Ukrainian intelligence: North Korea supplied Russia with "heavy" ballistic missiles

North Korea supplied Russia with the latest ballistic missiles missiles KN-30s, first shown at a military parade in Pyongyang in 2021. This information was released by Ukrainian military intelligence.

Russian troops have received North Korean KN-30 short-range ballistic missiles, which will most likely be used in strikes on Ukrainian territory. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense's Main Intelligence Directorate emphasizes that such missiles have never been used in strikes before; this is the first delivery of KN-30s as part of military assistance. Previously, Russia used North Korean KN-23 and KN-24 missiles.

The KN-30, or Hwasong-11C, short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) is a further development of the KN-23 Hwasong-11A and KN-24 Hwasong-11B missiles. This modification is classified as a "heavy" ballistic missile; the KN-30 is capable of delivering a 2,5-ton warhead to a range of 600 to 900 km. Previously, there were reports of tests of this missile with a 4,5-ton warhead, but whether it entered production is unknown.

The Russian Ministry of Defense is like this news It's not commenting, so there's no need to expect any information from our military. But if Ukrainian intelligence isn't spreading fear and its information is reliable, then the Russian army is acquiring a ballistic missile with a warhead significantly more powerful than our Iskander missiles, etc. This would be an excellent opportunity to test the KN-30 by striking the bridges across the Dnieper. This warhead would certainly cause significant damage even to bridges built during the Soviet era.

Comments

[Ampifrion]

If this is true, great!

[WILL]

What can this missile do that, for example, Topol can’t do? A conventional warhead can be attached to any ballistic missile.

[dnestr74]

2,5 tons of TNT or RDX are unlikely to fit into the volume for a nuclear warhead, that's the problem, the excess fuel needs to be removed, why the hell would it fly 9 thousand miles, that is, essentially making a new missile

[K._2]

The main thing is that they help us with the production of missiles, in the same way as the entire NATO bloc helps the pigs.

[Roman Efremov]

Technically, it's possible to remove the fuel—thankfully, it's not flying overseas but to Ukraine—and add TNT. But the Topol missile is expensive; there are probably cheaper options for striking Ukraine with a warhead more powerful than the Iskander's.

[Evgenijus]

You can't attach any warhead to the Topol, only the standard one with a nuclear warhead. A warhead without a nuclear warhead also only mates with carriers designed for this warhead. A medium-range missile, or ICBM, isn't like a Kalashnikov assault rifle, in which a standard or armor-piercing round can be replaced with a tracer round.

[WILL]

Quote: Evgenijus

You can't attach any warhead to the Topol, only the standard one with a nuclear charge.

Well, they could have attached the standard one with the YAZ, people don’t live in the Beskid Tunnel, only the tunnel will suffer!

[gsev]

Quote: ANIMAL

What can this missile do that, for example, Topol can’t do?

The last strike on Kyiv produced an unusually bright flash. So new weapons are often capable of accomplishing things that old ones couldn't.

[aszzz888]

gsev
(Gusev Vladimir)
-1
Today, 22: 30
New
Quote: ANIMAL
What can this missile do that, for example, Topol can’t do?
The last strike on Kyiv was accompanied by an unusually bright flash...

So what happened? Did your eyes go dark? You need to wear sunglasses, Jew... And yes, what exactly are you talking about, "the final blow to Kyiv"? More are flying there every day!!! So, is there anything specific to object to? And, remember, and get it into your head - this is not the LAST blow, it is one of the last!!!

[Sergey3]

The last strike on Kyiv was accompanied by an unusually bright flash.

It could have been a secondary detonation of a warehouse containing gliding bombs, of which a great many had been brought there.

[Nastia makarova]

Why do they need bombs? They have plenty of drones.

[Sergey3]

For your information, these weren't even regular high-explosive bombs, but thermobaric ones, which is why the color of the secondary detonation and the explosion itself are unusual.

[MBRSS]

The last strike on Kyiv was accompanied by an unusually bright flash.

It's simple: aluminum powder was mixed with the hexogen-TNT mixture. This is common practice; it provides a slight boost in power, but the effect is more visual, which is also good :)

[gsev]

Quote: MBRBS

It's simple - aluminum powder was mixed into the hexogen-TNT composition.

North Korean missile warheads are four times more powerful than those on Kalibr missiles. So the flash could have been from a North Korean missile. The presence of North Korean missiles in the Northeast Asian region will force the Ukrainians to strengthen the barriers over bunkers and underground storage facilities.

