North Korea Air Force aircraft

[KonTim]

Good news for DPRK air force:

Russia, North Korea Agree To Su-27, MiG-29 Transfer | Aviation Week Network

The top U.S. officer in the Pacific says Russia has reached an agreement with North Korea to send MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter aircraft to Pyongyang.

aviationweek.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Good news for DPRK air force:

Russia, North Korea Agree To Su-27, MiG-29 Transfer | Aviation Week Network

The top U.S. officer in the Pacific says Russia has reached an agreement with North Korea to send MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter aircraft to Pyongyang.

aviationweek.com

How many of either does the RusAF have left to send over?!?

 

[KonTim]

How many of either does the RusAF have left to send over?!?

Dozens or even hundreds in storage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Dozens or even hundreds in storage.

You really think that there will be anything left of the ones in storage but the bare airframe, with no electronics, engines, or even wiring?

 

[sahureka]

Good news for DPRK air force:

Russia, North Korea Agree To Su-27, MiG-29 Transfer | Aviation Week Network

The top U.S. officer in the Pacific says Russia has reached an agreement with North Korea to send MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter aircraft to Pyongyang.

aviationweek.com

Therefore it seems that this Admiral, by waking up those two models of fighter planes, could have made the same reasoning that I had expressed in my answer above, and that would be in theory the easiest and least risky way in terms of UN accusations for Moscow to help the DPRK

 

[sahureka]

You really think that there will be anything left of the ones in storage but the bare airframe, with no electronics, engines, or even wiring?

Russia has not only SU-27s in stock, but also operational and modernized SU-27s.
And
Mig-29SMT in storage at Millerovo airport Rostov region and Kursk airport before October 2022, then all were moved, it was thought to be reactivated for Russia itself, but the Russians currently do not use this type of in combat aircraft.
Therefore they could be made available for transfer or sale to friendly countries, certainly after major repair work

 

[Scott Kenny]

Russia has not only SU-27s in stock, but also operational and modernized SU-27s.
And
Mig-29SMT in storage at Millerovo airport Rostov region and Kursk airport before October 2022, then all were moved, it was thought to be reactivated for Russia itself, but the Russians currently do not use this type of in combat aircraft.
Therefore they could be made available for transfer or sale to friendly countries, certainly after major repair work
View attachment 751746

View attachment 751747

You really think that they haven't been cannibalized? Whether to keep the existing MiG-29s flying or had all the valuable parts stolen and sold on the black market?

Based on the conditions of the tanks Russia was keeping "in reserve" mothballs, you are being very optimistic in your assumption of the conditions of those airframes... Especially those in the second satellite image.

 

[Ainen]

You really think that they haven't been cannibalized? Whether to keep the existing MiG-29s flying or had all the valuable parts stolen and sold on the black market?

Based on the conditions of the tanks Russia was keeping "in reserve" mothballs, you are being very optimistic in your assumption of the conditions of those airframes... Especially those in the second satellite image.

Russia doesn't operate mig-29s(other than Ks in navy service) in combat capacity anymore, and if push comes to that - there's active supply chain, supporting them around the world. Migs were still being produced for export as late as 2022.
MIG-29SMTRs he's talking about were produced less than 10 years ago.

Based on condition of Spanish leopards, Europe is done for. Be careful with overstretching summaries.

 

[serg.gonzp]

Could there be a possibility that China is giving help to DPRK in military aviation issues, or that there is some interest in the J-10 or Chinese flanker versions?

 

[SK2]

Could there be a possibility that China is giving help to DPRK in military aviation issues, or that there is some interest in the J-10 or Chinese flanker versions?

This could happen as they have an active Su-27(J-11) production line, as well as retirement of early Su-27Ks

 

[sahureka]

This could happen as they have an active Su-27(J-11) production line, as well as retirement of early Su-27Ks

and the SU-27 was sold or inherited after the collapse of the USSR by numerous nations and produced in China, thus an ideal model to make it difficult for others to indicate with certainty who delivered what.
And perhaps also for this reason that even the US admiral is leaning towards the SU-27 and consequently also the Mig-29

 

[Geo]

Good news for DPRK air force:

Russia, North Korea Agree To Su-27, MiG-29 Transfer | Aviation Week Network

The top U.S. officer in the Pacific says Russia has reached an agreement with North Korea to send MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter aircraft to Pyongyang.

aviationweek.com

- This guy's information is purely speculative, but there is logic to it. Older MiG-29s and Su-27s can be a big boost for the next 10 years.

