View attachment 952157
My reaction:
Its an okay analysis, but double standards since it author states it is not clear if there are torpedo tubes present or were they removed during reshaping only for author to assert that propulsion did not change and that battery capacity was reduced without any shred of evidence to support it.
Yes, I also thought the same thing when I read the article.
Hi Sutton continues to consider that this is a modified Romeo/Project 633 class and lists the defects that this entails, such as the reduction of battery packs, the type of engine, but at least consider that it has a hull lengthened by 10 meters.
But in my opinion, we continue to make a mistake, that is, thinking that they used (as your previous article from July 2019 suggest s
http://www.hisutton.com/ROMEO-Mod_Submarine.html ) a Romeo Class or rather the Chinese Type-033 version that was already supplied.
But since the Romeo/Type 033 class submarines were not only imported, but made directly in North Korea, one could also evaluate the option that starting from the original project and the technical knowledge in the creation of the Romeo/Type 033 class, the North Koreans they could have built this missile submarine from scratch, adapting the project to the new mission, and we must not forget that in the last 27 years since the last Type 033 incorporated into the North Korean navy, the world and even North Korea have technically taken steps to giant, both in the miniaturization and automation of many components, as well as in the creation of more compact battery packs while maintaining and even increasing the charging capacity.
Therefore, making assumptions like the one that they had to give up on battery packs without knowing the insides of the new submarine should at least be avoided.