[MBRSS]

We have the FAB-3000; it was also used at night, but it didn't produce such bright flashes. Perhaps the Korean missile has both the power and the aluminum.

[gsev]

Quote: MBRBS

We have FAB-3000, it was also used at night,

Aren't the US patriots already capable of preventing the bombing of Kyiv with FAB-1500 or FAB-3000?

[MBRSS]

gsevWhat does the object's geographic location have to do with the nature of the anomalously bright flash? That's exactly what we're talking about. You suggested it was because of its high power, but I suggested it wasn't the power (the FAB-3000 is also powerful, but doesn't produce such a flash), but the explosive composition. And what about the FAB—entire warehouses have detonated, but not with a blinding effect. But aluminum and magnesium produce a bright flash! You can see for yourself by filing magnesium and mixing the sawdust with potassium permanganate, like kids used to do. And not just kids, photographers do too.

[MBRSS]

For example:

A-IX-2 ("a-nine-two"), hexal, is a powerful (high explosive) compound consisting of hexogen (73%), aluminum powder (23%), and wax (paraffin or ceresin) (4%), used as a phlegmatizer. It is a homogeneous, free-flowing, non-hygroscopic, steel-gray substance. Hexal is widely used in modern munitions, including in the Russian army.

Invented by Soviet engineer Yevgeny Grigoryevich Ledin in 1938-40, it was actually adopted into service in February 1942. Initially, he used halovax, a chloronaphthalene, as a phlegmatizer. It was actively used by the Soviet army and continues to be used by the Russian Armed Forces.

-- from Wikipedia.

[gsev]

Quote: MBRBS

It was invented by Soviet engineer Evgeny Grigorievich Ledin in 1938-40, but was actually adopted into service in February 1942.

The disadvantage of such explosives is their rapid aging. Arming Russian shells with such explosives will require lengthy approvals and approvals. North Korean engineers can quickly arm their munitions, but they need a guarantee that Russia will finance the production restructuring with long-term trade relations free from sanctions. The bright flash in Kyiv, beyond the reach of FAB-3000s, suggests that it wasn't a depot of old Bulgarian or Serbian shells that exploded, but rather something specifically designed for use in the SVO after it became clear that its supply would not quickly run out.

[Alex777]

Quote: ANIMAL

What can this missile do that, for example, Topol can’t do?

1. Poplar is noticeably more expensive.
2. The Koreans' KVO should be noticeably less than Topol's with its nuclear warhead.
3. When launching Topol, the United States should be warned about this in advance (so that they don’t get too scared), but there is no need to warn about the Korean missile.
All of the above suggests that the bridges across the Dnieper, and not only them, may soon be in poor condition.

[tralflot1832]

Alexander, good morning. It's suspicious that "Ukrainian intelligence" learned about this a few days before August 24th. Are we not willing to test our own forces there under a "flag of convenience"?

[Alex777]

Well, it seems like there's no point in us hiding our new thing.
Although, they've cast a big shadow over the Parcel. Talk of it being 5 meters long is simply laughable. Roughly speaking, it's about half that length.
As I understand it, we have significantly improved the accuracy of Korean missiles.
They're testing it now. If the Korean 2,5-ton warheads "go well," then we'll have similar "instruments" too. We already have a caliber with a 1-ton warhead.

[tralflot1832]

Zelya has been complaining to the West lately that KN-23s have been appearing frequently in Kiev, in addition to Russian ballistics. Good afternoon, Alexander.

[Alex777]

Greetings Andrew!
I hope KN 30 will go even better.

[tralflot1832]

Alexander August 24th is Monday, I'm not hinting at anything. A warhead with a range of 1 to 2,5 tons is not critical for a KN-30.

[Alex777]

Quote: tralflot1832

August 24th is Monday, I'm not hinting at anything.

Let's hope.

[topol717]

Quote: ANIMAL

What can this missile do that, for example, Topol can’t do?

If this missile costs no more than 100 million rubles, even without the launcher, then perhaps the comparison can be concluded immediately.

[marchcat]

North Korea supplied Russia with the latest ballistic missiles

It's a sin to be jealous. The Ukrainians are helped by so many people and supplied with so many things.

[Dizel200]

Heh, I hope they don't start walking around the barns like this fool.

[Atheist]

If this is true, great!

