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.
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.
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.
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.
**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
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
Photos from North Korean website
http://www.vok.rep.kp/index.php/revo_de/getDetail/ien251129005/en
Could be new variants of respective aircraft that can be added
IRIS-T copies
