the following:

• Ch’onjin - small factory used to build spare parts and rebuild aircraft for the Air Force.
• Taechon - used to build spare parts and rebuild aircraft for the Air Force.
• Panghyon - North Korea's primary aircraft assembly, repair and research facility established in the mid-1980s.
• Seventh Machine Industry Bureau: Production and purchase of war planes

Presumably the capabilities of these will provide a more meaningful assessment of North Korea's potential for developing anything such as fighters or related.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Panghyon aircraft plant / factory was established since 1960's and is suspected as being core of development of uranium enrichment centrifuges since it dealt with heavy metals thus could provide ideal cover up for an program to develop and produce centrifuges.

美 ISIS "북한 미공개 옛 우라늄농축시설 의심장소 발견"(종합) | 연합뉴스

(워싱턴=연합뉴스) 김세진 특파원 = 북한의 영변 핵단지 근처에서 그동안 공개되지 않은 옛 우라늄 농축시설로 의심되는 장소가 발견됐다고 미국의 ...

www.yna.co.kr

Exclusive: Possible early North Korean nuclear site found - report

A U.S. policy institute said it may have located a secret facility used by North Korea in the early stages of building its program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, which if confirmed would be critical to the success of any future nuclear deal, according to a report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

From available information, seems it produces parts for Mig-15 , Mig-17 and Mig-19 from what is known.

https://twitter.com/x/status/909868216545169412

View: https://twitter.com/CurtisMelvin/status/909868216545169412

https://twitter.com/x/status/909661212782108672

View: https://twitter.com/stoa1984/status/909661212782108672

ºÏÇÑÀÇ ¹«Àαâ MM-1

±Û. Á¶¼Á S ¹ö¹Âµ¥Áî ÁִϾî À§: MM-1ÀÌ ¼ö¼ÛÂ÷·®/¹ß»çü¿¡ žÀçµÈ ¸ð½À. °¡¿îµ¥¿Í ¾Æ·¡: ¹«ÀÎÇ×°ø±âÀÇ Æò¸éµµ¿Í Ãø¸éµµ (Joseph S ......

bemil.chosun.com

For any more recent advancement in aerospace, we can look at their missiles, cruise, ballistic and surface to air.

 

[SSgtC]

Those numbers sound a little suspect regarding North Korea's ability to overhaul their J-6 (MiG-19) fleet and associated engines. They only have under 100 left in service (as of 2019). If those numbers are accurate, they're overhauling every plane in their fleet every other year (and all their engines every year). I'll grant that this could be old info from when they had more Farmers in service, but still...

 

[Hood]

Given China achieved a 500-hour life for the WP-6 by the 1970s, its likely the average life would be better than that today. Even so it would seem incredible that they would use up anything like that TBO time in a year.
But just because you have maximum capacity in a facility doesn't mean its regularly running at that capacity.