Now let's think without emotions, isn't it wonderful?
If North Korea had to resort to assistance, that means they're desperately short of their own ballistic missiles. Right?
Moreover, if the delivery of ballistic missiles to North Korea is mirrored, then we can expect the delivery of ballistic missiles to Ukraine from NATO countries. Note that, from the perspective of international law, such an action would be considered by the opposing side as an adequate response to North Korea's assistance. A strike against Russia with ballistic missiles is already very serious; not every air defense system can handle it.

[Ampifrion]

Fundamentally wrong. Let's start with the flawed logical conclusion: "We bought foreign ballistic missiles, so we're catastrophically short of our own." Why catastrophically? Why not admit that perhaps there's a shortage of ballistic missiles with the very same performance characteristics as the Koreans? And why did you assume that supplying Korean ballistic missiles would trigger a response by supplying Western ballistic missiles to Ukraine? What's the basis?

[Atheist]

Why - catastrophically?

Because when you have enough of your own, you usually don't use those of others. Under a mutual assistance agreement, you'll have to pay sooner or later for those of others, and not just with money, but possibly with the blood of your own troops.

And why did you decide that the delivery of Korean ballistic missiles would provoke a response in the form of the delivery of Western ballistic missiles to Ukraine?

The question is completely naive, like, "Why us?" That's just the way life works. If you give your opponent a reason to do so, they'll definitely take advantage of it. The stakes in this game against Russia are gradually rising, and with this move, Russia is giving them a reason to raise them.

[Ampifrion]

For everyday discussion, it's a stretch. But at the state level? That takes into account economic, military, and political factors... And to do that, you need a massive amount of data, a hundredth of which you don't have access to. So, it's a no-go.
As for providing Ukraine with Western ballistic missiles, it's only a matter of time. And the last thing it depends on is the supply of Korean ballistic missiles.

[Alekseev]

Quote: Ampifrion

If this is true, great!

That's right!
But, probably, for attacks on bridges it is possible to develop or modernize the UMPK for the FAB 1500 (they write that it already exists) or for the FAB 3000 with a launch range from an altitude of 10000 - 11000 meters at 180 - 200 km.
A MiG-31 could be adapted for the FAB-3000, so as not to risk the Tu-22. And perhaps a Tu-22 could operate safely from that range.
It will be cheaper than a ballistic missile and can be repeated as needed.

[Ampifrion]

It sounds cheaper, of course. But I'd like to know the exact calculations. Will you try it?

[Alekseev]

Quote: Ampifrion

Will you try?

No way!
Because those who want to get more specific about such sensitive topics are now being taken away with a hood over their heads by the competent authorities. And rightly so.
As for the price of the UMPK and a ballistic missile with a 3000 kg warhead, anyone with a technical education can and should figure it out for themselves. Of course, in general.
And the fact that UMPK is used by hundreds, if not over a thousand, per month, and Iskanders by the dozens, speaks for itself.

[Ampifrion]

Once again, I'd like to hear specifics, not just blah-blah-blah: are you aware of any cases where someone trying to calculate specific economic calculations was detained with a bag over their head? Could you name them?
Second. The UPMK is certainly cheaper, but for some reason you're not considering its cost and effectiveness. How much does a sortie cost? What's the maximum range without entering the enemy's air defense engagement zone? What's the circular error probable, taking into account the effects of electronic warfare?
Before you write comments, it's worth thinking. This is my advice to you.

[Andriuha077]

Quote: Alekseev

Quote: Ampifrion

If this is true, great!

That's right!
But, probably, for attacks on bridges it is possible to develop or modernize the UMPK for the FAB 1500 (they write that it already exists) or for the FAB 3000 with a launch range from an altitude of 10000 - 11000 meters at 180 - 200 km.
A MiG-31 could be adapted for the FAB-3000, so as not to risk the Tu-22. And perhaps a Tu-22 could operate safely from that range.
It will be cheaper than a ballistic missile and can be repeated as needed.

I apologize, Google gave me a bit of a cartoon:
(This is just an example)

The cost of applying Hypothesis 3
In this scenario, the costs are one-time (irrecoverable loss of material), but there is no risk of losing pilots and expensive aircraft.
Carrier (First stage of the Topol-M): The use of a serial first stage of an ICBM, removed from combat duty for demilitarization or modernization (without the expensive 2nd, 3rd stages and nuclear warhead) is estimated at approximately $7–10 million.
Payload (Swarm of 30 units):
12 combat motor gliders with ramjet engines and warheads: $500,000 × 12 = $6,0 million.
18 fake motor glider imitators (without warheads and expensive optics, only electronic warfare and turbojet engines): $250,000 × 18 = $4,5 million.
Motorized glider-gunner (1 unit): Equipped with sophisticated thermal imaging, laser and computing technology: $2,0 million.
Operating costs: Launch from a mobile ground installation, minimum pre-launch preparation: $0,5 million.
💰 Total cost of attack on Hypothesis 3: ~$20 – 23 million.

