Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
South Korea Envisions Aircraft Carriers By 2036  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1555 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4035 times:

Hot off the press:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...a-Envisions-Light-Aircraft-Carrier

Quote:
The South Korean Navy believes it can deploy two light aircraft carriers by 2036 and expand its blue-water force to cope with the rapid naval buildups of China and Japan, according to a Navy source.

The service has been exploring ways of securing light aircraft carriers based on an interim feasibility study, the source said.

“It’s a hope,” the Navy source said on condition of anonymity. “There are no fixed requirements at the moment, but we’ve been studying ways of launching light aircraft carriers over the next two decades.”

Rep. Chung Hee-soo of the ruling Saenuri Party revealed the contents of a program in a feasibility report last week.

“To cope with potential maritime disputes with neighboring countries, we need to secure aircraft carriers as soon as possible,” Chung, a member of the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said during a confirmation hearing Oct. 11 for Adm. Choi Yoon-hee, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “For more active international peacekeeping operations, our Navy should have carriers.”

Per the article, this is what they are planning:
- In Phase One, the second Dokdo class LHD will be fitted with a ski-ramp for STOVL aircraft. Funding for the second Dokdo class LHD was approved back in 2012. The class already has been designed in mind for the potential of operating fixed wing STOVL aircraft. The South Koreans are considering purchasing used STOVL fighters (most likely the Harrier) as an interim aircraft.
- In Phase Two, the South Koreans would like to build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019.
- In Phase Three, the South Koreans aim to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036. The ship would have specifications close to Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft.

Also noted in the article are the following:
- South Korea will build three more Sejong the Great-class AEGIS destroyer's by 2023 as part of their naval expansion
- A new generation of destroyers will be designed and built for completion post 2023
- South Korea will be building a fleet of nine heavy attack submarines capable of land attack with cruise missiles
- The Navy plans to have 24 Incheon-class frigates by 2026
- There are plans in place to purchase 18 used Lockheed S-3 Vikings from the USN as a reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft
- An additional six naval helicopters (more AW159 Wildcats) will be purchased in addition to the six on order.

In general, with the Chinese operating their own carrier and Japan also building carriers, we have a carrier race in the East China Sea.

[Edited 2013-10-27 01:59:44]

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

Very interesting.

Seems like a lot of countries don't quite buy into the idea that the carrier is obsolete.  
Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
- There are plans in place to purchase 18 used Lockheed S-3 Vikings from the USN as a reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft

Long live the Hoover!



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3463 times:

I hear the high bid for Forrestal was $0.01. Bet the US Navy wouldn't let them have it, though.  


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 1):
Long live the Hoover!

On the topic of the possible S-3 Viking revival, Lockheed Martin is confirming that they are offering refurbished S-3 Vikings for maritime patrol for South Korea and as a COD and aerial refueling platform for the USN:

http://www.janes.com/article/29013/a...g-aircraft-to-korean-and-us-navies

Quote:
Lockheed Martin is to resurrect the retired S-3 Viking aircraft in order to fulfil requirements for both the Republic Of Korea Navy (RoKN) and the US Navy (USN), a company official told IHS Jane's on 29 October.

Speaking at the Seoul International Aerospace and Defence Exhibition (ADEX) in South Korea, Steve Pigott, Director Business Development International Air Mobility Programs, said that the company is looking to refurbish a number of mothballed Vikings, which it will offer to the RoKN as a maritime patrol (MPA) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platform, and to the USN for carrier on-board delivery (COD) and air-to-air refuelling (AAR).

"There are about 50 to 100 S-3s in the boneyard [at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona] that have a lot of life left in them," he said. "As the [original equipment manufacturer], we would do a nose-to-tail overhaul of them [and] fit them with the required systems."

With regard to the South Korean requirement, the RoKN is looking for approximately 20 aircraft to augment the 16 Lockheed Martin P-3C/CK Orions it is currently upgrading.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3349 times:

As an air-to-air refueling platform, eh? Guess they're realizing having the -18 be the carrier-based refueler wasn't going to cut it.

What is the advantage of it over the C-2 for COD, though? It's payload is about half of that of the C-2. Speed? Reliability? Footprint?



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):

I hear the high bid for Forrestal was $0.01. Bet the US Navy wouldn't let them have it, though.

Cost more to restore it to an operational carrier than it would cost to build a new one. I even doubt scrapping it will pay with the amount of enviromental work required in these things. Think floating toxic waste dump filled with asbestos, and... you might be close.

Don't forget South Korea is the major player in ship building at this time. I bet if they were in a tearing hurry they could do a quick and dirty "conversion" of a existing cruise ship design to get practical experience before making a proper Carrier. Wouldn't be suprised if that was cheaper than the huge issues with used carriers both India and China suffered.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 5):
I bet if they were in a tearing hurry they could do a quick and dirty "conversion" of a existing cruise ship design to get practical experience before making a proper Carrier.

Except the Koreans have never built a cruse ship. I'm sure DSME, Samsung or Hyundai could build a carrier in lightening fast time, all they would need is the design.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3006 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Except the Koreans have never built a cruse ship. I'm sure DSME, Samsung or Hyundai could build a carrier in lightening fast time, all they would need is the design.

The South Korean firm STX owns a cruise ship building yard in Finland.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2906 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):

The South Korean firm STX owns a cruise ship building yard in Finland.

As I said the Koreans have never built a cruise ship. Finland isn't Korea last time I looked. STX also own a yard in France which also builds cruise ships. Besides I doubt a cruise ship hull would be suitable for an aircraft carrier.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
I'm sure DSME, Samsung or Hyundai could build a carrier in lightening fast time, all they would need is the design.

Well, they have this amphibious assault ship already built:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/US_Navy_100727-N-6720T-080_The_Republic_of_Korea_Navy_amphibious_landing_ship_ROKS_Dokdo_%28LPH_6111%29_is_underway_in_the_Sea_of_Japan_with_the_guided-missile_destroyers_USS_Lassen_%28DDG_82%29_and_USS_Chung-Hoon_%28DDG_93%29.jpg

It won't take much for them to build a STOVL aircraft carrier by enlarging and modifying the design.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Except the Koreans have never built a cruse ship. I'm sure DSME, Samsung or Hyundai could build a carrier in lightening fast time, all they would need is the design.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
The South Korean firm STX owns a cruise ship building yard in Finland.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
As I said the Koreans have never built a cruise ship. Finland isn't Korea last time I looked. STX also own a yard in France which also builds cruise ships. Besides I doubt a cruise ship hull would be suitable for an aircraft carrier.

I was simply responding to your point. Anyhow, it seems to all be moot. Anyone who can build an assault ship (let's face it -- they're just small carriers) is halfway there.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2757 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
It won't take much for them to build a STOVL aircraft carrier by enlarging and modifying the design.

As you said in your opening post they are modifying the second in class with a skijump for stovl ops, they are pretty much there already.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2750 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
Besides I doubt a cruise ship hull would be suitable for an aircraft carrier.

I don't know, RCI's Freedom and Oasis class ships (which were all built by STX) are about Nimitz-class sized if not bigger. Beyond that, never say never when you're talking about hull conversion. Lest we forget, USS Langley (CV-1) was a refitted collier and USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) were built on battlecruiser hulls while the Long Island, Avenger, Sangamon, and Bogue class CVEs were all converted from merchant or oiler ships that were under construction while the Commencement Bays were designed from the keel up as CVEs but still used a hull based on a civilian design.

[Edited 2013-11-01 07:34:16]


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 12):
I don't know, RCI's Freedom and Oasis class ships (which were all built by STX) are about Nimitz-class sized if not bigger.

Might as well use the Queen Mary hull, the yard that built her is also owned by STX. Somehow I doubt the Koreans are ever going to build a super sized carrier.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13):

Might as well use the Queen Mary hull, the yard that built her is also owned by STX. Somehow I doubt the Koreans are ever going to build a super sized carrier.

Oh, I doubt it too, just saying that crazier things have happened than a flattop being based off a civilian hull.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 12):
I don't know, RCI's Freedom and Oasis class ships (which were all built by STX) are about Nimitz-class sized if not bigger. Beyond that, never say never when you're talking about hull conversion. Lest we forget, USS Langley (CV-1) was a refitted collier and USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) were built on battlecruiser hulls while the Long Island, Avenger, Sangamon, and Bogue class CVEs were all converted from merchant or oiler ships that were under construction while the Commencement Bays were designed from the keel up as CVEs but still used a hull based on a civilian design.

Most liners and cruise ships are pretty top heavy already, turning one into a carrier would have several problems.

But if I wanted to do a carrier on the cheap, I'd start with a modern ULCC (supertanker) hull. They've got the size and stability you need, they're pretty much flat on top already, and they can hold a lot of fuel. There's enough space so that you could toughen up the hull considerably (you could put another "hull" layer 25ft inside the tank walls, and fill the gap with an expanded foam - so you'd have a triple hull and considerable floatation). You'd need to beef up the engine plant substantially, as a tanker would be rather slow.

And as you mentioned, colliers and oiler have been the basis for several conversions already.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic South Korea Envisions Aircraft Carriers By 2036
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Both F-15SE And F-35 For South Korea? posted Fri May 24 2013 06:26:02 by bikerthai
South Korea Buys AH-64E's posted Wed Apr 17 2013 12:14:17 by ThePointblank
F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea? posted Wed Apr 3 2013 15:52:29 by ThePointblank
B-52 Overflew South Korea March 08 2013 posted Mon Mar 18 2013 11:08:58 by tommytoyz
Aircraft Carriers: Armored Or Not? posted Thu Jul 19 2012 18:11:48 by flyingturtle
Any F-22's In South Korea...? posted Tue Nov 23 2010 17:29:06 by lucky777
Question About Equipment on Bow of Some Aircraft Carriers posted Wed Jan 21 2009 08:08:16 by Poadrim
'2 US Aircraft Carriers Headed For Gulf' posted Fri Aug 8 2008 03:58:12 by MadameConcorde
Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers posted Mon Jul 28 2008 07:04:11 by Mortyman
Would The USN Sell Used Aircraft Carriers? posted Wed Aug 8 2007 21:48:50 by A342

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format