- The DPRK has been dreaming of Flankers for more than 20 years since Kim Jong Il's visit to the Komsomolsk, and the aircraft has been seen more than once as an object of art in North Korea (really).

- There is apparently a program to modernize existing aircraft and aim to strengthen their combat capabilities (see new MRAAM and SRAAM) and integration into the air defense system (see AWACS being built).

- On the other hand, the primary goal of the DPRK is to add the last stone to the mosaic of sci-tech and industrial capabilities, and that is the creation and development of its own aviation industry.

- There is no realistic obstacle to realizing a similar cooperation with Russia like between the United States and Taiwan in the 1980s and 1990s.

- DPRK wants know-how. Wants to know how to build airplanes. Wants independence in accordance with Juche ideology. Now has an unprecedented opportunity, and if he takes advantage of it, we'll be amazed in 10 years.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Does the Flanker really get the North Koreans any capability that Fulcrums can't provide? It doesn't seem like they could benefit much from the range the larger Flanker has.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

A better radar but that's about it

 

[SK2]

Longer range could be important also, especially if they want to fight the 'other neighbour'

 

[SK2]

However considering the connection of Iran and NK, there are slight chance that they may get Su-35 also...and will exchange ideas on training and operation of the aircraft

 

[BullpupRafale]

Thing is it is technically possible to implement IRBIS radar used in Su-35 to Su-27 if one desires to do so.
Though considering North Korea is developing own radar and infrared guided air to air missiles.
Possible that North Korea could prefer to develop own aircraft radar for Su-27's and MiG-29's.

Unless Russia agrees to implement North Korean missiles into FCS and compatibility is created between them.

 

[SK2]

Based on their track record in developing air force equipment, I think they still need Russian help on it

 

[BullpupRafale]

Based on their track record in developing air force equipment, I think they still need Russian help on it

On what basis?

 

[SK2]

With all those fancy models shown in expo and the major aircraft intercepting RC-135/P-3s still being Mig-19/21, with occasion Mig-29 appearance, mainly armed with R-60 (and sometimes R-73), this is probably a good guess on their need

 

[Geo]

If the DPRK is indeed to receive the Su-27, then it is very likely that it will be the SM version.

Our First Detailed Look At Russian Su-27 Flanker Jets In The Ukraine War

For the first time, Russia has released media showing the ‘legacy’ Su-27 Flanker fighter jet at war in Ukraine.

www.twz.com

 

[Geo]

Let's try to talk about what the integration of these things will bring to the North Korean Fulcrums and possibly Flankers.

 

[SK2]

Let's try to talk about what the integration of these things will bring to the North Korean Fulcrums and possibly Flankers.

Only if they are real as in real missile rather than models

 

[Geo]

Yeah, there were similar claims that the DPRK showed off mock-up UAVs... before a few hours later we saw the Saetbyol-4 flying majestically over Pyongyang and the Saetbyol-9 firing missiles similar to Hellfires.

 

[SK2]

Yeah, at the same time the real North Korean Air Force intercepted RC-135/P-3s with Mig-19/21, and occasional Mig-29 appearance, mainly armed with K-13 and R-60 (and sometimes R-73), we are clearly living in a parallel world

 

[TsrJoe]

If its good enough to do the job why spend scarce resources on more ?

N.Korea is a small nation (about the size of Scotland) the hyped up 'threat' and response pitched by the west is in part pushed by the need to keep the country belligerent :/

 

[ValiantHeart]

Russia Could Realistically Ship Hundreds of Stored MiG-29 Fighters to North Korea: This is How the Transfer Could Proceed

North Korea’s air force is scheduled to receive MiG-29 and Su-27 fourth generation fighters from Russia, according to a report by the commander of the United States

militarywatchmagazine.com

(...)The sheer numbers of Soviet-built MiG-29s Russia retains, the diminishing value of these reserves, and North Korea’s capacity to absorb 200 or more new fighters into its large fleet, raises the possibility that Russia could make very large scale transfers of MiG-29s to re-equip multiple North Korean units. The fact that the MiG-29’s operational costs are higher than the MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21 fighters they are expected to replace means that one-for-one replacements of the 400 or so legacy aircraft in service is unlikely, although the Korean fleet could realistically accommodate 100-200 MiG-29s alongside two dozen Su-27s. The very large quantities of aircraft Russia retains, and the low cost of modernization, makes this highly feasible, although North Korea may itself seek not to invest too heavily in the aircraft, and to leave a capacity in its air force to procure more advanced fighters such as Su-57s later on in more limited numbers.