Cost of an equivalent airstrike (2500 km)
Since the range is 2500 km, conventional frontline bombers (Su-34 or F-15E) cannot reach the target without multiple mid-air refuelings. Such a strike requires long-range (strategic) aircraft, such as a flight of two Tu-95MS/Tu-160 or B-52H/B-2 Spirit missile carriers.
To penetrate the layered air defenses and deliver 4,5 tons of explosives, the aircraft would have to launch a package of long-range cruise missiles (such as the X-101 or AGM-158 JASSM-ER), which would fly at subsonic speeds while maneuvering close to the ground.
Consumables (Missiles): To guarantee penetration of air defenses and delivery of the required warhead weight (including interception of some missiles), approximately 12–16 cruise missiles are required. The cost of one modern cruise missile is approximately $1,5–2 million.
Total for missiles: $2,0 million × 14 = $28 million.
Flight hour and depreciation: Long-range flight of two strategic bombers (approximately 5–6 hours in the air) with the involvement of tanker aircraft: $1,5–2 million.
Risks of Aircraft Loss (Amortized Cost of Risk): If enemy air defenses succeed in suppressing or shooting down even one strategic bomber, financial losses will immediately range from $100 million (for a Tu-95/B-52) to $2 billion (if a B-2 Spirit is used). The cost of crew lives and training is invaluable.
💰 Total cost of the airstrike (without loss of aircraft): ~$30 million.

[Andriuha077]

Quote: Andriuha077

The total cost of the airstrike

Economic conclusion
The use of Hypothesis 3 turns out to be more financially profitable (by approximately 25–30%) than a classic strategic air strike on a similar remote target.
The main savings are achieved because the ramjet engine on motor gliders is structurally much simpler and less expensive than the turbojet engines of full-fledged cruise missiles. Furthermore, missile launch is several times faster, completely eliminating the human factor (the risk of pilot death), and guaranteeing air defense penetration thanks to hypersonic speed and swarming tactics, whereas an air strike would require spending millions of dollars on satiation missiles.

The image shows the launch of a North Korean Hwasong-11C (also known as the KN-30) solid-fuel short-range ballistic missile. The photo is illustrative.

Necroposting is the act of writing a message in an old, abandoned thread on a forum, blog, or chat room. This action brings a dead thread back to the top of the list and brings it back into the spotlight.

[Alexey Lantukh]

An excellent opportunity to test the KN-30 by striking the bridges across the Dnieper.

There is also a question of accuracy of hitting.

[YOU]

If this isn't another hoax, then I'm all for it. And it's clear who our real friends are.

[Michael]

Quote: YOU

And it’s clear who our real friends are.

By the way, Kim Jong-un doesn't seem to be above personally shooting thieving generals with a mortar?

[andrewkor]

His little sister was the one who made a mark with this very shooting, but this is not certain.

[KCA]

Yes, these are fakes, most likely from the Republic of Korea or the United States. Even if someone is executed, there are specially trained people for this. Imagine if Stalin personally executed someone. Kim and her sister could only watch the executions from the stands. Why would they get dirty themselves?

[Lako]

So, here it is, the result of "successful" reforms and embrace of the West. Russia is buying weapons and military developments from Iran and North Korea. And China is keeping its industry and mechanical engineering from collapsing.

[Montezuma]

Quote from lako

So, here it is, the result of "successful" reforms and embrace of the West. Russia is buying weapons and military developments from Iran and North Korea.

Well, yes, and Iran and the DPRK get absolutely nothing in return. You might think our weapons are backward and ineffective, given that Russia is one of the world's top three arms exporters. We have an official military alliance with North Korea, and we have every right to use Korean developments, while they, in turn, have the opportunity to test their systems in real combat conditions. Iran helped with drones at the beginning of the Second World War, and Russia quickly mastered these technologies and established mass production, with ongoing modernization and expansion of their production. Now Russia is helping Iran through the Caspian Sea corridor, so what's the basis for these claims and vague accusations?
Regarding cooperation with neighboring China, what are the problems? We sell what China needs and buy what we need. What kind of collapse is this, and what does it look like? It's impossible to quickly master the production of everything a country needs, and there's nothing wrong with purchasing the necessary equipment. Many countries do this; it's a normal, mutually beneficial relationship.

[Kotofeich]

Quote: Montezuma

The DPRK gets absolutely nothing in return.

In addition, the DPRK has the opportunity to test its weapons in real combat, against real targets.

[YOU]

And we have the opportunity to evaluate each other's technology. This is always mutually beneficial.

[Button]

Quote: Montezuma

Regarding cooperation with neighboring China, what are the problems?

The problems in China's policy toward Russia: While Beijing boasts boundless friendship and a joint standoff with the West, in reality it sells drone components to both sides, ignores Russian requests to cut off supplies to Ukraine, and withholds weapons and loans from Moscow. A quick and complete Russian victory is not in Beijing's interests. A Russia that is too strong would become less dependent and have greater bargaining power with China. Russia's misperception is that China is considered a friendly country. In many areas, it is indeed a crucial partner. The error begins when a shared interest is mistaken for a "common destiny." Russia seeks to maintain its position as an independent center of power. China is building a system in which it will become the primary center of the non-Western world, without any unnecessary initiative from other players. Beijing needs a Russia strong enough to stand up to the West, but not so autonomous that it becomes dependent on China. Beijing can afford to ignore Russian requests to stop supplying Ukraine because Moscow needs the Chinese market and industrial base far more than China needs to fulfill Russia's wishes.

[Montezuma]

Quote: Boton

In fact, Beijing sells drone components to both sides, ignoring Russian requests to cut off supplies to Ukraine.

Well, let's look at this issue of Chinese supplies to Ukraine; here is a message from October 30, 2025.

China has reduced its supply of components for Ukrainian drones, N-tv reported, citing a representative of a network of Ukrainian and global arms companies.

Beijing is said to be increasingly restricting such supplies and thwarting Kyiv's attempts to import Chinese electronic components through its allies. Specifically, China bans the export of drone components to the Baltic states "because it knows they will end up here in Ukraine."

The article states that the restrictions are detrimental to the Ukrainian army, as the engines, controllers, and batteries used in the drones are predominantly Chinese-made.

China previously increased its robot shipments to Russia. Shipments from Chinese robotics manufacturers to Russia increased by 25 percent year-on-year from January to September.

https://lenta.ru/news/2025/10/30/kitay-sokratil-postavki-komplektuyuschih-dlya-ukrainskih-dronov/

Here's another interesting message from July 8, 2025:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy imposed sanctions against five Chinese companies. The decree was published on the website of the Office of the President of Ukraine.

Sanctions were imposed against Central Asia Silk Road International Trade, Suzhou Ecod Precision Manufacturing, Shenzhen Royo Technology, Shenzhen Jinduobang Technology, and Ningbo BLIN Machinery.

"Sanctions have been imposed on these supplier companies today. Among the companies sanctioned are Ningbo BLIN Machinery Co., Ltd. and Suzhou ECOD Precision Manufacturing, which supplied products to sanctioned Russian companies in 2024 and 2025," said Vladislav Vlasyuk, the country's commissioner for sanctions policy.

The sanctions imposed a number of restrictions on companies, including asset freezes, a complete cessation of trade operations, a ban on defense purchases, the cancellation of official visits, and so on.

https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/686d3e259a79478358d92a86?ysclid=mt1xfepc5751003385

In any case, China is not bound by a military alliance with Russia and maintains a neutral position, as it is not a party to the conflict. Therefore, its policies are based solely on its own interests, although the two countries' foreign policy views often coincide. This relationship can be described as a partnership, but there is a peculiarity: joint naval military exercises are regularly conducted. Furthermore, not all the nuances of the relationship and personal agreements are made public.

[lubesky]

Quote: Boton

China is building a system in which it will become the central hub of the non-Western world, without any unnecessary initiative from other players.

However, a military confrontation is inevitable! No empire has ever surrendered without a fight! And right now, the PRICE of seizing the center of the new order is at stake—and China, I'll tell you frankly, is extremely shy and looks frankly weak, even to its own population, compared to the Russians, who have engaged in a direct fight with the West! Nor should we underestimate the growing discontent among the Chinese with the CCP's toothlessness on Taiwan, amid the bravura statements of China Central Television and the real struggle of the Russians for a new world, where, as you say, China allegedly sees no competition in Russia...

[smart fellow]

looks frankly weak even for its own population in comparison with the Russians, who have gotten involved in a direct fight with the West!

