United Korean Aviation Tech Tree

Suggestions Aircraft
50

I got some nice news in regard to North Korea’s aviation. Some years ago North Korea displayed (mock-up) some new aerial weapons they working on like the AGP-250 as shown in my previous comment but also a new what seem to be Beyond Visual Range AAM.

Picture here of these aerial weapons :

BVR missile and Guided Bombs

IMG_3012

IMG_3011
IMG_30111910×1080 216 KB

IMG_3013

Now i am happy to say that this particular BVR missile has undergone testing on the MiG-29 platform. The AGP-250 (rocket boosted assume) and the electro optic glide bomb next to it have also been displayed in front of the MiG-29 and and next to SU-25 platform and have been carried on the North Korea’s new MQ-1 clone.

Pictures here :

New BVR missile live fire test

IMG_3010
IMG_30101359×900 128 KB

IMG_3009
IMG_30091800×562 71.7 KB

BVR missile and both glide bombs on display

IMG_3005
IMG_30051510×1000 277 KB

IMG_3007
IMG_30071512×1000 212 KB

IMG_3008
IMG_30081509×1000 235 KB

IMG_3006
IMG_30061509×1000 259 KB

MQ-1 clone carrying AGP-250

IMG_3003
IMG_30031364×900 335 KB

IMG_3004
IMG_30041800×560 64 KB

Of course there is little to no information but it’s really some nice and exciting news.

3 Likes
51

Is there any update regarding the single seater variant for the FA-50? Would love to have it as an exclusive for the United Korean tech tree.

Z4PwLKk

EDIT:
Does the T-50 have Triple Ejector Racks? Always seen em with them on mockups but havent really seen on an actual airframe.

a033d17a4e213651fe0cee23b73d6a7bf5d3d168

1 Like
52

Thank you for your interest! In response:

It has just passed the development proposal stage, and development has been approved. Therefore, a physical prototype does not yet exist. As it is a conservative derivative, it is not expected to be technically difficult or take a long time. However, it is my policy not to include ‘what-ifs’ or arbitrary combinations (e.g., someone thinking, ‘The F-5C is a derivative of the F-5A. The F-5A had some units with countermeasures and others, separately, with an RWR, so why not just combine those features!’) in the tree.

The LAU-88 has a technical issue that, while not critical, can be somewhat bothersome. When an LAU-88 is mounted on an inboard pylon and equipped with three AGM-65D missiles, the aircraft’s tail fin is exposed to the motor exhaust of an AGM-65D in a specific position. During the A-50 program, an expert inquired with KAI about this, and KAI responded as follows:

“According to various test results, this issue involves exposure for only about 2-3 seconds from rocket motor ignition until the missile departs from the aircraft. The accumulated thermal fatigue over the aircraft’s total operational lifespan has been determined to be at a level that does not compromise aircraft safety, thus it is not considered a critical problem.
(The horizontal tail surface temperature changes were also measured during T-50 flight tests.)
As a corrective measure, the standard operating procedure is to carry two missiles during normal operations, with the three-missile configuration restricted to wartime or urgent and unavoidable operational scenarios. For reference, we understand that the current F-16 also experiences the same issue you mentioned.”

Like this (F-16):
image

1 Like
53

The Indonesian T-50i does have Triple Ejector Racks, although they can’t carry three Mavericks with it

Screenshot_20250523_172009_Instagram
Screenshot_20250523_172009_Instagram1080×703 170 KB

15th Squadron official explaining the TER capability

Spoiler

Screenshot_20250101-141202_Instagram

2 Likes
54

Honestly would be welcome to see this. The fact that it also starts at rank IV will at least marginally help the semi-historical consistency, can appreciate that. +1

1 Like
55

Quick questions about the KF-5E:

Did South Korea ever procure AIM-9P-5s? And could they be equipped on the KF-5E?

Could the KF-5E self desginate targets for the KGGBs?

Did the KF-5E ever recieve the SPS-1000 mentioned on the earlier F-5E?

Also i cant find a single cockpit photo of the KF-5E, so did it ever get MFDs or a proper HUD?

I love the F-5 series, however it always saddens me that most F-5 operaters never modified their Tigers to carry more than 2 AAMs. Ik the KF-5E cant, but it wouldve made it all the more better. Cheers! :D

1 Like
56

I didn’t expect to see someone interested in the KF-5! The KF-5 is a special aircraft for the ROKAF, a true love-hate relationship. Thank you for your interest and answer your question:

image
image1386×1969 159 KB

No, the ROKAF did not acquire the 9P5.

image

Table 1. Main Function of PDU
No. / Main Functions of the Pilot Display Unit(PDU)

  1. Mission Data Storage by linking with the Mission Planning Equipment.
  2. Transmission and Verification of Mission Data stored in the Medium-Range GPS Guided Kit.
  3. Target Modification and Emergency Target Input.
  4. Status Check of the Medium-Range GPS Guided Kit.
  5. Calculation and Display of the Launch Acceptability Region (LAR).
  6. Display of Release Parameters, Target Information, and Flight Information, etc.
  7. Operation of Self-GPS-based Maps.
  8. Transmission of GPS Navigation Information to the Medium-Range GPS Guided Kit.

To be precise, KGGB is not a weapon dependent on the aircraft itself. The KGGB’s development goal and biggest selling point is that it doesn’t require separate integration modifications. Generally, the KGGB is operated by a command and communication terminal carried by the pilot, and it’s released onto pre-designated targets within a pre-planned mission file. However, it also has an emergency target input function, allowing pilots to switch to other targets within the same mission file or even input new targets mid-air.

image

Spoiler

image
image

Nope. :p

1 Like
57

Well why not, but that kinda looks like a nothingburger tbh… Except for the FA-50, the KF-21 and the few sk variants of us fighters, this is all just a bunch of american, russian and chinese vehicles copypasted into a tree… At this point the devs can just add national skins to vehicles in said trees.
The few unique aircrafts could be in a subtree and don’t really need their own tree

1 Like
58

What Im most excited about this one is that the ROKAF FA-50s and other aircraft will have access to ROK made armaments:

This would mean that the ROK will still have a better FA-50 if it ever gets added even if the Thai TA-50 gets added.

5 Likes
59

image

13 Likes
60

Finally, the IL-10/Yak-18 hybrid will finally get it’s recognition 🥹

6 Likes
61

image
image1536×2048 376 KB

9 Likes
62

With Malaysia confirmed to being the next one to be considered to be added to the Japanese TT, and Indonesia & Thailand already in it - I think it would be great if the Philippines gets added to the United Korea TT instead.

Now while I do think it wouldnt be able to contribute much, I think it can add some flair here and there, especially for lower ranks. The A-29B Super Tucano would be an excellent attacker, even the OV-10M with guided bombs, could probably make it to Rank IV, and the T-610 Super Cali would be a great A-37B equivalent in Rank V. The F-8H Crusader definitely could definitely follow the F-86F line instead of having just 2 NATO vehicles for Rank VI. We can keep the Korean FA-50s in the tech tree as well with the Philippines having both FA-50 Block 10s and Block 20s, they could be the premium variants instead.

Also the MRF is still yet to be confirmed by the Phil Air Force before the year ends or by early next year. Slated to win is the Gripen E (but could also be the F-16V or Eurofighter T5), which should be a welcome addition once its confirmed. Since the TT is not going to confirmed to be immediate, there is some time and hopefully we could get news of what really would be the MRF for the PAF. The AS-211 is also poised to be replaced with the L-39NG although its not yet confirmed with a contract.

Also on the note of subtrees, I wonder if Poland could also be a good addition - just waiting to fill up the gaps on the North Korean side of the TT. If not Poland, maybe Vietnam, although Vietnam already is in the Chinese TT.

6 Likes
63

ROK and ROC do have a very long and special friendly cooperation relationship, and ROK’s exiled government was in China during World War II, while the relationship between DPRK and PRC is undoubtedly close, known as the Blood Alliance（血盟）.
United Korean TT for China TT is a very feasible and reasonable idea.

1 Like
64

The PRC and ROC have no military connection to ROK. The Republic of Korea may have some good relations with Republic of China but neither have been allies or had any arms deals, so it wouldn’t make sense for the Republic of Korea to be there.

The DPRK on the other hand can fit because of the PRC but with Gaijin announcement of a potential United Korean TT we can assume that many approve of this idea.

65

Anyone knows if North Korea really received Nanchang A-5’s? I’ve read something but there’s a lot of conflicting information about it some claiming yes they did received them but others say they didn’t pointing out the lack of images available of them(but NK is way more secretive than China in general) so I don’t see a definitive answer

q5-36l
q5-36l1200×661 92.3 KB

(This is a model I know)

While copy paste the unified treee could receive an extra attack aircraft for the 9.0 range and could bring some fixes to the Q-5s

3 Likes
66

I apologize for the late reply. I’ve been a bit busy IRL.

Getting back to the topic, no, I consider that is one of a unicorn that has merely been spread by unreliable sources such as SIPRI/IISS. Unlike the Su-7, the A-5 has not appeared in any North Korean propaganda documentaries or media.

2 Likes
67

Disclaimer:
Personally, I do not agree with the concept of sub-trees itself. However, based on the current existing mechanisms, I will discuss the ‘validity’ of certain nations joining the Korean TT. Please note that this is an examination of logical validity, not a claim that ‘it should happen’ or ‘it will happen.’ Also, I have excluded nations that already exist in the game as main trees or sub-trees.

Since you have already explained the Philippines, I do not need to mention it again.

As for Poland, I think being a sub-tree would be a waste of its potential. It would be better for Poland to form a Eastern Europe/Visegrad+/West Slavic TT together with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Ukraine (excluding donated equipment). In fact, I was a supporter of a V4 tree even before Hungary became a sub-tree of Italy.

In the case of Türkiye, given not only the relatively recent K9, K2, and KT-1 but also the long-standing technical and military cooperation, it wouldn’t be strange. However, I believe it is not impossible for Türkiye to have a standalone tree.

