Korea to Build Light Aircraft Carrier

[TomS]

Interesting. Maybe it's just from trying to look at it on my phone, but the design looks like it has a provision for a full angled deck should S Korea choose to go that route in the future

The Reddit thread includes some quotes from the designers stating exactly this -- it's meant to have the option of an angled deck if desired.

Not sure that extends to a catapult and arresting gear, though. But an angled recovery deck could facilitate rolling short landings as well.

 

[helmutkohl]

its still the same design posted months earlier

there is a angled version if you see on the bottom i
if they decide to do a stobar type

 

[Archibald]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% related. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

 

[stealthflanker]

Now i'm curious on what kind of power projection can be made available from this carrier.

 

[helmutkohl]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% related. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

I actually wonder why the Queen Elizabeth didnt go with a angled deck layout since it certainly has the space for one

 

[Grey Havoc]

Beancounter logic is rather different from that of us mere mortals...

 

[Archibald]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% related. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

I actually wonder why the Queen Elizabeth didnt go with a angled deck layout since it certainly has the space for one

And there my theory collapses. I assumed the Q.E had angled decks - but they have none. How about that !

That moment I realize my vision of the Q.E is stuck to the early 2000s - the moment when the french pulled out... I must have PA2 in mind...

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% related. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

Let’s hope that South Korea go for the STOVL twin island design and use the F-35B, I would think that it would be good for SK to have a STOVL carrier to operate along side the Royal Navy with our carriers in terms of exercises. Is there any idea as to the final tonnage that the South Korean’s would choose for the carriers?

 

[helmutkohl]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% related. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

Let’s hope that South Korea go for the STOVL twin island design and use the F-35B, I would think that it would be good for SK to have a STOVL carrier to operate along side the Royal Navy with our carriers in terms of exercises. Is there any idea as to the final tonnage that the South Korean’s would choose for the carriers?

there are two twin island designs (see page 2) including the tonnage, which is around 45000

 

[GTX]

I actually wonder why the Queen Elizabeth didnt go with a angled deck layout since it certainly has the space for one

Let's not reopen this subject please. It has already been discussed ad nauseam

 

[apparition13]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% relatehd. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

I actually wonder why the Queen Elizabeth didnt go with a angled deck layout since it certainly has the space for one

It isn't needed. The deck has 3 "lanes". There is a landing lane on the left, a take off lane in the middle, and a parking lane on the right of the deck. You only really need an angled deck to prevent crashing into parked aircraft and allow for bolters if the pilot doesn't catch the wire. It turns a one lane flight deck into a two lane one. On a STOVL carrier I think the QE design makes more sense, although a slightly prefer the Dual Tramline LHA(X) design that puts the parking (and islands) in the middle.

The Brits have had this three lane idea for a while. If you look at CVA01 it has a 3 degree angled deck (practically axial) hugging the port side, a catapult on the starboard side, and room for parking in between the two.

Cavour isn't wide enough for three 'lanes', it uses the same lane for takeoffs and landings, but it has a separate parking area to the right of the runway. Unless ROK decides to build something QE sized they will likely end up with something like Cavour or Juan Carlos in layout, with a combined landing and takeoff lane on the port and deck park to the right of the lane.

 

[helmutkohl]

Interesting. "Angled deck" and "CATOBAR" are no longer 100% relatehd. In other words: lessons drawn from angled decks since 1953 could also be applied to non-CATOBAR carriers.
F-35Bs would roll and land on the angled deck with others parked a safe distance away... this lesson remains valuable even without cats and traps.

I actually wonder why the Queen Elizabeth didnt go with a angled deck layout since it certainly has the space for one

It isn't needed. The deck has 3 "lanes". There is a landing lane on the left, a take off lane in the middle, and a parking lane on the right of the deck. You only really need an angled deck to prevent crashing into parked aircraft and allow for bolters if the pilot doesn't catch the wire. It turns a one lane flight deck into a two lane one. On a STOVL carrier I think the QE design makes more sense, although a slightly prefer the Dual Tramline LHA(X) design that puts the parking (and islands) in the middle.

The Brits have had this three lane idea for a while. If you look at CVA01 it has a 3 degree angled deck (practically axial) hugging the port side, a catapult on the starboard side, and room for parking in between the two.

