Korea to Build Light Aircraft Carrier

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,180
Reaction score
2,712
Korea will build a 30,000-ton light aircraft carrier capable of housing more than a dozen F-35B vertical takeoff-and-landing stealth fighter jets.

A government source on Monday said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Park Han-ki and the chiefs of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in a meeting on July 12 decided to push for the project.

The carrier will be the Navy's biggest ship, nearly 1.5 times as large as the Dokdo or Marado landing platform helicopter ships.

It will be designed to accommodate 16 F-35B VTOL stealth jets, 3,000 marines, and 20 armored landing craft.

It will be about 250 m long, a little longer than Japan's Izumo-class helicopter carriers. Japan plans to turn two Izumo-class helicopter carriers into light aircraft carriers capable of accommodating about a dozen F-35B stealth jets by 2023.

 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,146
Reaction score
1,805
In mean time North Korea builds new type large Submarine...

 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
2,414
Hmm, advanced in the sense they took a cutter to an old Romeo and inserted a couple of missile tubes. An SSB of late 1950s style...

The South Korean 'carrier' sounds more like an LHA/LHD platform than a full-blown dedicated carrier.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
1,061
Website
beyondthesprues.com

Aircraft_Carrier_LPX_II-dc_5b64.jpg
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
709

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
251
Any information on the powerplant, is it an combination of diesel and gas turbine (MT30) the same as the QE's?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
1,061
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Any information on the powerplant, is it an combination of diesel and gas turbine (MT30) the same as the QE's?
Given it is most likely to be based on the Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship, I would expect the propulsion to be more in line with that. Thus something like four SEMT Pielstick 16 PC2.5 STC marine diesel engines
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,486
Reaction score
564
I am not sure of the size though.

I agree it would be a logical choice, given the design origin, though it would be interesting to see which diesels they go for, if indeed that is the way they go.
The articles state this will be bigger than the Dokdo, and I have seen it said in some places this could be over 30 000t.

The Dokdo has about 32 000 hp for a displacement of about 19 000t. Speed is about 23 knots.
The San Antonio class LPD of the USN also uses SEMT Pielstick diesels, but pushing out around 40 000hp for a displacement of around 25 000t. Speed is about the same...23 knots.
I'm not completely up to date on SEMT Pielsticks range, but I can't really think of a more powerful 4- engine installation much above 40 000hp?

I reckon if it gets to much over the 30 000t mark, it will get LM2500 gas turbines, which are also used by the Korean navy.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
Any information on the powerplant, is it an combination of diesel and gas turbine (MT30) the same as the QE's?
Given it is most likely to be based on the Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship, I would expect the propulsion to be more in line with that. Thus something like four SEMT Pielstick 16 PC2.5 STC marine diesel engines

There's some reporting that the LPX-II propulsion plant might be related to KDDX, which is likely to have some gas turbines.


And as of 2019, GE was offering LM2500 for both KDDX and LPX-II, as part of some sort of either hybrid of integrated full electrical propulsion plant.


That said, the images posted most recently show exhaust stacks that are very similar to the Dokdos, which certainly supports the idea that the plant will be all-diesel. They haven't added the large air intakes/exhausts you'd expect for a turbine plant.
 
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
224
Reaction score
439
That said, the images posted most recently show exhaust stacks that are very similar to the Dokdos, which certainly supports the idea that the plant will be all-diesel. They haven't added the large air intakes/exhausts you'd expect for a turbine plant.

Not so sure. Those 4 round exhausts seem pretty big to me, bigger than Dokdo’s diesel exhausts and similar to Cavour’s (4x LM2500).
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,290

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
808
some reports that the UK was going to help South Korea with their carrier but now SK is denying it.

on a related note, since its an actual carrier, not an LHD.. shouldnt they add a ski jump


The Trieste is actually a LPD/LHD and already has a ski jump....
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
some reports that the UK was going to help South Korea with their carrier but now SK is denying it.

on a related note, since its an actual carrier, not an LHD.. shouldnt they add a ski jump

Unless they're planning to go cats and traps and are trying to keep it quiet?
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
782
Reaction score
951
some reports that the UK was going to help South Korea with their carrier but now SK is denying it.

on a related note, since its an actual carrier, not an LHD.. shouldnt they add a ski jump


The Trieste is actually a LPD/LHD and already has a ski jump....
Not wanting to go off topic, but isn't the Trieste supposed to act as both an LPD/LHD and an aircraft carrier? I've read reports that it's supposed to replace the Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Getting back on topic, does anybody know the dimensions of the South Korean design, or have they not been released yet? My guess is that it's around the same size as the Trieste.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,290
isn't the Trieste supposed to act as both an LPD/LHD and an aircraft carrier?
Yes, she wil cover both roles.
Primary LPD/LHD and Aircraft Carrier as spare unit when Cavour isn't available for maintenance reasons.
so sorry for this off topic.
whats the aircraft capacity of cavour vs trieste? is hanger space the same?

