.

Sineva said:
I was instead wondering why the dprk evidently felt compelled to match what was clearly a south korean attempt at matching earlier north korean sub launched missile successes,especially when the dprk already has dedicated sub launched missile designs that are considerably more advanced than anything that the south is likely to field in the medium term[at least in its current non-nuclear state].
Click to expand...
Most likely just to remind South Korea not to be too eager about their new capabilities. Also, probably to make US expert wonder about new missiles.
 
When your enemies include South Korea and Japan, you don’t need a missile with long range, you need one that’s able to penetrate sophisticated defenses, and part of that includes being used in numbers, which necessitates being affordable, especially for North Korea
 
natewillcome4you said:
When your enemies include South Korea and Japan, you don’t need a missile with long range, you need one that’s able to penetrate sophisticated defenses, and part of that includes being used in numbers, which necessitates being affordable, especially for North Korea
Click to expand...
NK is dreaming if they think anybody around them isn't perfecting content to see them eat each other. Nobody wants to conquer them.
 
I always wonder if there is any rationale behind NK's missile programmes? They seem to be churning out new designs every other week, are they actually attempting to standardise any of them for production? How many different types of rocket do they realistically need?
 
Hood said:
always wonder if there is any rationale behind NK's missile programmes? They seem to be churning out new designs every other week, are they actually attempting to standardise any of them for production? How many different types of rocket do they realistically need?
Click to expand...
They are expeimenting, trying to refine designs in complex technology. Most of those missiles are most likely just experimental prototypes. But... demonstrating them helped to confuse US analytics about what NK really have and in what numbers) Each new missile means that US must re-evaluate what they consider to be NK capabilities. From the deterrence point of view, holding yor opponent unsure about your capabilities is pretty practical.
 
and because rocketry needs testing. Propaganda purpose or not.. one should test its rocket.
 
Hood said:
I always wonder if there is any rationale behind NK's missile programmes? They seem to be churning out new designs every other week, are they actually attempting to standardise any of them for production? How many different types of rocket do they realistically need?
Click to expand...
It’s party for export purposes, to potentially bring cash in. Also good for gunboat diplomacy when your navy doesn’t have much that isn’t just that. Also, rocket scientists who do good work get to eat
 
Pure speculation on my part here but the evolution towards a smaller/shorter range missile is interesting. Could this be because:

a) The larger missile's launch caused insurmountable structural problems/damage on launch?
b) The larger missile/its launch caused insurmountable stability/handling issues with the small submarine?
c) At least some of the larger missiles' launches were obvious failures. Did any of them in fact perform satisfactorily?
d) It is quite possible that the larger missiles were only launched from a submersible barge, they didn't dare to risk their sub at all?
e) Have Norks found building larger submarines to be impossible, so have to downsize missiles to fit more in?
f) Other?
e) At least some or all of the above?
 
The North Korean SSBs - 24 August Hero of the Sinpo-B class and the rebuilt Romeo Sinpo-C, are conventionally powered subs with one or three launch tubes. By Western standards they're noisy, and because they're conventional they can't stay submerged without snorting.

That means that in a wartime scenario they have to stay inshore, because if they try for blue water it'll be a feeding frenzy for the USN and South Korean submarine forces. The best defence the NKs have for them is to either bottom out in the shallows, or to try and throw a screen of Sang-Os in the way if they sortie for blue water, not because they could stop allied subs, but because they might just absorb enough time to give the Sinpos at least a slim chance of breaking contact.

Honestly, the NKs might as well have built half a dozen more submersible rafts like the one they used for initial testing, because they could keep those submerged indefinitely and in shallower water and it would give them a greater throw weight. Or they could just build another half-dozen road-mobile launches and hide them in warehouses and tunnels.
 
UpForce said:
Pure speculation on my part here but the evolution towards a smaller/shorter range missile is interesting. Could this be because:

a) The larger missile's launch caused insurmountable structural problems/damage on launch?
b) The larger missile/its launch caused insurmountable stability/handling issues with the small submarine?
c) At least some of the larger missiles' launches were obvious failures. Did any of them in fact perform satisfactorily?
d) It is quite possible that the larger missiles were only launched from a submersible barge, they didn't dare to risk their sub at all?
e) Have Norks found building larger submarines to be impossible, so have to downsize missiles to fit more in?
f) Other?
e) At least some or all of the above?
Click to expand...

Somewhat bad form to quote one's own post but many of the same questions, some answers and a lot of continuing (but refined) ambiguity in this podcast:

North Korea’s Small SLBM

www.armscontrolwonk.com www.armscontrolwonk.com
 
The Hermit Juchedom doesn't look kindly upon those who don't promptly deliver the awesome toys that Supreme Boy Wonder has announced he so desires. While evidently progress can be made by performatively demoting unsatisfactory top researchers into potato farmers (or worse) there must be a limit to the disposability of expertise, a point whereafter the probability of any subsequent "top expert" having to almost immediately engage in potato farming (or worse) is essentially always one.

This is of course relating to Norks' SSB/N project and the problems they're having with it. There's a new article about some new developments on the Daily NK site which is pretty hard to condense into anything more compact so I'll just quote it in its entirety.

N. Korea replaces, punishes 14 cadres and technicians working on nuclear-powered submarine program - Daily NK English

North Korea recently replaced or punished 14 cadres and technicians tasked with designing small nuclear reactors for nuclear-powered submarines, apparently for failing to meet party criterion. The authorities will likely now face difficulties in their plan to acquire the capability of stealthily...
www.dailynk.com www.dailynk.com

N. Korea replaces, punishes 14 cadres and technicians working on nuclear-powered submarine program

The Central Committee criticized the technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production

By Jeong Tae Joo - 2021.11.15 10:48am

North Korea recently replaced or punished 14 cadres and technicians tasked with designing small nuclear reactors for nuclear-powered submarines, apparently for failing to meet party criterion. The authorities will likely now face difficulties in their plan to acquire the capability of stealthily striking enemies.

According to multiple Daily NK sources in North Korea on Thursday, the Central Committee’s Military Industries Department began screening designs for nuclear-powered submarines on Nov. 5.

Work on the designs has been ongoing since October of last year.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said during the Eighth Party Congress in January that “new planning research for a nuclear-powered submarine has been completed and is to enter the final examination process.”

Nuclear-powered submarines are highly stealthy as they need not surface for long periods of time, making them the most likely weapon to survive an enemy’s preemptive strike.

Focusing on advancing the country’s arsenal of asymmetrical strategic weapons, North Korea has assigned its top researchers to the project.

In particular, the authorities reportedly put experts on the task of producing small nuclear reactors, the key to building the submarines, imploring them to “exercise their top abilities, given their rich experience built up over six nuclear tests.”

However, the Central Committee apparently criticized the screening report, which included analysis of design flaws.

Firstly, the Central Committee reportedly said it would “take 10 more years” to build nuclear-powered submarines according to current designs, even though the goal is to complete them by 2025.

The Central Committee also criticized the designs for failing to meet three criteria put forth by the party to achieve its goals.

Though party leadership had stressed 1) improving the capabilities of conventionally powered mini-submarines that are currently deployed, 2) building a new class of submarines capable of carrying North Korea’s existing SLBMs and 3) building nuclear-powered submarines capable of carrying several nuclear launch systems, the Central Committee reportedly judged that these criteria had not been met on the ground.

The Central Committee also criticized technicians for failing to follow party policy to “localize” production. That is to say, the committee took serious issue with designers handing over for final screening a complete comprehensive blueprint that called for large-scale imports of foreign technology and parts during the entire shipbuilding process.

Several basic errors were discovered as well, including a failure by designers to make the technical descriptions in the partial plans and assembly plans match when they drew the blueprints for the small nuclear reactors.

The Central Committee responded by excluding from the research team 14 cadres, researchers and technicians who took part in drawing up the plan. Six of them were kicked out of the party or disciplined.

One of the sources said the six who took responsibility for the failure were exiled with their families to remote areas. He added that the authorities now face snags in their plans, including the need to completely revise the designs for nuclear-powered submarines.

Please direct any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net.
Click to expand...
 
sferrin said:
NK is dreaming if they think anybody around them isn't perfecting content to see them eat each other. Nobody wants to conquer them.
Click to expand...
You greatly underestimate the Republic of Korea's desire to be one Korea again.

Half the reason the US is on the DMZ is to keep the South from marching north!
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1699892757320679628
View: https://twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/1699892757320679628

www.nknews.org

North Korea launches new ‘nuclear attack submarine’: State media | NK News

North Korea launched a new “tactical nuclear attack submarine” that has been under development for years, with leader Kim Jong Un attending a ceremony at the east coast Sinpho shipyard on Sept. 6, according to state media on Friday. It will be ready to carry out “both preemptive and retaliatory...
www.nknews.org www.nknews.org
 
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1699892757320679628
View: https://twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/1699892757320679628

www.nknews.org

North Korea launches new ‘nuclear attack submarine’: State media | NK News

North Korea launched a new “tactical nuclear attack submarine” that has been under development for years, with leader Kim Jong Un attending a ceremony at the east coast Sinpho shipyard on Sept. 6, according to state media on Friday. It will be ready to carry out “both preemptive and retaliatory...
www.nknews.org www.nknews.org
Click to expand...
Impressive!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wonder if they included enough shielding to avoid killing the (presumably highly loyal) crews?
Click to expand...
Most likely she is conventionally powered (maybe AIP). Look how thin her hull is. With sincere respect to her engineers, I rather doubt that North Korea could build such a small-diameter reactor without previous experience.
 
sferrin said:
NK is dreaming if they think anybody around them isn't perfecting content to see them eat each other. Nobody wants to conquer them.
Click to expand...
North Korean prefer to be sure that nobody would dare to attack them. After Iraq invasion of 2003 they kinda suspicious of USA peaceful intentions)
 
Looking at some details of the sail, it seems that it had some design changes along the way, such as the addition of some planes.
 

Attachments

  • https___s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com_the-drive-cms-content-staging_message-editor%2F156391175136...jpg
    https___s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com_the-drive-cms-content-staging_message-editor%2F156391175136...jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 20
  • rodong-sep8-2023-kju-sinpho-new-ballistic-missile-submarine-ceremony-15.jpg
    rodong-sep8-2023-kju-sinpho-new-ballistic-missile-submarine-ceremony-15.jpg
    491.8 KB · Views: 18
Dilandu said:
Most likely she is conventionally powered (maybe AIP). Look how thin her hull is. With sincere respect to her engineers, I rather doubt that North Korea could build such a small-diameter reactor without previous experience.
Click to expand...
Yes, definitely conventionally powered, i don't know why some believe it's nuclear powered.

Now me i'm very curious what's the next step, more heavily modified Romeos like this, or perhaps a bigger, stretched Gorae for a true modern SSB/SSG. And THAT could possibly be nuclear powered. When DPRK says something (i read that they DO have plans for SSNs) they usually put their money where their mouth is.
 
Last edited:
1694210040956.png

My reaction:
Its an okay analysis, but double standards since it author states it is not clear if there are torpedo tubes present or were they removed during reshaping only for author to assert that propulsion did not change and that battery capacity was reduced without any shred of evidence to support it.
 
Last edited:
BullpupRafale said:
Its an okay analysis, but double standards since it author states it is not clear if there are torpedo tubes present or were they removed during reshaping only for author to assert that propulsion did not change and that battery capacity was reduced without any shred of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Here is what the author stated:

Analysis of available imagery confirms that the submarine has been lengthened. It is approximately 10 meters longer overall. However the hull insert below the missile tubes is likely longer than this, but is offset by a radically reduced bow. The front of the submarine is now rounded, but appears rather blunt compared to other types. It may sacrifice its forward torpedo tubes in this rebuild, although that is not confirmed.
Click to expand...

The bow was shortened and reshaped. That may mean forward tubes were removed. There is less space for the forward tubes.

Despite the rounded bow, the bulky missile sail will greatly increase drag. Given that there is no indications, or room, for new propulsive machinery then we can expect speed to be greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

There is no space for the propulsion system to change (i.e. to be more powerful to offset the increased drag).

The removal of batteries will further reduce submerged endurance and possibly speed.
Click to expand...

While the author does not explicitly state it, the hull insert for the missiles reduces the amount of batteries the submarine can carry.

If you disagree with those conclusions perhaps you can offer an alternative analysis?
 
quellish said:
While the author does not explicitly state it, the hull insert for the missiles reduces the amount of batteries the submarine can carry.

If you disagree with those conclusions perhaps you can offer an alternative analysis?
Click to expand...
Author make the assumpthion that hull rear (small-diameter) missile tubes penetrate the pressure hull and therefore reduce battery space. Which may not be, if tubes are short enough.
 
From Mr Sutton's 2019 article, based on some limited TV images..

From hints visible in the KCNA images it appears that the missile tubes are located in the aft battery compartment directly ahead of the engine room. This suggests that the submarine has not been lengthened instead sacrificing internal space to accommodate the missiles. In this configuration, two missile tubes seems most likely, although three might be possible.

It is yet unclear whether the submarine has been stretched to accommodate NK-11 “북극성-1” (Pukgeukseong-1) Submarine launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). Profile (A) above shows the likely hull configuration if SLNBMs are carried.

http://www.hisutton.com/ROMEO-Mod_Submarine.html

It's now clear that the hull has been lengthened behind the sail. The SLBM tubes would intrude on the battery compartment and I assume the lengthening compensates for this. The SLCM tubes might be shorter.

Compare the 2019 and the recent diagrams - both provisional of course.

DPRK_Romeo-Mod_schem940.jpg


DPRK-North-Korea-Submarine-Hero-Kim-Gun-ok-Schematic.jpg
 
Dilandu said:
Author make the assumpthion that hull rear (small-diameter) missile tubes penetrate the pressure hull and therefore reduce battery space. Which may not be, if tubes are short enough.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the missile sail is more than about 3.5m above the outer casing (and that's being generous about the height of the DPRK sailors standing next to the sail, they may only be 1.5-1.6m tall!).

In any case, the pressure hull is only about 6.2m in diameter, so max launch tube length is about 8m. This is assuming that the tubes do not quite touch the pressure hull in the bilges or at the sides as the pressure hull curves in, and needs some level of space for muzzle hatches equal to roughly 3/4 the tube diameter. That also includes space at the bottom for the gas generator to spit the missile out of the tube, which will probably account for 0.5m of length in the bottom that can't be filled with missile.

That suggests a maximum missile length of about 7.5m, if you use all the available height in the hull for the missile tube and leave no space below the tube for batteries.

While it's not a great comparison, the 3M14E submarine-launched land attack cruise missile is 6.2m long. The maximum length for a Kalibr missile is 8.9m, but that's the anti-shipping version with a supersonic terminal phase. Tomahawks are 6.25m including booster, and the Hyunmoo-3 is 6m.
 
Scott Kenny said:
(and that's being generous about the height of the DPRK sailors standing next to the sail, they may only be 1.5-1.6m tall!)
Click to expand...
Nonsense as average is allegedly 165cm.
Height of sail at front is over 5 meters.
5 meter for sail where missiles are.
That is section that protrudes.
 
I was wondering about the silo layout yesterday. It is very unusual for a ballistic missile submarine with conning tower missile tubes to have a side-by-side layout.

The Romeo's pressure hull was widest at the command room at 5.3m, we can probably assume that this diameter will have been extended rearward to the missile tub area. If the missiles tubes are 1.5m in diameter that means there is barely 2m left in the pressure hull space. Effectively the submarine would be split into two sections with limited means of access between the bow and stern sections.

I wonder they didn't just build a lengthened Gorae instead? I think it would be a mistake to right this off as just a Romeo cut-n-shut job, I suspect there are Gorae design elements included - like the bow layout. Of course Gorae was single-hull and this would have provided more internal space so it is odd that they would attempt to maximise the missile layout with a twin-hull design like this.

I would estimate the external missile section to be about 4.5m, possibly 5m high at most. This feels insufficient to accommodate even SSMs in the rear tubes without some kind of pressure hull intrusion.
 
Hood said:
The Romeo's pressure hull was widest at the command room at 5.3m, we can probably assume that this diameter will have been extended rearward to the missile tub area. If the missiles tubes are 1.5m in diameter that means there is barely 2m left in the pressure hull space. Effectively the submarine would be split into two sections with limited means of access between the bow and stern sections.
Click to expand...
That's why I think that only front four tubes (the large one) are hull-penetrating. Presumably, a specific inserstion section was installed to accomodate them. The rear tubes, I think, would be much shorter, non-penetrating.

Hood said:
I wonder they didn't just build a lengthened Gorae instead? I think it would be a mistake to right this off as just a Romeo cut-n-shut job, I suspect there are Gorae design elements included - like the bow layout. Of course Gorae was single-hull and this would have provided more internal space so it is odd that they would attempt to maximise the missile layout with a twin-hull design like this.
Click to expand...
Probably they still have problems with building large-diameter pressure hulls. We knew little about Gorae-class performance; it may be not satisfactory.
 
Arguably repurposing Romeo's is more economical.
Along not risking sinking a newly built submarine.
This new SSB is at very least being experimental.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You greatly underestimate the Republic of Korea's desire to be one Korea again.

Half the reason the US is on the DMZ is to keep the South from marching north!
Click to expand...
We're in 2020s, not 1970s. There are some who desire reunification, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they want reunification through force. Most Koreans only want reunification if there are no significant negative repercussions. Majority younger generation doesn't even want reunification in the first place. Current USFK raison d'etre is not "keeping the South from marching North" - that's just bs
 
lancer21 said:
Now me i'm very curious what's the next step, more heavily modified Romeos like this, or perhaps a bigger, stretched Gorae for a true modern SSB/SSG. And THAT could possibly be nuclear powered. When DPRK says something (i read that they DO have plans for SSNs) they usually put their money where their mouth is.
Click to expand...
I don't think that SSBN makes much sense for NK. Their SSBs will operate from their small bastion close to their coast facing SoJ. It's hard to imagine the case in which the maneuverability of nuclear propulsion will come to much play for their SSB. Then it's the question of longer operational endurance, especially submerged, but with AIPs they could substantially extend the endurance as well. Of course nuclear endurance always wins over conventional AIPs but I think the noise level an AIP could offer already outweighs any nuclear propulsion NK would be able to afford, unless they opt for something like MESMA. Though, then again, there's also a question of what kind of conventional AIP NK would be able to get their hands on.

So in terms of future NK SSB/SSBN design, I think the question really lies on if the NK thinks they can get conventional AIP technology or not.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom