Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 115

Thread: NORTH KOREA Airforce and Air defences

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    374

    NORTH KOREA Airforce and Air defences

    This short and seemingly rediculous account of North Korea's armed forces made me make this thread hoping to filter out as much nonsense as possible. Also, to try to create some more realistic sense of what they could actually use "tomorrow" to attack South/US troops.

    http://www.defencetalk.com/north-kor...repower-39072/

    AIR FORCE
    The air force, designed for quick strikes across the border in South Korea, has an estimated 80 bombers, 541 fighters and ground attack fighters, 316 transport planes, 588 transport helicopters, 24 attack helicopters and at least one unmanned drone as well as an ample supply of air-to-air missiles and surface-to-air missiles

    Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/north-kor...#ixzz1hHYbCCI4
    How can they have that many aircraft ...316 transport planes. Does that include two seat single propeller An-2s? 588 transport helicopters??? Who has that many helicopters ?!!
    Last edited by Wanderlei; 22nd December 2011 at 19:11.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,365
    Wanderlei

    Decent reading about the subject in here:
    http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute....cfm?pubID=771

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5
    Global Security has the full break down here:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm

    Basically they have a ton of AN-2's and a lot of older fighter/attack aircraft.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,137
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    374
    thank you. Lots of good read.

    Do you suppose their Mig-17s, Su-7s and Mig-19s are still in service?

    Do you suppose their ground attack IL-28 aircraft would have any role in a war with South?

    any mor erecent info on air fleet upgrades of Mig-29s or anymore potent SAM systems.

    thanks again!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,906
    A significant proportion of their fleet is in service on paper only! In respect of fast air I would say some of their later build J-7 are probably still being flown and the most potent aircraft in their fleet the Mig-23 and Mig-29 are still active albeit availbility and flight hours are very low.

    Russia is no longer going to supply aircraft and China wants hard currency for anything new.

    The fact is asymetric systems like missiles and mini submarines are a better investment at the moment.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,113
    A significant proportion of their fleet is in service on paper only!
    That sums it up. Imho those bewildering numbers are ridiculous. Gorssly inflated to make them look more threatening than they are.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    That sums it up. Imho those bewildering numbers are ridiculous. Gorssly inflated to make them look more threatening than they are.
    I see it similar. Most of that "easy meat" for an ordinary Stinger f.e..

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,906
    The real threat is the artillery both tube and rocket based. Also it should be remembered that it isn't tank country so their ground forces can get up rather close.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    The real threat is the artillery both tube and rocket based. Also it should be remembered that it isn't tank country so their ground forces can get up rather close.
    All that is limited in range and just the smaller part of that is capable to inflict local damage by that. Even a local success of their ground forces by tactical surprise and/or numbers will not tip the balance of power in their favor. Without military aid by the Chinese there is no realistic chance to start a war with limited targets even. Smart weapons do no longer allow to utilise the terrain like in the 50s. The Chinese can not see some gains from a local conflict there except a power change within NK after a lost border battle.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    For the intrested one the DMZ is ~250 km or ~155 miles and just 4 lines of approach are of some military intrest at first. Every tactical surprise is time limited and the high mobility of ROK forces will strangle that in short notice. Compared to NK forces the ROK and US-forces have "unlimited" support by overhelming air-power that limited area in mind.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    All that is limited in range and just the smaller part of that is capable to inflict local damage by that. Even a local success of their ground forces by tactical surprise and/or numbers will not tip the balance of power in their favor. Without military aid by the Chinese there is no realistic chance to start a war with limited targets even. Smart weapons do no longer allow to utilise the terrain like in the 50s. The Chinese can not see some gains from a local conflict there except a power change within NK after a lost border battle.
    Well hmmm, quite alot of that artillery has good range capability and they have plenty of it. As was shown in the Korean war artillery is king there! Also their SRBM's and IRBM's can hit quite a few cities in the region. I agree that the southern forces would win out in the end but all analysis shows that it would be an utter slaughter before that point.

    Also agree that China does not want to see a local conflict and arguably they are the important power broker in the area.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    For the intrested one the DMZ is ~250 km or ~155 miles and just 4 lines of approach are of some military intrest at first.
    The UN forces made that mistake in 1950. Infantry are not as constrained by lines of approach as heavily mechanised forces.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wanderlei View Post
    This short and seemingly rediculous account of North Korea's armed forces made me make this thread hoping to filter out as much nonsense as possible.