Cavour isn't wide enough for three 'lanes', it uses the same lane for takeoffs and landings, but it has a separate parking area to the right of the runway. Unless ROK decides to build something QE sized they will likely end up with something like Cavour or Juan Carlos in layout, with a combined landing and takeoff lane on the port and deck park to the right of the lane.

thanks for the explanation of the QE

on a related note. how much "runway" length does a rolling landing typically require? in comparison to an arrested landing?

 

[SSgtC]

on a related note. how much "runway" length does a rolling landing typically require? in comparison to an arrested landing?

Just a WAG, but probably the same or less than an arrested landing. The plane isn't moving forward very fast, plus you've got ship's speed compensating as well. IIRC, an arrested landing will burn up about 300' of deck or so.

 

[Archibald]

When you think about it, the F-35B may be, all by itself, the answer to the PRC carrier building program.
The USN certainly will have difficulties maintaining its present force of Nimitz + Ford immensely expensive carriers.
And they staunchly refuse smaller carriers for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam on this forum and elsewhere.

Wait, did I just said "smaller carriers" ?

Now, whatif the USN deferred the " small carrier" issue to a) the USMC amphibious ships and b) the Japanese and South Korean navies - all of them with F-35B ?

I do know that these "surrogate small carriers" are not a 100% match for the PRC flattops; but still - they exist, they do not drain USN budgets, and the F-35B for all its flaws and I said elsewhere packs inside its airframe, supersonic flight plus stealth plus AMRAAM capability.

And if the PRC carrier combat group is a mix of FC-31s and J-15s, then the F-35B (for all its flaws) remains a valuable answer. Even more if available in large numbers across USMC / Japan / carrier decks with better F-35Cs on the USN CATOBAR carriers to back them, plus Superbugs.

 

[Archibald]

South Korea pair of Dokdos are probably marginals for F-35B, Japanese ships are larger and there are four of them. Plus eventually, two even larger South Korean carriers. Give or take, that's eight decks, each one with an average dozen of F-35B. That's a theoretical force of nearly a hundred F-35B... not negligible.
Plus the USMC amphibs.

 

[SSgtC]

South Korea pair of Dokdos are probably marginals for F-35B, Japanese ships are larger and there are four of them. Plus eventually, two even larger South Korean carriers. Give or take, that's eight decks, each one with an average dozen of F-35B. That's a theoretical force of nearly a hundred F-35B... not negligible.
Plus the USMC amphibs.

Plus the amphibs, when operating as a pure carrier, can handle around 20-24 Harriers/Lightnings and 4 helicopters. (When using a permanent deck park). Obviously, there are drawbacks (low amounts of fuel and munitions storage space chief among them), but it is doable if you need a credible carrier group in a hurry. I'd imaging the S Korean and Japanese ships could probably do the same, even if their normal air wing is significantly smaller.

 

[Archibald]

How many large amphibs does the USMC presently has ? I'm a bit lost between classes...

 

[TomS]

How many large amphibs does the USMC presently has ? I'm a bit lost between classes...

None. The USN currently operates 9 large deck amphibs, of which 2 are aviation focused ships without well decks for landing craft. It was 10 before the Bonhomme Richard fire.

 

[Archibald]

I've seen that 11 America-class are planned in the long term, so is that a standard USMC number / requirement, like USN carriers (10-11) ?

 

[EwenS]

South Korea pair of Dokdos are probably marginals for F-35B, Japanese ships are larger and there are four of them. Plus eventually, two even larger South Korean carriers. Give or take, that's eight decks, each one with an average dozen of F-35B. That's a theoretical force of nearly a hundred F-35B... not negligible.
Plus the USMC amphibs.

The Japanese ships form two separate classes. The earleir Hyugas are pretty much the same size as the Dokdos but the later Izumos are larger.

Dokdo - 19,500 tons full load. 199x31m. Up to 15 helicopters on 5 landing spots.

Hyuga - 19,000 tons full load. 197x33m. Up to 18 aircraft on 4 landing spots.

Izumo - 27,000 tons full load. 248x38m Up to 28 aircraft on 5 landing spots.

 

[TomS]

I've seen that 11 America-class are planned in the long term, so is that a standard USMC number / requirement, like USN carriers (10-11) ?

Yes, more or less. The nominal planning goal is that there should be equal numbers of Carrier Strike Groups (centered on a CVN) and Expeditionary Strike Groups (centered on an LHA or LHD).

 

[Archibald]

Thank you all !

 

[helmutkohl]

Hyundai, Daewoo in race to win Korea's 1st aircraft carrier order

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) are in a heated race to win a 2 trillion won ($1.7 billion) order to build Korea's first aircraft carrier, known as the CVX.

m.koreatimes.co.kr

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) are in a heated race to win a 2 trillion won ($1.7 billion) order to build Korea's first aircraft carrier, known as the CVX.

The sheer size of the first aircraft carrier project for the two shipbuilders could lead to additional deals for such huge vessels both domestically and abroad.

According to sources, the defense ministry is expected to start receiving bids for the preliminary design of the CVX as early as next year ― the project is worth 3 trillion won with the construction accounting for over 2 trillion won.

The vessel will weigh 30,000 tons with a length of 260m and width of 40m. That size will make the aircraft carrier capable of transporting 12 F-35B and eight attack helicopters. The vessel can carry up to 16 fighter jets by reducing the number of helicopters.

If the National Assembly passes the budget for the CVX at the end of this year, the preliminary design will take around two to three years to complete, while construction will take five to seven years.

In October 2019, HHI was assigned to provide a conceptual design for the vessel, which was finished in December last year. The start of the preliminary bidding will officially mark the launch of the CVX project.

Only HHI and DSME are allowed to participate in the CVX bid and the two companies have been busy expanding cooperation with both local and foreign firms to win the order. HHI recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), which is the only domestic company capable of building fighter jets as well as military helicopters.

In August, HHI also inked a partnership with one of the UK's leading shipbuilders, Babcock International, which took part in the development of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier and possesses state-of-the-art technology in construction of these vessels.

In June, DSME joined hands with Italy's state-run Fincantieri, which has prior experience in developing next-generation destroyers and helicopter carriers. In August, DSME also inked an MOU with Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction, which has built over 1,000 vessels over the last 50 years.

 

[helmutkohl]

seems like DSME has a new video out of their light carrier.
I counted about 28 F-35s and 4 helos in one of their past models

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DQ4eGxnABY

 

[Archibald]

Hyundai, Daewoo in race to win Korea's 1st aircraft carrier order

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) are in a heated race to win a 2 trillion won ($1.7 billion) order to build Korea's first aircraft carrier, known as the CVX.

m.koreatimes.co.kr

The vessel will weigh 30,000 tons with a length of 260m and width of 40m. That size will make the aircraft carrier capable of transporting 12 F-35B and eight attack helicopters. The vessel can carry up to 16 fighter jets by reducing the number of helicopters

So Clemenceau / Essex size or a bit smaller. Interesting.

 

[FighterJock]

Hyundai, Daewoo in race to win Korea's 1st aircraft carrier order

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) are in a heated race to win a 2 trillion won ($1.7 billion) order to build Korea's first aircraft carrier, known as the CVX.

m.koreatimes.co.kr

The vessel will weigh 30,000 tons with a length of 260m and width of 40m. That size will make the aircraft carrier capable of transporting 12 F-35B and eight attack helicopters. The vessel can carry up to 16 fighter jets by reducing the number of helicopters

So Clemenceau / Essex size or a bit smaller. Interesting.

An interesting development for the South Korean aircraft carrier program.I will watch the CVX with interest.

 

[sferrin]

Makes you wonder why they don't just buy an America class.

 

[archipeppe]

Makes you wonder why they don't just buy an America class.

Because they want to develop their own know how, to produce other vessels like this and eventually sell to other potential clients.

 

[sferrin]

Makes you wonder why they don't just buy an America class.

Because they want to develop their own know how, to produce other vessels like this and eventually sell to other potential clients.

And I get that. (Also the US is pretty much using all the LHD capacity of the Pascagoula anyway.) Just thought it might be a way to bring the unit cost down and save time.

 

[Archibald]

I wish it could break the "deadlock" related to the USN "smaller carriers" but admittedly, the USMC amphibs have grown so huge, they are already filling that role.

Wonder if Brazil could buy one ?

 

[FighterJock]

I wish it could break the "deadlock" related to the USN "smaller carriers" but admittedly, the USMC amphibs have grown so huge, they are already filling that role.