Vietnam has complex characteristics, having traditional ties with North Korea while recently engaging in arms deals with South Korea. For Southeast Asian nations that find it difficult to choose between China and Japan, the Korean TT could be an option.

Iran has ties to both North and South Korea (during the Iran-Iraq War, North Korea supported Iran, while South Korea did not explicitly side with either but sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq.), with relations with North Korea being particularly prominent. I likely don’t need to elaborate on the technical links between modern North Korea and Iran (MBT/AFVs, submarines, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.). Furthermore, since Iran is not ‘Arab,’ it does not hinder the potential for a future Arab (League of Arab States) TT, unlike the Syria/Egypt/etc.

The UAE has very deep political and military ties with South Korea; there is even a domestic issue in SK regarding a secret alliance treaty that includes automatic intervention. (The detailed context involves sensitive political matters, so it is inappropriate to discuss here.) Even aside from this, SK and the UAE share deep relations not only economically but also militarily, technically, and diplomatically. ROK Army troops are stationed in the UAE for ‘military cooperation purposes,’ and SK’s ADD (Agency for Defense Development) has opened a regional office in Abu Dhabi. It is highly unusual for a military weapons research institute, a key national facility, to establish a branch overseas.
image

7 Likes
68

Furthermore, since Iran is not ‘Arab,’ it does not hinder the potential for a future Arab (League of Arab States) TT, unlike the Syria/Egypt/etc.

I do not think that a Arab League would come mostly because unlike other alliances such as lets say LATAM, the Arabs fight among themselves a lot of the time and they are not small border conflicts either. Do not forget that the Arab Nationalist and the Salafist/Wahhabist Fundamentalist Monarchists were at odds with each other for significant portions of the Cold war era, particularly in Yemen. Also some Arab Nations side with the Iranians over their fellow Arabs due to various factors (mainly Religion and Ideology). Point is making a TT based on cultural and economic multinational orgs is incredibly stupid to begin with and they are not popular among the fanbase with LATAM being the major exception.

Speaking of Arab nations, the Arab Nationalists, where ever it’s of the Nasserite or Ba’athist variety, they do have some connections to Korea in terms of weapon procurements. Mostly from the DPRK, Syria in particular used a lot of North Korean weaponry and even some North Korean airmen served in the Syrian Airforce during the 1970’s. Egypt’s a similar case though not to the same extent as Syria. The current Egyptian Military Junta not only brought K9’s but also A: brought a license to build them and considering obtaining Korean vehicles such as the K2 & FA-50.

Am I trying to say that Egypt and/or Syria should be a subtree of Korea? No, All I’m saying that they have a connection to Korea in some way. And that’s not including other Arab nations.

The UAE would be an interesting choice and I’m not totally against it but not fully sold on it either. The Main Issue with the UAE (and every other Gulf Arab States except Oman) don’t have perfect fits to be subtree in any of the existing TT’s and trying to make a separate Gulf Arab TT even in an postwar TT is proving to be very tricky. I ruled out Oman since they can very easily be a subtree of the British TT due to their extremely close relationship with the UK. Either way a UAE subtree in the Korean TT is far from the worst idea out there.

Another potential addition is Myanmar for a lot of the same reasons as Vietnam but also suffering from a lot of the same drawbacks.

In the case of Türkiye , given not only the relatively recent K9, K2, and KT-1 but also the long-standing technical and military cooperation, it wouldn’t be strange. However, I believe it is not impossible for Türkiye to have a standalone tree.

If Turkiye becomes a subtree of Korea there’s also a chance that Azerbaijan would be added alongside the Turkish subtree as well even if their ties to either Korea is rather weak other than occasionally buying some South Korean weapons, mainly ATGMS. Personally Azerbaijan is a better fit as a Israeli subtree since they have stronger ties with them than with the Koreas and just as strong ties with even Turkiye. Knowing Gaijin they would do that anyways since their subtree selection is just getting worse.

Personally, I do not agree with the concept of sub-trees itself.

Aside from some very specific exceptions I agree with this sentiment especially since it’s becoming increasingly apparent that it’s an excuse to fill in gaps the laziest, sloppiest way possible. Even for the very few cases where i do agree with the subtree choice, I’m not impressed by the implementation of them.

4 Likes
69

I am NOT arguing for a standalone Arab League TT or an Egypt/Syria sub-tree; I merely meant that even assuming an ‘Arab TT’ were implemented, Iran would be irrelevant to it. I share the exact same thoughts as the reasons you mentioned regarding why the idea of reorganizing the entire world into ‘regional trees’ would be practically unworkable. Returning to the subject, the point of that paragraph was Iran.

Considering that Israel is struggling with gaps and a lack of flavor, I believe options for Israel should be prioritized for currently. The candidates I have in mind are Singapore, Azerbaijan, and Ethiopia.

Since there is no reason to discuss the agree/disagree of a standalone LATAM TT here, let’s move on; however, implementing the entirety of Latin America as a sub-tree does not seem like a good idea.

2 Likes