    "AIR FORCE
    The air force, designed for quick strikes across the border in South Korea, has an estimated 80 bombers, 541 fighters and ground attack fighters, 316 transport planes, 588 transport helicopters, 24 attack helicopters and at least one unmanned drone as well as an ample supply of air-to-air missiles and surface-to-air missiles"

    How can they have that many aircraft ...316 transport planes. Does that include two seat single propeller An-2s? 588 transport helicopters??? Who has that many helicopters ?!!
    I think the numbers may be exaggerated, & they're certainly distorted. For example, the IISS in 2003 listed 306 helicopters - including 139 Mi-2, 80 Hughes 500D, 15 Mi-8/17 & 48 Z-5. Note that most are light, or light utility helicopters. About 300 of the 'transport' aircraft are An-2/Y-5, intended to infiltrate sniper teams into the S. Korean rear.

    Most of that "ample supply" of AAMs & SAMs are museum pieces, like most of the fighters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wanderlei View Post
    Do you suppose their Mig-17s, Su-7s and Mig-19s are still in service?

    Do you suppose their ground attack IL-28 aircraft would have any role in a war with South?!
    I expect that many of the ground attack aircraft can get into the air, but are probably capable of one way missions only, & most of the pilots have very little flying time. AFAIK they preserve aircraft by rarely flying them.
    Last edited by swerve; 22nd December 2011 at 22:44.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Well hmmm, quite alot of that artillery has good range capability and they have plenty of it. As was shown in the Korean war artillery is king there! Also their SRBM's and IRBM's can hit quite a few cities in the region. I agree that the southern forces would win out in the end but all analysis shows that it would be an utter slaughter before that point.

    Also agree that China does not want to see a local conflict and arguably they are the important power broker in the area.
    I am well aware about that and you can kick a lot of stones and sand with it for little effect.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAY0m3pJ3I
    (At least the mountain is not hitting back and still there!)
    The military purpose is to support own ground forces to lend some extra fire power to fulfill a limited task. All the numerous SRBM's and IRBM's are limited in fire-power compared to an ordinary general purpose bomb and without pin-point accuracy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
    gives an idea about civilian losses by such kind of fire.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II
    gives an idea about civilian losses by such kind of fire against a Korean city of similar size.
    Whenever NK will start an attack the civilians will suffer and the own military can not do much about that at first. My personal feelings aside not exceptional compared to other conflict somewhere or a single atomic bomb can bring to a city.
    Last edited by Sens; 22nd December 2011 at 22:59.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,906
    Well I could talk about population density but lets just say no party in the area wants to find out the result of a war.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Well I could talk about population density but lets just say no party in the area wants to find out the result of a war.
    I see it similar.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    222
    I noticed a pattern.

    North Korea has sunk SK ship and shelled SK targets last year. Nothing happened. Plus it tested nukes.

    Libya gave up nukes and turned its military into an internal security, on the premise it wont be attacked. It was bombed and militias were given support to overthrow recognised government.

    North Korea is doing something right. Bristling with WMDs it can buy time to improve economy.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by Type59 View Post
    I noticed a pattern.

    North Korea has sunk SK ship and shelled SK targets last year. Nothing happened. Plus it tested nukes.

    Libya gave up nukes and turned its military into an internal security, on the premise it wont be attacked. It was bombed and militias were given support to overthrow recognised government.

    North Korea is doing something right. Bristling with WMDs it can buy time to improve economy.
    North Korea made a statement when the bombs started falling on Tripolli which said much the same. People who are still hoping they will trade in their nukes are dillusional.
    pb::

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    virginia beach, VA
    Posts
    226

    Talking

    Libya doesnt boarder China.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole View Post
    North Korea made a statement when the bombs started falling on Tripolli which said much the same. People who are still hoping they will trade in their nukes are dillusional.
    That is the point I am making. Thus, you are correct. NK are not gonna disarm, i dont blame them. They said that in March 2011 on a news broadcast.

    Does anyone have any idea of NK chemical weaponary?

    @19k11

    Iran also does not border china.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Type59 View Post
    Libya gave up nukes and turned its military into an internal security, on the premise it wont be attacked. It was bombed and militias were given support to overthrow recognised government.

    North Korea is doing something right. Bristling with WMDs it can buy time to improve economy.
    Libya didn't have nukes to give up. It was trying to get them, but it hadn't got very far.

    It didn't turn its military into an internal security force. It had well over 1000 tanks, lots of heavy artillery, many SAMs, & far more jet fighters than any internal security force would need.

    North Korea isn't buying time to improve its economy. In order to improve the economy, it would have to reform it in ways which the rulers refuse to do, & cut spending on the conventional armed forces which gobble up far too many resources to allow economic improvement. The economy has become more militarised as it has declined, not less, with civilian manufacturing production declining far more than military. There's no sign of that trend reversing. The role of WMDs appears to be to make up for the reducing effectiveness of the conventional military, as the continued economic disaster reduces N. Korea's ability to maintain & support them, their equipment becomes increasingly obsolete & worn-out, & the troops become smaller & weaker due to worsening diet. Why improve the economy when you can use threats of war to extort enough money from the neighbours for a tiny ruling clique to live in luxury?
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Libya didn't have nukes to give up. It was trying to get them, but it hadn't got very far.

    It didn't turn its military into an internal security force. It had well over 1000 tanks, lots of heavy artillery, many SAMs, & far more jet fighters than any internal security force would need.

    North Korea isn't buying time to improve its economy. In order to improve the economy, it would have to reform it in ways which the rulers refuse to do, & cut spending on the conventional armed forces which gobble up far too many resources to allow economic improvement. The economy has become more militarised as it has declined, not less, with civilian manufacturing production declining far more than military. There's no sign of that trend reversing. The role of WMDs appears to be to make up for the reducing effectiveness of the conventional military, as the continued economic disaster reduces N. Korea's ability to maintain & support them, their equipment becomes increasingly obsolete & worn-out, & the troops become smaller & weaker due to worsening diet. Why improve the economy when you can use threats of war to extort enough money from the neighbours for a tiny ruling clique to live in luxury?
    All them purchases were made during cold war. Tell what new systems they had. If the Libyan government had kept chemical weapons in active service, it would not have been toppled. In my eyes bombing someone with JDAMS and gassing them with mustard gas is the same, death is death.

    With a increased Nuke deterent, they can spend less on military. We have to see. Your right on about NK needing to reform, but since any attack is unlikely, as compared to Iran, they have time.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    12,029
    Libya had no effective delivery system for mustard gas. It could send fairly small numbers of aircraft, on one way trips, dropping very crude bombs (an effective system needs a good dispersal mechanism: AFAIK Libya never developed one).

    Mustard gas doesn't kill anyone quickly & cleanly, & it kills people, not weapons. You can't attack a tank depot, or a military airfield, with mustard gas without gassing any civilians nearby or downwind.

    NATO & its allies deliberately targeted weapons first & soldiers second, & tried to avoid civilians. If Libya had been able to get mustard gas to targets in Italy, it would have been killing & maiming mostly civilians, because that's the nature of the weapon. Do you really not see a difference?


    North Korea can't just spend less on the military, & get a benefit. There's hardly any civilian industry nowadays, & what there is, is hopelessly obsolete, making goods that can't be sold abroad.

    It doesn't have time. Infrastructure is deteriorating, the remaining industry is decaying due to lack of investment, agricultural production has levelled out at a perhaps sustainable but much reduced level - but it's inadequate to feed the population in most years. It's functioning largely at a pre-industrial level. The average height of N. Koreans is reducing. Children are smaller than they were 70 years ago. Everything is falling apart. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets.
    Last edited by swerve; 24th December 2011 at 01:15.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glarus/ Switzerland
    Posts
    236

    North Korea's Participation In Vietnam War Specified In New Dossier



    North Korea dispatched dozens of pilots to the Vietnam War decades ago, with its communist ally short of specialists to operate MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighter jets in battles against the United States, according to a recently released dossier.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by raptor2019 View Post


    North Korea dispatched dozens of pilots to the Vietnam War decades ago, with its communist ally short of specialists to operate MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighter jets in battles against the United States, according to a recently released dossier.
    Nothing new. Similar to South Korean ground forces in South Vietnam. We still have to learn from the United States how many SU instructors took part in combat missions over North Vietnam. By the way there was a reason why North Vietnam MiGs seldom passed the own coast-line to engage US fighters.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,390
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glarus/ Switzerland
    Posts
    236

    A second Korean War is possible, but it won’t happen




    The sudden death of maverick North Korean strongman Kim Jong-il has not come as a surprise, as talks about the impending succession of power have been going on for a long time. It was also well known that Kim would be succeeded by his third son, Kim Jong Un. The only question that remains open is whether a second Korean War is possible.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glarus/ Switzerland
    Posts
    236

    N.Korea closer to nuclear-warhead missile



    North Korea likely is closer to mounting nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles than generally reported, possibly only one or two years away, the Congress's former top expert on the issue has concluded.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Gijón (Asturias) Spain
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by Deino View Post
    And Su-25 on the first photo. Planes nº 45 and ¿41? white. Note pylons.
    Nice find.
    Any link to the original video?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,931
    So the MiG-29 is their most advanced aircraft. What model? (Or has anyone taken time to analyze the variant yet?)
    Go Huskers!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES