DPRK Navy ships

[ValiantHeart]

If that is the case then one must wonder whether they have the shipyard capacity to build and maintain them in the long term. I do not doubt that the willpower is there, but I need more information regarding DPRK shipbuilding practices, operations and facilities.

The bad news is that North Korea’s shipbuilding industry has historically been neglected and has been far inferior to South Korea in both technology and output. Its annual shipbuilding capacity is at least 100 times less than South Korea, concentrated in two shipyards: Nampo (Yellow Sea) and Najin (Sea of Japan).

The good news is that Kim Jong Un's North Korea has made military shipbuilding a top priority since 2023. That means improved design, improved manufacturing technology, more money poured in, Shipyard workers get to see KJU more often :V,... It's only been a year and we can already see what they're about to achieve. Just look at how fast North Korea has advanced in missile and nuclear technology in just over 10 years: if their Navy were given the same high priority and generous resources, manpower and funding as the nuclear/missile program, we would see them transform very quickly.

That's the beauty of a centralized economy: the ability to focus all national resources on key projects and produce rapid results. I'm not advocating it, but in cases like this, it at least has a point.

 

[Ainen]

Maybe it's because they take part in the international weapons and drugs smuggling trade?

It's unimportant; fleets aren't here to be nice. The important part is that there's a perceived requirement.

 

[ValiantHeart]

I also do question the logic behind such a procurement; wouldn't it make more sense to simply build larger numbers of fast attack craft, semi-submersibles USVs, and stealth corvettes (a la Visby-class) which can make uses of the many bays and islands present in North Korea. They simply cannot fight a conventional naval conflict against the ROKN, USN and JMSDF.

I agree with that. But who knows, maybe Kim Jong Un is just really (overly) ambitious?

But there may still be some logic to it. Focusing entirely on small, coastal warships will prevent enemies from landing on your flanks, but it won’t stop them from standing back and bombarding you with cruise missiles and carrier airpower from beyond your reach. So you need a green-water navy capability to challenge them more effectively (though, if that’s the case, I’d prefer attack submarines and long-range coastal defense system).

Naval nuclear deterrence is another reason. There are two aspects: how to create the greatest deterrent, and how to preserve that capability most effectively (or at least for as long as possible)? A VLS-carrying surface combatant that can launch nuclear-capable cruise missiles would be an option to enhance nuclear deterrence while being easier to build - I'm pretty sure a 4000-5000 ton surface combatant could carry more ammunition than a submarine of equivalent displacement, but be cheaper. And whether it is a surface ship or a submarine, the biggest threat will come from the overwhelming air and naval superiority of the US and South Korea. So you need an air defense warship to create an air defense umbrella to protect your nuclear assets, and a warship with advanced anti-surface warfare capabilities to push enemy ships away, creating an area of operation and hiding for your nuclear carriers.

Additionally, North Korea has staked its claim to its Exclusive Economic Zone, seemingly aiming to make that sea its own without being challenged. The benefits from the marine-based economy will also justify investment in assets to protect it.

Kim Jong Un discussed with his generals last year shooting down US spy planes with an anti-aircraft warship. So that's another reason.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

fleets aren't here to be nice

No, fleets are there to fight effectively and survive. And whichever way one looks at this, whether it's a message to China, ROK/Japan/USA, or both, it does not bode well for the survivability of these vessels.

Focusing entirely on small, coastal warships will prevent enemies from landing on your flanks, but it won’t stop them from standing back and bombarding you with cruise missiles and carrier airpower from beyond your reach

Assuming a fleet of 6-8 frigates, you'd have an operational fleet of 2-3 under normal circumstances, 4 at best. Now, the question would be where these ships would be based; on the East or West coast? That then splits DPRK naval forces further. Stopping an invasion fleet can be done by standoff ASMs, submarines and fast attack craft. North Korea is not well placed to counter conventional threats via conventional means, which is why they've always resorted top asymmetric means.

(though, if that’s the case, I’d prefer attack submarines and long-range coastal defense system).

I completely agree, it would make more sense to buy a few Kilo-class submarines from the Russians and then begin building them locally.

A VLS-carrying surface combatant that can launch nuclear-capable cruise missiles would be an option to enhance nuclear deterrence while being easier to build - I'm pretty sure a 4000-5000 ton surface combatant could carry more ammunition than a submarine of equivalent displacement, but be cheaper.

The issue is that you then have all the issues of an SSBN without any of the benefits. It would make a lot more sense to have a larger fleet of smaller submarines to attack from as many different vectors as possible, rather than putting all their eggs in one basket. The surface vessels would have none of the stealth of the submarines and can easily be found and escorted.

So you need an air defense warship to create an air defense umbrella to protect your nuclear assets, and a warship with advanced anti-surface warfare capabilities to push enemy ships away, creating an area of operation and hiding for your nuclear carriers.

That makes sense, but the fleet numbers will be too small to do any of that, and I doubt that the North Koreans have any major experience in AAW and ASW warfare or the construction of vessels designed for those purposes. Now, they can import knowledge and technology from the Russians, but the application of it will still be limited.

 

[ValiantHeart]

I completely agree, it would make more sense to buy a few Kilo-class submarines from the Russians and then begin building them locally.

That said, if they convert all of their Romeos into nuclear attack submarines—as KJU said last year—then North Korea's submarine fleet would suddenly be left with a huge hole in it, with no alternative to replace those attack submarines. I wonder what their agenda is here...

That makes sense, but the fleet numbers will be too small to do any of that, and I doubt that the North Koreans have any major experience in AAW and ASW warfare or the construction of vessels designed for those purposes. Now, they can import knowledge and technology from the Russians, but the application of it will still be limited.

It is, but then again, Russia and China can provide them with the operational know-how. Still better than starting from scratch.

It's also worth noting that the ship isn't the only naval project in the works: there's at least one other class of anti-submarine ship and another class of missile boat under construction. Not to mention what they are planning or still keeping in the dark. After a few years, their numbers will be large enough. Hopefully.

 

[ValiantHeart]

Now, the question would be where these ships would be based; on the East or West coast? That then splits DPRK naval forces further.

Overall, it seems that the Eastern Fleet will be given priority, as the longer coastline and lack of geographically closed locations (Wonsan Bay being the only closed bay) will need to be compensated for with more ships. Of course, since the ship was revealed to be built in Nampo, the Western Fleet will also have some, but fewer: The western sea has many islands and small bays interspersed, more suitable for small, high-speed boats.

 

[Arjen]

convert all of their Romeos into nuclear attack submarines—as KJU said last year

I missed that. Convert smallish 1950s designed diesel-electric submarines, the last of which were assembled in the 1980s? That would be a most interesting effort, I wouldn't be sure if that's practical. At all. Or have them carry nuclear weapons?

 

[BullpupRafale]

I doubt they will convert all Romeo's to nuclear armed attack submarines.

More likely is that was only done to test components and design of changed sections from original Romeo design.

Next submarine will likely have some changes with most prominent being entirely new rear compared to Romeo stand in.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But there may still be some logic to it. Focusing entirely on small, coastal warships will prevent enemies from landing on your flanks, but it won’t stop them from standing back and bombarding you with cruise missiles and carrier airpower from beyond your reach. So you need a green-water navy capability to challenge them more effectively (though, if that’s the case, I’d prefer attack submarines and long-range coastal defense system).

Naval nuclear deterrence is another reason. There are two aspects: how to create the greatest deterrent, and how to preserve that capability most effectively (or at least for as long as possible)? A VLS-carrying surface combatant that can launch nuclear-capable cruise missiles would be an option to enhance nuclear deterrence while being easier to build - I'm pretty sure a 4000-5000 ton surface combatant could carry more ammunition than a submarine of equivalent displacement, but be cheaper. And whether it is a surface ship or a submarine, the biggest threat will come from the overwhelming air and naval superiority of the US and South Korea. So you need an air defense warship to create an air defense umbrella to protect your nuclear assets, and a warship with advanced anti-surface warfare capabilities to push enemy ships away, creating an area of operation and hiding for your nuclear carriers.

Radar antennas 40-50ft off the water are not particularly effective for air defense.

 

[ValiantHeart]

Radar antennas 40-50ft off the water are not particularly effective for air defense.

But it is still not certain if they are its air defense fire control radar.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But it is still not certain if they are its air defense fire control radar.

You don't really need arrays that big for surface search radar.

 

[ValiantHeart]

You don't really need arrays that big for surface search radar.

There's still a small chance that it's not a radar, but a platform for anti-aircraft guns or something... you know, North Korea sometimes comes up with some pretty strange solutions and designs (although I still stand by the popular argument that it is the location of the phased array radars).

Whatever the case, it reflects certain shortcomings and limitations in Pyongyang's technological and manufacturing capabilities.

 

[Ainen]

You don't really need arrays that big for surface search radar.

Options are probably kn-06(the shorter interceptor), DPRK Tor, or something new.
TEchnically we can try photoshopping in known FC arrays and see which fits better,

 

[BullpupRafale]

There's still a small chance that it's not a radar, but a platform for anti-aircraft guns or something...

No, it is absolute zero change and this shows your lack of knowledge on North Korea.

you know, North Korea sometimes comes up with some pretty strange solutions and designs (although I still stand by the popular argument that it is the location of the phased array radars).

Supposed strange solutions are probably also applied by other countries just that we do not notice because we do not check them.
Either due to not having interest or willpower to do such extensive research to make detailed comparisons for whatever reason.

Whatever the case, it reflects certain shortcomings and limitations in Pyongyang's technological and manufacturing capabilities.

This thread would be better without your commentary. North Korea has made PESA over a decade ago and AESA few years ago.
Anyway did pixel measuring and ESA might have 3.5 meter wide by 2.5 meter tall array thus comparable size to EL/M-2248 MF-STAR

 

[Ainen]

This thread would be better without your commentary. North Korea has made PESA over a decade ago and AESA few years ago.
Anyway did pixel measuring and ESA might have 3.5 meter wide by 2.5 meter tall array thus comparable size to EL/M-2248 MF-STAR

what overall dimensions did you come to?

 

[BullpupRafale]

what overall dimensions did you come to?

Have not bothered to measure overall dimensions due odd image angles. Seems beam is at minimum 15 meter wide, at most 17 meter.

 

[World B4]

ASW ship, article states 2 exist. Analogous to Soviet asw corvettes

https://namu.wiki/w/%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0%EC%9D%B8%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%B0%20%EC%8B%A0%ED%98%95%20%EB%8C%80%EC%9E%A0%20%EA%B3%A0%EC%86%8D%EC%A0%95

 

[BullpupRafale]

ASW ship, article states 2 exist. Analogous to Soviet asw corvettes

https://namu.wiki/w/%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0%EC%9D%B8%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%B0%20%EC%8B%A0%ED%98%95%20%EB%8C%80%EC%9E%A0%20%EA%B3%A0%EC%86%8D%EC%A0%95

Different ship class.

 

[Arjen]

Different ship class.

Indeed.
Fits within subject of thread 'DPRK Navy ships'.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Indeed.
Fits within subject of thread 'DPRK Navy ships'.

Far less interesting, rather small warship built with experience of designing Amnok.
It only has single RBU-6000 for ASW and outdated AK-230 CIWS, anemic platform.
Also if there are two of them, better would have been to build another Amnok.

 

[Arjen]

Far less interesting

To you. To me, it helps build a more complete picture of DPRK ship development.

 

[World B4]

I think it's interesting, other than the corvettes and some asw helicopters their navy lacks asw capability. The ships are outdated, but badly needed nonetheless.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Issue is not if outdated or not as is lacking armament for anti submarine warfare role by not having two RBU-1200 as backup.
Or made it multi role as 76mm auto cannon could have had been on front and provision to carry anti ship cruise missiles.

EDIT: Anyway...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684464839295483904

View: https://x.com/stoa1984/status/1684464839295483904

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700232169006780864

View: https://x.com/800Tonnes/status/1700232169006780864

 

[yeetmahboi]

That patrol boat is interesting. Big rear deck... could be LCS-kinda mission bay for SOF insertion, towed arrays or laying mines. Plus high speed hull form. We could be looking at a LCS analogue here.

 

[ValiantHeart]

If that VSV was equipped with a mini ASM missile, or some kind of guided missile turret... it would definitely be more effective than two torpedo tubes.

 

[ValiantHeart]

No, it is absolute zero change and this shows your lack of knowledge on North Korea.

Because as you said, that altitude is not really ideal for mounting an air defense radar. I'm sure if we're aware of it, so are they.

So I'm assuming there's a (very small) chance that it's not where the radar is, or that they installed the radar there and had to accept its limitations due to lack of better design capabilities.

 

[Ainen]

Because as you said, that altitude is not really ideal for mounting an air defense radar. I'm sure if we're aware of it, so are they.

There are like ~two hundred ships with this exact radar position.

There's no need for other interpretations.

 

[Arjen]

There are like ~two hundred ships with this exact radar position.

Most of them bigger, putting the radar that much higher. The smaller ones usually opt for something like this (Swedish Helsingborg)

As do a lot of the bigger ones (Dutch Tromp):

Putting the radar as high as the ship allows.

 

[Ainen]

Most of them bigger, putting the radar that much higher. The smaller ones usually opt for something like this (Swedish Helsingborg)
View attachment 754472
As do a lot of the bigger ones (Dutch Tromp):
View attachment 754473
Putting the radar as high as the ship allows.

One of advantages of putting arrays below the bridge is that it gives more volume(cooling etc) and access to back end.
Main FC arrays by default need to be powerful enough.

DPRK is relatively new to ESA field, and it's their very first such ship ever. I think it's reasonable to expect their arrays to be heavier and/on require more attention. Just a self-conscious choice.

Furthermore, DPRK intentionally makes their equipment to match well-known visual forms (make visual copies), just to make sure their opponents won't miss the message.

 

[Arjen]

Furthermore, DPRK intentionally makes their equipment to match well-known visual forms (make visual copies), just to make sure their opponents won't miss the message.

Ah. Form over function. Nice one.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are like ~two hundred ships with this exact radar position.

There's no need for other interpretations.

A Burke, which has the same rough position, has the radars about 30ft higher up, because the Burke is just that much bigger than the DPRK ship is.

 

[ValiantHeart]

Russia: We bring you... the Tarantul-class corvette.


DPRK: Owww!!!
Russia: Simple, cheap but fiercely effective. The ship, while small in displacement, was over-heavily armed. Considering your recent shipbuilding upgrades, we expect 20 ships for you by 2035.
------
Seriously, when people talk about the transfer of naval technology from Russia to North Korea, I find it strange that no one includes this ship in their "analysis".

It's cheap - which is important to North Korea. It's small - North Korean shipbuilders are more familiar with smaller warships like it. It's simple - no aspect of its design, propulsion or armament is beyond North Korea's reach. Highly customizable - just look at the Russian and Indian versions.

 

[ValiantHeart]

And by the way, do you think they'll equip her with ASW helicopter and helipad?

 

[SK2]

I guess you know how small Tarantul class is? By equipping her with a helipad there will be no bridge at all.

For missile boats/corvettes, NK can simply build their own, unless Russia is providing them free of charge there is no reason to grab a Russian version.

 

[ValiantHeart]

I guess you know how small Tarantul class is? By equipping her with a helipad there will be no bridge at all.

Oh, sorry. I mean the under-construction destroyer.

For missile boats/corvettes, NK can simply build their own, unless Russia is providing them free of charge there is no reason to grab a Russian version.

Building Tarantul corvettes would be beneficial for North Korea in terms of reducing domestic R&D costs and efforts. They would only need to build on an existing one instead of creating something completely new from scratch.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Building Tarantul corvettes would be beneficial for North Korea in terms of reducing domestic R&D costs and efforts. They would only need to build on an existing one instead of creating something completely new from scratch.

Thought the DPRK already had an equivalent class in service?

 

[ValiantHeart]

Thought the DPRK already had an equivalent class in service?

They... actually no. I know they have a lot of different models of fast attack craft and small missile corvettes, but they are either too small or too expensive/cost-ineffective when compared to the Tarantul.

 

[SK2]

I am not sure about too expensive or cost-ineffective, when compare the already in service types with a new design (for NK).

And, think in NK's stance, do they really need another type of fast attack craft for their order of battle?

 

[Scott Kenny]

They... actually no. I know they have a lot of different models of fast attack craft and small missile corvettes, but they are either too small or too expensive/cost-ineffective when compared to the Tarantul.

But don't they have something with an equivalent weapons load?

 

[Scott Kenny]

And, think in NK's stance, do they really need another type of fast attack craft for their order of battle?

I know I'd be looking at either a more capable version of something they have in the fleet already, or a class that does something the fleet as a whole needs that it doesn't currently have right now.

So yes, adding an AAW ship makes sense, and or an AAW/ASW ship to give their missile subs a bastion to work in.