United Korean Aviation Tech Tree

Suggestions Aircraft
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.

8 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.

1 Like
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

4 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.

3 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
70

**Azerbaijan and Turkiye are both Turkic nations, what tie are you looking for?
Azerbaijan adapts training program of Higher Military Academy to programs of Turkish military schools

71

b4fde6a1-d8cf-4538-8462-a7dd55ca5a2a
b4fde6a1-d8cf-4538-8462-a7dd55ca5a2a2560×1440 126 KB

I’m ready!

1 Like
72

Some new North Korean air-to-ground guided ordnances for the Su-25K and (probably) new missiles for the MiG-29 are displayed on the KPAF’s 80th anniversary a week ago

2-004
2-0042000×1301 518 KB

More photos

2-005
2-0052000×1304 682 KB

2-007
2-0072000×1325 699 KB

2-008
2-0082000×1323 531 KB

2-001
2-0012000×1125 646 KB

2-006
2-0062000×658 361 KB

2-010
2-0102000×1294 707 KB

2-013
2-0132000×1125 602 KB

Photos from North Korean website
http://www.vok.rep.kp/index.php/revo_de/getDetail/ien251129005/en

5 Likes
73

Could be new variants of respective aircraft that can be added

74

IRIS-T copies

75

I’ve been working on documenting all KPAAF aircraft, and decided to make my own updated version of this tree just for fun. Still quite similar to yours @SaabGripen, but with a few new additions and changes, mostly on the North Korean side of things.

I’m not 100% happy with it yet — the lack of planes at Rank III is annoying, and I don’t personally like the idea of the ground tree starting at Rank IV instead. Should also be noted BRs are not perfect, particularly regarding South Korean aircraft like the KA-1 and FA-50; I wasn’t too sure where to put them. There are also a few speculative aircraft, like the upgraded MiG-29, the domestic Il-10, and the FA-50 Block 70 (which I don’t believe has AMRAAMs integrated yet).

Updated United Korea Air TT
Updated United Korea Air TT1506×3602 1.16 MB

4 Likes
76

Interested to see the An-2 modification, the CJ-6 modification, the Il-10 modification. Also I hope some of the obscure domestic NK prop fighters are added to that list as well.

Also did the DPRK use other aircraft of Japanese origin that was left behind after the Surrender and/or inherited from either the PRC or the USSR

3 Likes
77

An-2 and CJ-6 both modified with hardpoints for rockets and bombs, and the Il-10 (mod.) is just my name for the domestic prop plane.

An-2 mod
An-2 mod1024×768 151 KB

CJ-6 mod
CJ-6 mod1377×1080 38.9 KB

F6ZFNIUaUAAtRIE
F6ZFNIUaUAAtRIE1918×1080 82.8 KB

Only other domestic option is the bomber trainer, but that would for sure also be at around 1.0. There’s also the modified MiG-15UTI, but I’m not sure whether it was one of the armed versions.

GIcXLY8agAAA-8D
GIcXLY8agAAA-8D1927×1080 174 KB

MiG-15UTI mod.

Yes and no. They inherited Ki-9s and Ki-55s, but both are unarmed trainers. They also repaired a Ki-43-II, but it was never made airworthy (I added it as a premium, but it’s likely it won’t get added for that reason). No others that I know of, unfortunately.

3 Likes
78

What mods did they make to the H-5?

79

They were fitted with two underwing hardpoints for either the Chinese Yu-2 torpedo or the domestic Kŭmsŏng-3 AShM. One some of them, the rear gunner station was also removed. This seems to have also been applied to Il-28s as well.

H-5 mod.

2 Likes
80

Any chance you might have another image of the right side CJ-6? Thing is China did modified at least 10 CJ-6 to the model B that was armed and had a slightly better engine(300 HP vs regular 260 HP), that image seems to at least match with the description of the pylons and small bombs(25 kg) and well who knows maybe china could have just gave some of them to NK consdiering their relationship

81

I don’t, unfortunately. I’ll keep looking. It’s entirely possible, although the Yak-18, Yak-18A, and CJ-5 were all domestically fitted with hardpoints, so makes sense the CJ-6’s were as well.

Edit: Some low res footage of an armed CJ-6 taking off and firing rockets here, from 1:35: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPPUQK-VDbg

Tangentially related, the hardpoints added to the Il-10 / H-5 appear very similar to the domestic Chinese modification, and I can’t help but wonder if those were imported directly.