I don't know about the Chinese, and I think you're attributing your thoughts to them, but the Russians had no intention of getting into a fight with the West. They planned to begin and end the operation in Ukraine by taking Kyiv in three days and establishing a government loyal to Moscow.

But right now the PRICE of the question of intercepting the center of the new order is at stake.

Is it bad that China doesn't want to establish a new world order by force?

The growing dissatisfaction of the Chinese people with the CCP's toothlessness in Taiwan should not be underestimated.

According to you, the Chinese dream of killing their compatriots in Taiwan. And the question of Taiwan's annexation is purely rhetorical and is being provoked by the Anglo-Saxons. Hong Kong and Macau, for example, have a special administrative status within China. They are governed under the principle of "One Country, Two Systems." They enjoy a high degree of autonomy, their own laws, currency, customs, and entry regulations, distinct from those of mainland China.

[Technician_Harlan]

Neither you nor I know the real state of affairs. Serious Polika is made in the dark. And it's not for us, the average person, to draw conclusions from reading the media.

[Montezuma]

Here's some more interesting information about North Korean missiles (predecessors of the KN-30) and their evolution in accuracy, which has accelerated dramatically since the agreement with Russia.

Evolution of missile accuracy and performance.
We're talking about solid-fuel missiles: in North Korea, they're called the Hwasong-11A (KN-23) and Hwasong-11B (KN-24). The Ukrainian military has unofficially nicknamed them "Kimskanders" due to their external resemblance and operational logic to the Russian Iskander system. The KN-23 is considered an analogue of the Iskander, while the KN-24 is similar in class to the American ATACMS. Both systems are quickly prepared for launch and fly along a quasi-ballistic (aeroballistic) trajectory.

The progress was actually gradual, Yonhap news agency reports, citing Japan's Kyodo News:

In 2024, the dispersion was at least 1 km, and in some cases 1–3 km. The quality of the missiles was assessed as poor: some exploded in the air, and the accuracy was approximately 20%. Of the 24 missiles launched by that time, only two are known to have made "relatively accurate hits": on the oil refinery in Kremenchuk and the technical area of ​​the Kanatovo airfield. The rest fell at a considerable distance from each other, struck residential areas in Kharkiv, or exploded in the air.
In early 2025, Ukrainian officials estimated that North Korean missiles were off target by 50–100 meters.
By April 2026, according to a Ukrainian intelligence representative, the deviation had decreased to 1–5 meters. The publication "Military Informant," citing Kyodo News, notes that the new parameters bring the missile into line with modern foreign counterparts, including certain modifications of the ATACMS.
Since 2024, at least 100 KN-23 and KN-24 missiles have been used against Ukrainian targets, Kyodo News reports.

Reasons for modernization and combat testing
Ukrainian intelligence believes the improved accuracy was achieved through refinements to the inertial navigation system. Kyiv is confident that Russia used data from combat operations in Ukraine to modernize North Korean missiles. Using missiles against targets protected by the best American and European air defense systems allowed Pyongyang to obtain unique telemetry data on the weapons' performance when penetrating modern air and missile defense systems, as well as electronic warfare (EW) systems.

For Russia, these missiles represent an additional ballistic capability. For North Korea, they offer the opportunity for combat testing against modern air defense systems, which, according to analysts, greatly worries South Korea and Japan.

[Lako]

Everything is relative. More than 30 years ago, the military-industrial complexes of China, North Korea, and especially Iran, were nowhere near the military-technical capabilities of the USSR, or even Russia in the early 1990s. I remember the military parades in Pyongyang back then. I was particularly impressed by the tractor-towed MLRS. Look now. North Korea is building guided missile destroyers. How many has Russia built? Thirty years ago, China bought the Su-27 (J-11), and later the Su-30, and these were the most modern aircraft in their Air Force. How many fifth-generation aircraft does China have now, and how many does Russia? Thirty years ago, China bought Soviet Project 956E Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers from Russia, and these were the most well-armed and modern ships in the Chinese Navy. And the unfinished Varyag from Ukraine is worth the price of scrap metal. How many destroyers and aircraft carriers is China building now, and how many is Russia? I'm not even mentioning China's capabilities in electronics, mechanical engineering, and astronautics. It's just that the then-current Russian leadership exported hydrocarbons to the West, funneling the profits into their own economies, while opening up its territory to foreign companies, imposing economic sanctions against Iran and North Korea, and thinking it would last forever. But something went wrong. The West has no intention of tolerating the state interests of its raw materials appendage. They were forced to seek help from those they had previously considered outcasts from the "civilized world" at the behest of overseas leaders. But one wonders whether they'll trade their current friends for another favor from Washington.