Wonder if Brazil could buy one ?

I do not know what state Brazil's economy is in at present but Brazil are in the market for a new carrier and they are going to buy the carrier based Gripen fighters from SABB as well, so watch this space.

 

[kaiserbill]

Makes you wonder why they don't just buy an America class.

Because they want to develop their own know how, to produce other vessels like this and eventually sell to other potential clients.

And I get that. (Also the US is pretty much using all the LHD capacity of the Pascagoula anyway.) Just thought it might be a way to bring the unit cost down and save time.

I get the time thing, but as stated, they want to do this themselves.
I seriously doubt there is any cost saving buying American.
South Korea has some of the most efficient shipyards on the globe, and I'd bet the house that they would build this at a far better price to anything coming out of Ingalls.

I think the Koreans might have hit a sweet spot regarding size, particularly if the pricing is good.

 

[H_K]

So Clemenceau / Essex size or a bit smaller. Interesting

The 2-island DSME design is 263m long and displaces 45,000 tons… so more Charles de Gaulle/Essex size than Clemenceau.

Flight deck parking for ~16 F-35Bs and hangar parking for ~12 F-35Bs so with the usual density factors a total air group of 20-24 fighters sounds realistic (plus 4-6 helos).

 

[uk 75]

The presence of a S Korean flat top with F35B in whatever numbers is very welcome.
The ROK Navy already has some decent escorts for her.
An extra Free World Task Group.

 

[gral_rj]

I wish it could break the "deadlock" related to the USN "smaller carriers" but admittedly, the USMC amphibs have grown so huge, they are already filling that role.

Wonder if Brazil could buy one ?

I do not know what state Brazil's economy is in at present but Brazil are in the market for a new carrier and they are going to buy the carrier based Gripen fighters from SABB as well, so watch this space.

Don't count on a Brazilian carrier before the 2030's. My guess would be early 2040's, if ever.

 

[helmutkohl]

new cg video of the light carrier emerges.. I believe its DSME design again

Çرº ¾÷±×·¹À̵å Çѱ¹Çü Ç×°ø¸ðÇÔ CG °ø°³, Â÷±â ±¸ÃàÇÔ µî Çرº ¹Ì·¡ÇÕµ¿Àü·Â ¿î¿µ ¿µ»ó/Çرº

µ¿¿µ»ó ¸µÅ© : https://tv.naver.com/v/23831445Çرº Çѱ¹Çü Ç×°ø¸ðÇÔ CG ÃÖÁ¾º» ¿µ»óÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇöÀç Çرº¿¡¼ ¿î¿ëÇÏ°í ÀÖ......

bemil.chosun.com

 

[FighterJock]

new cg video of the light carrier emerges.. I believe its DSME design again

Çرº ¾÷±×·¹À̵å Çѱ¹Çü Ç×°ø¸ðÇÔ CG °ø°³, Â÷±â ±¸ÃàÇÔ µî Çرº ¹Ì·¡ÇÕµ¿Àü·Â ¿î¿µ ¿µ»ó/Çرº

µ¿¿µ»ó ¸µÅ© : https://tv.naver.com/v/23831445Çرº Çѱ¹Çü Ç×°ø¸ðÇÔ CG ÃÖÁ¾º» ¿µ»óÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇöÀç Çرº¿¡¼ ¿î¿ëÇÏ°í ÀÖ......

bemil.chosun.com

Nice, I cannot get enough of the new South Korean carrier.

 

[Archibald]

Awesome. Somebody needs to put Top Gun soundtrack on that video !
(I tried Dragon Ball main theme, and it is awesome, too)

 

[kizokuoh]

Makes tons of sense.

F-35B (VSTOL + stealth + supersonic + AMRAAM) allows the ROK and Japanese navies to "tackle" the chinese Liaoning and its improved clones with enlarged LPHs. Without ruining their much smaller economies / GDP building fleets of supercarriers...

Several projects will be canceled or reduced because new government is trying to raise soldiers' wages significantly. This project has been controversial, so there is a high probability that the project will be canceled.

 

[GTX]

South Korea's new hardline on North Korea may mean the end of its plans to build its first aircraft carrier

A new emphasis on countering North Korea and other military modernization priorities may spell the end of plans to build South Korea's first flattop.

www.businessinsider.com