Russia Likely to Sell its Former Top Fighter Squadron to North Korea: Why the Su-27SM2/3s is Ideal For Pyongyang

On December 10 the commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) Admiral Samuel Paparo reported that the Korean People’s Army Air Force, the

militarywatchmagazine.com

(...)Despite the Su-27 having been effectively absent from global fighter markets for close to two decades, there are multiple possible rationales for North Korea’s procurement of the aircraft. These are as follows:

• For Russia, delivering only older aircraft to its neighbour avoids significantly disrupting relations with Japan, South Korea and the United States, with Su-27s having insufficient capabilities to remain survivable outside North Korean airspace, and being able to potentially challenge modern fighters such as F-35s or F-15EXs only if operating alongside North Korea’s ground based air defences. For political reasons, they may thus be the only heavyweight fighters that Russia has made available.
• Su-27s can also be delivered more quickly than waiting for new Su-30, Su-35 or Su-57 fighters to be built, which is beneficial for Pyongyang due to the risk that Russia’s position on fighter exports may change should a ceasefire in Ukraine be reached.
• The Su-27SM2/SM3 could be considered a stopgap acquisition to familiarise the North Korean fleet with the operations of ‘4+ generation’ fighters, paving the way to acquisitions of more advanced aircraft in future such as the Su-57. The fact that Russia’s Su-27s have already seen many years of service means that they could be procured at a very low cost, and may be phased out of elite frontline units relatively quickly once newer aircraft are procured.

Interesting.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Replacing MiG-21/J-7 for MiG-29 could be up to 75 aircraft in terms of maintenance and jet fuel consumption.
For MiG-23 it would be 1 to 1 ratio thus 55 aircraft and MiG-19 would be 4 to 1 thus 25 at most 25 aircrafts.
North Korea could easily accommodate 200 examples of MiG-29 in service without increasing workload.

 

[Ainen]

I wonder if it's possible to do sm/smt/upg again, i.e. retrofit new gen mig avionics into old gen airframe.

Mig has a state of the art set from the mig-35, after all.

 

[SK2]

Replacing MiG-21/J-7 for MiG-29 could be up to 75 aircraft in terms of maintenance and jet fuel consumption.
For MiG-23 it would be 1 to 1 ratio thus 55 aircraft and MiG-19 would be 4 to 1 thus 25 at most 25 aircrafts.
North Korea could easily accommodate 200 examples of MiG-29 in service without increasing workload.

There are no radar or only a simple range finder on Mig-19, that will be a big increase in workload
Replacing the Mig-23 is quite reasonable as the variable geometry wings are hard to maintain and the plane is hard for inexperienced pilots to control

 

[BullpupRafale]

There are no radar or only a simple range finder on Mig-19, that will be a big increase in workload

This sentence does not make any sense as there is no factual logic behind it.
It would take more time to do maintenance on two MiG-19 than single MiG-29.
Regardless of former having no radar and few electronics compared to latter.

 

[SK2]

This sentence does not make any sense as there is no factual logic behind it.
It would take more time to do maintenance on two MiG-19 than single MiG-29.
Regardless of former having no radar and few electronics compared to latter.

Tell your logic to those avionics mechanics and see if they would agree your statement.

 

[GTX]

This sentence does not make any sense as there is no factual logic behind it.
It would take more time to do maintenance on two MiG-19 than single MiG-29.
Regardless of former having no radar and few electronics compared to latter.

You appear to have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Tell your logic to those avionics mechanics and see if they would agree your statement.

You appear to have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance.

Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.

 

[SK2]

Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.

I am not too sure about basic mathematics here, as two planes doesn't necessarily got more parts than one different plane.
And depends on version, but early foreign users of MiG-29 did suffer a lot from down time of N019 (India and East Germany).

What I am trying to say is, it's not simple maths that two MiG-19 workload equals to one MiG-29, there are different calculations on adding new aircrafts into inventory, and one shall not assume new machines equal to 'reliable' or 'easier to maintain'.

 

[ValiantHeart]

Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.
After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.

Ok, but what about fuel consumption?

 

[BullpupRafale]

Ok, but what about fuel consumption?

It should be considerably lower than two MiG-19's.

 

[GTX]

Clearly neither of you can do basic math as two MiG-19 have more parts than single MiG-29 and former requires considerably more frequent maintenance than latter thus greater complexity on paper is outweighed by actual needs of aircraft in long term.

And it is clear that you have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance, especially combat platforms. It is not simply about the number of parts.

Also RD-9 turbojet in MiG-19 has far shorter service life than RD-33 turbofan in 29.
Whatever workload MiG-29 has that 19 does not is offset by quantity of latter.

And to ge the longer life also comes with greater maintenance demand...

After all at least two of MiG-19 will be retired for each 29 that gets added.

And your source for this is?

 

[GTX]

It should be considerably lower than two MiG-19's.

Looking at SFCs:

Platform (Engines)	AFC (Dry)	SFC (Afterburning)
MiG-19/J-6 (RD-9/WP-6 x 2)	0.96 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 1.92 lb/(lbf⋅h)	1.6 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 3.2lb/(lbf⋅h)
MiG-29 (RD-33 x 2)	0.77 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.54 lb/(lbf·h)	1.85 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.7 lb/(lbf·h)
Su-27 (AL-31 x 2)	0.78 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.56 lb/(lbf·h)	1.96 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.92 lb/(lbf·h)

So better in dry/military thrust but worse in afterburner.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Looking at SFCs:

Platform (Engines)	AFC (Dry)	SFC (Afterburning)
MiG-19/J-6 (RD-9/WP-6 x 2)	0.96 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 1.92 lb/(lbf⋅h)	1.6 lb/(lbf⋅h) ea thus 3.2lb/(lbf⋅h)
MiG-29 (RD-33 x 2)	0.77 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.54 lb/(lbf·h)	1.85 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.7 lb/(lbf·h)
Su-27 (AL-31 x 2)	0.78 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 1.56 lb/(lbf·h)	1.96 lb/(lbf·h) ea thus 3.92 lb/(lbf·h)

So better in dry/military thrust but worse in afterburner.

You have not considered thrust increase for each engine as to how much afterburner provides compared to dry.
RD-33 worse in afterburner because there is 62.6 percent increase in thrust compared to 27.5 percent increase for RD-9.
AL-31 predecessor AL-21 has 1.86 SFC for afterburner while only increasing thrust by 43.7 percent and 0.86 SFC for dry thrust.
AL-31 in comparison has 60 percent thrust increase with afterburner engaged thus RD-33 has most effective afterburner.

And it is clear that you have no experience with real world aircraft maintenance, especially combat platforms. It is not simply about the number of parts.

It is clear you have no argument as evident by your replies.

And to ge the longer life also comes with greater maintenance demand...

This is why I say that you have no argument because it is not greater maintenance if you could do basic math as turbojet engines require more frequent maintenance due to having much shorter service life. Unlike turbofans that despite more complexity due to design goal being efficiency along greater service life is part reason there is a fan for better heat dissipation by cooling down engine components.

Though superiority of turbofans is also in part because of improvements in material science and applications of such on jet engines.

And your source for this is?

None. it is logic.

If they keep MiG-19's for example while obtaining more MiG-29's along adding on top Su-27's then they will have to expand their air force thus more resources needed, compared to simply retiring MiG-19's at two to one ratio with MiG-29. If they were to import some 200 examples of MiG-29 then they could considerably downsize their air force or maintain size and improve readiness.

Also MiG-29 at full throttle dry would consume 37 percent more fuel in operation and skyrockets to over 250 percent once afterburner thrust is engaged when compared to MiG-19. Of course former is incomparably more capable yet in terms of flight hours latter is cheaper to operate in terms of fuel cost.