Korea to Build Light Aircraft Carrier

[FighterJock]

In that case why did the US Navy have nuclear reactors in their Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers? Though at one point in the future I would like to see Hydrogen fuel cell powered aircraft carriers at one point in the future. I cannot see a fusion powered carrier anytime soon sadly, that must be the holy grail for future carriers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In that case why did the US Navy have nuclear reactors in their Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers?

Because NNP means that all the fuel volumes in the ship are now able to hold aviation fuel.

Also, the USN recruits from a population about 5x the size of France's, so has less of an issue with getting enough crew into the nuclear training pipelines.

Though at one point in the future I would like to see Hydrogen fuel cell powered aircraft carriers at one point in the future.

That's one I doubt. Handling hydrogen sucks. Making hydrogen is extremely energy intensive, and storing the stuff is miserable because hydrogen will just seep out of the steel pipes and tanks! Not to mention the absolutely lousy density of the stuff, LH2 is just short of 15 liters per KG.

Storing the stuff as anhydrous ammonia (pure NH3) might be viable, though. But then I am pretty sure you'd need to somehow separate the N2 and H2 before feeding that into the fuel cells.

I cannot see a fusion powered carrier anytime soon sadly, that must be the holy grail for future carriers.

Maybe?

I mean, if the Tokamaks could ever work, where the reactor directly generates electricity via MHD, then yes it's ideal for Integrated Electrical Power drives. Just don't forget the co-generation to take advantage of all the heat being generated.

 

[Josh_TN]

There are certain scales of efficiency that make nuclear power more accessible both in terms of carrier size and number of carriers maintained to the same specification. The adoption of a single nuclear carrier of small displacement always struck me as more of a French vanity project than a practical solution, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

 

[SSgtC]

There are certain scales of efficiency that make nuclear power more accessible both in terms of carrier size and number of carriers maintained to the same specification. The adoption of a single nuclear carrier of small displacement always struck me as more of a French vanity project than a practical solution, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

I wouldn't call it a vanity project. Going to nuclear power significantly increases your aviation fuel and ordinance storage. Going off of memory, but IIRC when the USN was comparing the Enterprise to Kitty Hawk, Enterprise could carry some 50% more aviation fuel and I want to say 20-30% more ordinance. So for a small carrier, that's a big increase in your capability. And if doing so let's you remove a supply ship from your task force, you may end up with a net positive in crew requirements and costs.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I wouldn't call it a vanity project. Going to nuclear power significantly increases your aviation fuel and ordinance storage. Going off of memory, but IIRC when the USN was comparing the Enterprise to Kitty Hawk, Enterprise could carry some 50% more aviation fuel and I want to say 20-30% more ordinance. So for a small carrier, that's a big increase in your capability. And if doing so let's you remove a supply ship from your task force, you may end up with a net positive in crew requirements and costs.

2150 tons munitions and 1.95 million gallons aviation fuel in JFK, 2520 tons munitions and 2.72 million gallons aviation fuel in Enterprise, so generally correct.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

A Taiwanese carrier would be a moving target compared to the airfields that China has targeted down to the inch.

That doesn't chanve what I've said. The advantage of maneuverability which the carrier has is moot since the space in which the imaginary Taiwanese CSG could maneuver in is so small. It's not like they will send their CSG to SCS to protect Taiwan. Similar problem applies to Korean CVX, but there are two very important distinctions : First the ROKN is much more capable than ROCN and the gap will only widen further and second, NK maritime surveillance capabilities are absolutely incomparable to PLA maritime surveillance and tracking capabilities.

Add to that the fact that you could harden airfield defences either passively (hardened shelters, hangars and runways extending underground), actively (AD) and via improving resilience (well-trained airfield reconstruction/recovery system).

Most importantly, ROCN shipbuilding has been in absolute shambles ever since they went with Lafayette for 光華 Project, which was beyond riddled with corruption, it basically politically decapitated any kind of ROCN national warship building capabilities for a few decades. Don't forget that US at least currently has no intentIons whatsoever to sell Taiwan F-35, considering the state of their abysmal military information security.

So yes, no matter how much intel the PLA has over ROCAF airbase coordinates, or however the Korean CVX and CSG turns out to be, both are still miles better than any half-baked CSG ROCN could afford.

 

[helmutkohl]

I wouldn't call it a vanity project. Going to nuclear power significantly increases your aviation fuel and ordinance storage. Going off of memory, but IIRC when the USN was comparing the Enterprise to Kitty Hawk, Enterprise could carry some 50% more aviation fuel and I want to say 20-30% more ordinance. So for a small carrier, that's a big increase in your capability. And if doing so let's you remove a supply ship from your task force, you may end up with a net positive in crew requirements and costs.

for me still quite unsure about the pros and cons of nuclear powered carriers in the non-US case. the US is exceptional as it has a large labor pool to draw from.

The points you make about more storage on nuclear carriers, as well as power availability are valid. And potentially the need for a smaller supply ship. although you still need one to bring the food and other supplies besides fuel.
But the point on nuclear carriers needing more engineers/staff to operate/maintain it is also important. not to mention retaining them so they dont leave for the potentially more lucrative civilian sector.

In the case of France, my earlier comment had to do more with issues they had with the CdG's powerplant than the staffing issues, but i've heard they also face similar challenges with the UK in terms of personnel.
I still stand behind that in retrospect, there should have been two QE class carriers. One for UK, one for France, both CATOBAR.

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, the USN's reactors need more personnel per reactor than an oil-fired boiler needed... but then a Nimitz has 2 reactors while the older CVs had 8 boilers... so they even out.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That doesn't chanve what I've said. The advantage of maneuverability which the carrier has is moot since the space in which the imaginary Taiwanese CSG could maneuver in is so small. It's not like they will send their CSG to SCS to protect Taiwan. Similar problem applies to Korean CVX, but there are two very important distinctions : First the ROKN is much more capable than ROCN and the gap will only widen further and second, NK maritime surveillance capabilities are absolutely incomparable to PLA maritime surveillance and tracking capabilities.

My mental image of the CONOPS was for the Taiwanese carrier to lurk east of the island, leaving the straits to submarines and aircraft (and a crapton of naval mines).

Most importantly, ROCN shipbuilding has been in absolute shambles ever since they went with Lafayette for 光華 Project, which was beyond riddled with corruption, it basically politically decapitated any kind of ROCN national warship building capabilities for a few decades. Don't forget that US at least currently has no intentIons whatsoever to sell Taiwan F-35, considering the state of their abysmal military information security.

That I was not aware of.

Not surprised to hear it, but not aware of it. The Kuomintang was hideously corrupt during the warlord era and up through 1949.

 

[BlackBat242]

That I was not aware of.

Not surprised to hear it, but not aware of it. The Kuomintang was hideously corrupt during the warlord era and up through 1949.

He was referring to the US$1.75 billion agreement with France in the early 1990s for 6 Lafayette class ASW frigates (the Kang Ding class in the ROCN), which were built in France 1993-1998.

The Taiwan frigate deal was a huge political scandal, both in Taiwan and France. Eight people involved in the contract died in unusual and possibly suspicious circumstances. Arms dealer Andrew Wang fled Taiwan to the UK after the body of presumptive whistleblower Captain Yin Ching-feng was found floating in the sea. In 2001 Swiss authorities froze accounts held by Andrew Wang and his family in connection to the Taiwan frigate scandal.

In 2003, the Taiwanese Navy sued Thomson-CSF (Thales) to recover alleged $590 million in kickbacks, paid to French and Taiwanese officials to grease the 1991 La Fayette deal. The kickback money was deposited in Swiss banks, and under the corruption investigation, Swiss authorities froze approx. $730 million in over 60 accounts. In June 2007 the Swiss authority returned $34 million from frozen accounts to Taiwan, with additional funds pending.

Andrew Wang died in the UK in 2015 and collection efforts continued against his family. In February 2021, the Federal Department of Justice and Police said that Switzerland will restitute nearly US$266 million to Taiwan.

 

[TinWing]

He was referring to the US$1.75 billion agreement with France in the early 1990s for 6 Lafayette class ASW frigates (the Kang Ding class in the ROCN), which were built in France 1993-1998.

The Taiwan frigate deal was a huge political scandal, both in Taiwan and France. Eight people involved in the contract died in unusual and possibly suspicious circumstances. Arms dealer Andrew Wang fled Taiwan to the UK after the body of presumptive whistleblower Captain Yin Ching-feng was found floating in the sea. In 2001 Swiss authorities froze accounts held by Andrew Wang and his family in connection to the Taiwan frigate scandal.

In 2003, the Taiwanese Navy sued Thomson-CSF (Thales) to recover alleged $590 million in kickbacks, paid to French and Taiwanese officials to grease the 1991 La Fayette deal. The kickback money was deposited in Swiss banks, and under the corruption investigation, Swiss authorities froze approx. $730 million in over 60 accounts. In June 2007 the Swiss authority returned $34 million from frozen accounts to Taiwan, with additional funds pending.

Andrew Wang died in the UK in 2015 and collection efforts continued against his family. In February 2021, the Federal Department of Justice and Police said that Switzerland will restitute nearly US$266 million to Taiwan.

The original program for for 6 builds and 10 options, so the planned pre-scandal total for 16 Lafayettes. I dare say that the procurement of a dozen very operable Knox class frigates put an end to further units as much as the apparent corruption. Besides, there was apparently (and still is?) a statutory limit on the number of ROCN frigates at 22 total units. With the extra US FFG-7 hulls, Taiwan is fully stocked up on frigates.

The Kang Ding scandal was unexceptional by the standards of East Asia. It's hard to think of a former South Korean president who hasn't been at least accused of corruption. Different cultural values can be incomprehensible to Westerners.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

The Kang Ding scandal was unexceptional by the standards of East Asia. It's hard to think of a former South Korean president who hasn't been at least accused of corruption. Different cultural values can be incomprehensible to Westerners.

It's true that corruption was prevalent in East Asia and each of the democratic Far East states had their own share of corruption related histories when it comes to arms procurement (Lockheed Scandal in Japan and how Northrop greased Jun Administration in order to sell F-20), but the Kang Ding scandal was anything but unexceptional, even in Far East standards.

Never there has been any military corruption scandals in Japan in Korea that had such political ramifications, nor were so many of those involved apparently assassinated.

Like I've said, this scandal basically decapitated RoCN shipbuilding capabilities once and for all.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Now let's get back to Korean CVX, please. If we want to talk about implications of JMSDF and ROKN carrier acquisition and possible Taiwanese carrier, we can talk in a new thread.

 

[helmutkohl]

yeah I agree, we went off topic for a bit.

so based on the newest models.. did they give up on STOBAR and are now focusing on a mid sized catobar carrier?
the models look like its around CdG size

 

[CV12Hornet]

yeah I agree, we went off topic for a bit.

so based on the newest models.. did they give up on STOBAR and are now focusing on a mid sized catobar carrier?
the models look like its around CdG size

No, last we heard it was in the Midway size range.

 

[H_K]

No, last we heard it was in the Midway size range.

Yeah it says 60,000 - 75,000 tons.

Honestly it’s probably hard to do much smaller with 90m EMALS catapults… Catapult length has a big impact on hull length and therefore overall displacement. Charles de Gaulle is the size it is because it has only 75m long catapults.

 

[helmutkohl]

Yeah it says 60,000 - 75,000 tons.

Honestly it’s probably hard to do much smaller with 90m EMALS catapults… Catapult length has a big impact on hull length and therefore overall displacement. Charles de Gaulle is the size it is because it has only 75m long catapults.

No, last we heard it was in the Midway size range.

the 60-75,000 tons is being claimed by Haku-Mason on twitter, who has a history of being not the most accurate source.

at MADEX 2023, which was this past June, both the HHI representative said 40,000, as well as the photo

View: https://youtu.be/2GRWbTkLMJo?si=n0NJBrNk0i7Jux1v&t=538

its around the 9 minute mark

a screenshot of that photo
CVX2 was what was presented last year
CVX3 is this year's catobar variant
so yeah, its closer to the CdG and Vikrant in weight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Can you fit a 90m EMALS into a 45kton ship without it intruding into the angled deck?

Edit: how long were the cats on the Midways? 75m or 90m? Because USS Coral Sea suggests that it's possible to have the complete cat plus JBDs out of the angled deck.

 

[helmutkohl]

Can you fit a 90m EMALS into a 45kton ship without it intruding into the angled deck?

Edit: how long were the cats on the Midways? 75m or 90m? Because USS Coral Sea suggests that it's possible to have the complete cat plus JBDs out of the angled deck.

Nimitz class are 93m (stroke)
CdG seems to be 75m
Midway seems to be 64m according to wikipedia for the bow
Ford seems to be around 106m? according to this

- [H.A.S.C. No. 111-83]OVERSIGHT OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM (EMALS)

no idea for the Fujian carrier

In the interview with HHI, he mentioned that since Korea is lacking some technologies, they will need to work with foreign companies. I assume most likely it will be the US for the EMALS. maybe UK and France for other things.

 

[SSgtC]

Can you fit a 90m EMALS into a 45kton ship without it intruding into the angled deck?

Edit: how long were the cats on the Midways? 75m or 90m? Because USS Coral Sea suggests that it's possible to have the complete cat plus JBDs out of the angled deck.

As part of their SCB-110 refits, the Midway class were fitted with C-11 cats, which had a total length of 225', and a stroke of 211'. When Midway herself received her SCB-101.66 refit, the C-11 cats were replaced with longer C-13 cats that were 265' long with a stroke of 250'. However, that extra 40' did push the port cat and JBD into the angled deck. You can see it in the image below.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As part of their SCB-110 refits, the Midway class were fitted with C-11 cats, which had a total length of 225', and a stroke of 211'. When Midway herself received her SCB-101.66 refit, the C-11 cats were replaced with longer C-13 cats that were 265' long with a stroke of 250'. However, that extra 40' did push the port cat and JBD into the angled deck. You can see it in the image below.

(image deleted for space)

Thank you!

So it may be possible to get a 75m cat clear of the angled deck if you're creative on 45ktons, but it'll be tight. And that's only 3/4 the size of the EMALs the USN is using.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

yeah I agree, we went off topic for a bit.

so based on the newest models.. did they give up on STOBAR and are now focusing on a mid sized catobar carrier?
the models look like its around CdG size

No, but it's a bit complicated.

Korean military acquisition needs something called "Basic Programme Acquisition Strategy" to be set in stone for it to proposed. Initially, that was a 30.000t (light displacement) ship that operates with around 20 stealth STOVL fighters. Obviously, there's only F-35B on the market that meets the criteria, so they basically wanted America class, but even more focused to be used as a carrier.

Then there were those who started to advocate KF-21N as a future Korean naval fighter and argued for a CATOBAR ship. These were basically the industry and KF-X related figures within the military. Obviously, such demands were not in line with the BPAS, so it was deemed to be just that, merely an indistry demand at first, but soon it caught some political momentum (domestic industry always wins) and as a result, they are now redoing feasibility studies and BPAS research by including a mew BPAS option, ie KF-21N and CATOBAR carrier.