[MBRSS]

And China is keeping industry and mechanical engineering from collapsing.

Unfortunately, this is a fact. If China imposes sanctions against us, it will be the end of Russia's happy life. We need reindustrialization and nationalization, maximum autarky, and minimum trade with unreliable "partners." We also need to get rid of our dependence on China, just in case.
Unfortunately, I think that few of the above will come to fruition before 2036.

[AlexTss]

Are steel testicles included?
We have plenty of missiles, and their targets are known...
But I think there are problems with determination...

[hector]

Quote: AlexTss

Are steel testicles included?

The kit includes Korean ones, but to use them you need Russian ones, so you'll have to look for them locally.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: AlexTss

Are steel testicles included?

It's much more difficult to attach this one, unlike a hairpiece, although...

[Juan]

Vladimir Putin può aver fatto degli errori e forse ne sta facendo tuttora. Ma di una cosa può andare fiero: avere stretto un' alleanza strategica con la Corea del Nord. Per me è stata la mossa strategica del secolo. La Russia ha un alleato serio, determinato e fedele. Inoltre la Corea del Nord è una potenza nucleare di tutto rispetto. Che patetica la NATO che pensa di fare guerra alla Russia!

[drags33]

That's wonderful!!! Two can play this game together! Russia knows perfectly well what, when, and how much the insolent West is supplying to Ukraine. So what's the question?

[shm_kv]

The question is precisely: the warhead can cause serious damage to sacred bridges.

[foxes]

Thanks to our North Korean comrades. Those who love to create all sorts of analogous wonder weapons, unsuited for real conflict, can no longer provide the army with anything like that.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Ukrainian intelligence: North Korea supplied Russia with "heavy" ballistic missiles

Comrades, please treat this situation with understanding. The Koreans also need to test their missiles in combat conditions.

[wlkw]

Quote from lako

Well, here it is, the result of “successful” reforms and hugs with the West.

Come on, there used to be treaty restrictions on these types of missiles, so we didn't have them. And the Koreans couldn't do anything else; they weren't qualified. Now everything has come together. We have Korean missiles in the right place at the right time, not in the distant future. And the Koreans have the opportunity to test their creations using our money. And our engineers will probably tighten the screws where necessary.

[MBRSS]

Come on, there used to be treaty restrictions on these types of missiles, that’s why we didn’t have them.

Come on, Oreshnik, they've come up with a much more complex system, haven't they?
We're currently short of a simple missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers. We urgently need to attach a second stage to the Iskander. It'll be something like the Pershing II. It'll also launch from a towed vehicle. Of course, no nuclear warhead, just a conventional warhead, detachable, highly accurate, and maneuverable. 20,000 of these missiles—and Russia will be completely safe for many years to come!

[wlkw]

I think the main issue here is time and money. By the time you've developed something of your own, you won't need it anymore. And the Korean missiles already exist, but resolving the issue of accuracy is a separate issue.

[Sergey Novikov_3]

This is a perfect opportunity to test the KN-30 by striking the bridges across the Dnieper. This warhead will certainly cause significant damage even to those built during the Soviet era.

...Jokers, though. These bridges have long been recognized by the Kremlin as UNESCO heritage sites. This whole thing wasn't started just for this...

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Bridges are off limits! Putin said there would be a humanitarian catastrophe.

[Sergey Novikov_3]

Even after the Ukrainian Armed Forces destroyed the Antonov Bridge across the Dnieper River and forced Russian troops to retreat to avoid encirclement in November 22, the bridges across the Dnieper remained intact. As they say, there are no questions left.

[Sergey Novikov_3]

Apparently, numerous European "guests" are awaited across them with assurances of "eternal friendship"; if they so desire, these "guests" will be marching across these bridges within a few hours after crossing the border with Ukraine.

[MBRSS]

These bridges have long been recognized by the Kremlin as UNESCO heritage sites.

The Supreme Commander will have to choose: either destroy the bridges or destroy the seat beneath him. The people are starting to get really fed up with this SVO approach.

[Vertuhai 2003]

All that remains is for our military leaders to borrow courage and determination from the IRGC...

[Anatoly Eliseev]

Well done! Koreans are helping.

[alexputnik17]

The KN-30 is capable of delivering a 2,5-ton warhead to a range of 600 to 900 km. Previously, there were reports of tests of this missile with a 4,5-ton warhead.

A wonderful gravity gun, if that's the case. More than five times more powerful than the Iskander. Let's go to Bankova, Rada, and so on. And all the bridges and border crossings! During the day. With honorary burial for those present.
And are the Korean comrades included with the missiles? To gain combat experience in real-world conditions.

[Nikolaevich I]

It's a shame they've forgotten the Syrian experience! When the Syrians needed heavy missiles capable of razing enemy strongholds to the ground, they didn't even bother! They simply took a water pipe up to 500 mm in diameter, filled it with explosives, slapped on a 122 mm caliber RS-48 (and other similar things!), and fired!

[Coconut Tima]

The Russian Armed Forces have been conducting a combined attack on Kyiv and the Kyiv region for over 24 hours. Missiles and drones are striking important military and energy facilities.
Enemy monitoring channels are reporting unprecedented, nonstop air raids. According to their calculations, the air raid alert in the Ukrainian capital has lasted a total of 13 hours. The last time it was sounded was at 20:46 PM.

[Vadim Golubkov]

If so, that's good. Let the Koreans test their weapons. Besides, North Korea is not a party to the conflict.

[Kostadinov]

Now is the time to crush the Ukrainian air defense and bring manned aircraft into action.

[Word]

The author admits the possibility that the KN-30s will be used on bridges; let's hope that this is the case, with an adjustment for the General Staff and Bankovaya.

[snow mountain]

Quote: ANIMAL

What can this missile do that, for example, Topol can’t do?

There are probably many such missiles!

[Incvizitor]

Maybe they also want to test their missiles at range 404?

[Totor5]

I've always wondered why the Iskander is so weak and has such a short range. Granted, the range was limited by treaty, but the yield of almost all our weapons is no more than 500 kg—that's extremely low.

[Carlos Hall]

North Korea has proven itself to be Russia's most loyal and reliable ally.

[Alexander X]

It's simply wonderful that Russia can acquire additional weapons from a friendly country. It's also very good that there are territories where weapons for Russia are being produced, and where the enemy hesitates to launch missiles. And it would be a good idea to build factories there with Russia's participation to produce key weapons. A spare part is a nice thing to have.
And these missiles, carrying 2,5 tons of explosives, will find plenty of targets in Ukraine. Bridges, tunnels, checkpoints...
A weapon that Russia really needs.
Thank you comrade Kim!

[Free Island]

Russia is NOT acquiring additional weapons. It has more than its share of its own. Russia is allowing its true ally to take advantage of the opportunity to test and pilot its weapons in a real military conflict. Even a housewife can understand that the North Koreans need experience in modern combat and testing their weapons in real field conditions. In case you haven't noticed, half the world is doing this today. Europe and the United States are testing the strength of Russia's air defense systems at the "Ukraine" testing ground, testing their weapons, and sending their specialists there to gain modern combat experience. Korea is doing the same on Russia's side – testing weapons and training its army. Everyone is preparing for the coming skirmishes.

[MBRSS]

Russia is NOT acquiring additional weapons. There is plenty of my own.

Very funny! Did you know that Iskander and other missiles are shipped straight from the factory to the front? This means there's no surplus. And war with Europe is also a possibility.
We need to build new factories, and not hope for a quick peace or help from the outside.

[vBR]

All this is excellent. Now it's time to select the objects where KN application will yield the best operational and strategic results.

[Vertuhai 2003]

As for me, even a meteorite from the sky would do the trick, as long as it hits Kyiv with flying colors, and if these Korean gifts aren't used, then they're not worth a dime...

[Free Island]

Even if that's true, that's wonderful. North Korea needs to test its weapons in real-world conflict conditions. And not just its weapons, but its fighters as well. This will be a valuable experience in the run-up to a possible war with its southern traitors. Ultimately, we'll have three armies in the world that have experience in real-world combat in a modern war: Russia, the former Ukraine, and North Korea.

[tralflot1832]

Quote: Alex777

Quote: tralflot1832

August 24th is Monday, I'm not hinting at anything.

Let's hope.

Alexander, Denmark, as the UN Security Council chair, initiated a meeting on Ukraine's security, plus four other European countries as observers. It's funny, there's a six-hour time difference between Ukraine and New York, plus the UN Security Council meeting is taking place late in the evening. What's there to discuss? I hope it's just firebrands.

[Vyacheslav Boldyrev]

Have we come to this!? A nuclear power doesn't have weapons capable of destroying some bridges?
Where is the money, Zin?

[Zaurbek]

They probably knocked out the missile defense system, and now simpler missiles can be used without losses.