So for now, nothing's dead, but nothing's decided either. HHI salesman in MADEX said that at this point, they are just showcasing possible new models and everythimg's possible.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think there's really enough space on a 45kton carrier (~900ft/275m waterline length, ~970ft/295m overall) to have two islands.

Plus, the entire reason the QE class have two islands is so that both prime contractors would build an island...

 

[SSgtC]

I don't think there's really enough space on a 45kton carrier (~900ft/275m waterline length, ~970ft/295m overall) to have two islands.

Plus, the entire reason the QE class have two islands is so that both prime contractors would build an island...

There's actually pros and cons to the two island set up. On the pro side, it allows you to optimize both your ship handling (with the forward island) and your flight operations (with the aft island). Compare this to the USN with our single islands. When designing a carrier with one island, a choice has to be made: either place the island more forward to make ship handling and navigation easier, or place it more aft to make controlling flight operations easier. The US chose to go with an aft island to prioritize fight operations, at the cost of accepting huge blind spots forward and to port of the ship. The two island layout drastically reduces those blind areas without sacrificing aviation capabilities.

On the con side of the ledger, you lose a lot of deck space building two islands verses a single island. Having two islands will negatively impact your deck handling capabilities and reduce your sortie rate. Using only a single island can save roughly 25% off the deck space used by a twin island layout. But at the cost of having to prioritize either ship handling or flight control while sacrificing the other.

For the United States Navy, we've been operating carriers for so long that we have a built in institutional knowledge of how best to compensate for the single island. Other nations don't have that same knowledge base. So for them, it can make a lot more sense to use a twin island design to ease the transition to an offset, oddly placed bridge for Naval Officers who, up to this point, have only conned a ship from a "traditional" bridge.

 

[helmutkohl]

pics of CVX 3, since there's been very few of them here






they also had a UCAV carrier concept
Ghost Commander

 

[proelite]

I don't think there's really enough space on a 45kton carrier (~900ft/275m waterline length, ~970ft/295m overall) to have two islands.

Plus, the entire reason the QE class have two islands is so that both prime contractors would build an island...

Dual islands only make sense for gas turbine engine ships due to separate air and exhaust pipes.

 

[TomS]

Dual islands only make sense for gas turbine engine ships due to separate air and exhaust pipes.

There can be other reasons. For quite a while CVNX had two islands to manage interference from the various emitters (radars, radios, etc.) I think that cutting out at least one radar set was needed before they could get them back to one island.

 

[timmymagic]

I don't think there's really enough space on a 45kton carrier (~900ft/275m waterline length, ~970ft/295m overall) to have two islands.

Plus, the entire reason the QE class have two islands is so that both prime contractors would build an island...

The regular answer from MCG91 (who served/serves on the QE Class) on r/warshipporn explains things the best....

"It's due to the propulsion system.

The Queen Elizabeth Class are conventionally powered in an Integrated Electric Propulsion configuration.

They have 2 Gas Turbines and 4 Diesel Generators. The Gas Turbines require a large amount of trunking for the intakes and exhausts which, if the GTs were placed low down in the ship (in the usual position) the trunking would take up a significant amount of room.

To avoid this, they've placed the Gas Turbines just below the flight deck, with the trunking routing straight up. The GTs are separated to ensure that, in the event of damage to one, the other is available. This has resulted in the twin island design, with each island being based around their respective GT trunking.

This also has the added benefit of placing the Bridge in the Forward Island, which is the optimum position for navigation and FLYCO in the Aft Island, which is the optimum position for aircraft operations.

It also gives a measure of redundancy, with a reversionary FLYCO position in the Bridge and the Emergency Conning Position in the Aft Island. It also means that some of the sensors, ie the navigation radars, can be positioned to ensure 360° coverage, with no blind spots and that they don't interfere with one another.

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

I found this french language link, with a lot of information and a very interesting table, about future korean aircraft carriers projects.
Here is:
https://lefauteuildecolbert.blogspot.com/2019/10/deux-esquisses-de-porte-avions-catobar.html#more