okay back to the Korean carrier
it seems they ordered F-35Bs, so I guess cats are out?
if its primarily intended to fly Bs, a ski jump would make sense.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,290
^ thanks! sounds like Trieste is basically Cavour with one extra floor, for the landing dock stuff.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
2,414
some reports that the UK was going to help South Korea with their carrier but now SK is denying it.

on a related note, since its an actual carrier, not an LHD.. shouldnt they add a ski jump

Depends how to define 'carrier technologies'. Ammunition lifts and electrical power systems are not what you would necessarily think of as just applicable to carriers.
It could be a non-denial denial to keep the wraps on the carrier programme, or more likely Daewoo and Hyundai are putting on pressure to develop those items locally.
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
227
Reaction score
371
^ thanks! sounds like Trieste is basically Cavour with one extra floor, for the landing dock stuff.
Yes, exactly what the Italian Navy need as not only Garibaldi's replacement but also to "Santi Class" (San Marco, San Giorgio and San Giusto) small LPDs.
The Italians are planning for 2 new ships (LHD) and an option on a third (LHA) to replace the Santi class. I’ve seen various report of 18,000 ton ships or 21,000/24,000 ton ships
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
649
Reaction score
151
I think you will find the South Korean and UK government's were probably discussing fact finding missions to the QNZL during her far east deployment to gauge F-35B operations from a dedicated STOVL carrier, they will be looking at the technology and the and how it is operated to see how they need to bring their carrier plans into fruition. They will also talk with the US, the Italians and maybe even France as Carrier operators before they finalise their own plans and place orders,
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
In going with Hyundai pipedream. There is nothing "light" about that carrier. That thing has got to be at least 60,000 tons if not more. Not to mention, STOVL carriers that big have "buyers remorse" written all over them (look at how the UK tried to reorder the QE class as CATOBAR decks).
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,290
In going with Hyundai pipedream. There is nothing "light" about that carrier. That thing has got to be at least 60,000 tons if not more. Not to mention, STOVL carriers that big have "buyers remorse" written all over them (look at how the UK tried to reorder the QE class as CATOBAR decks).

yeah I agree. it looks way too large for South Korea's needs, as most of their security threats come from its immediate neighbors.
(unless South Korea is thinking of exporting this design.. perhaps India? they are already actively pushing some armored systems there).

as for large ski jump carriers and buyers remorse..
I personally am on the fence about this.
in the 2000s when the UK was thinking of switching to CATOBAR, I was in the pro F-35C camp and disappointed they didn't go through with the change.

But in retrospect, I now appreciate the benefits of STOVL operations. namely less stress on carrier landings, easier to train pilots, and a rapid launch. It also seems that the 35B can take off at a full load if its launched further back, and has significant bring back capabilities if it does a rolling landing. The remaining issue is an E-2 like early warning capability.. but here's hoping the Osprey gets somewhere with that one day. Should they somehow achieve that (or something similar), does one still want CATOBAR?
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
In going with Hyundai pipedream. There is nothing "light" about that carrier. That thing has got to be at least 60,000 tons if not more. Not to mention, STOVL carriers that big have "buyers remorse" written all over them (look at how the UK tried to reorder the QE class as CATOBAR decks).

yeah I agree. it looks way too large for South Korea's needs, as most of their security threats come from its immediate neighbors.
(unless South Korea is thinking of exporting this design.. perhaps India? they are already actively pushing some armored systems there).

as for large ski jump carriers and buyers remorse..
I personally am on the fence about this.
in the 2000s when the UK was thinking of switching to CATOBAR, I was in the pro F-35C camp and disappointed they didn't go through with the change.

But in retrospect, I now appreciate the benefits of STOVL operations. namely less stress on carrier landings, easier to train pilots, and a rapid launch. It also seems that the 35B can take off at a full load if its launched further back, and has significant bring back capabilities if it does a rolling landing. The remaining issue is an E-2 like early warning capability.. but here's hoping the Osprey gets somewhere with that one day. Should they somehow achieve that (or something similar), does one still want CATOBAR?
Once the ships were laid down, it didn't make sense to switch to a full angled deck with cats and traps. It was just far too costly and would take too much time. IMO, it should have been CATOBAR from the start.

I'm not so sure it's easier to train a STOVL pilot than a CATOBAR one. I've always read that one of the most difficult things to do is transition a fast jet from straight ahead flight to vertical flight. Though perhaps the automation in the F-35 has eased that task.

Bring back is only good on the QEs because of the shipboard rolling landing the RN uses (which is some kind of strange love child between a traditional trap and a vertical landing). That bumped bring back capability considerably, but it still requires a decently sized roll out area. And without the angled deck, that means you just knocked down your sortie rate because you can't launch and recover simultaneously.

And yeah, you can launch from further back to increase payload. But now you're having to commit a massive amount of deck space to takeoff rolls instead of using it to prep your aircraft (which now has to be done in the hanger). Not a major issue, but it still decreases your sortie rate.

And as you point out, you have very limited options for AEW&C. The USN has no incentive to develop the Osprey as one (and really, quite a few incentives not too) since they have the Hawkeye. And while you could launch one from a ski jump, you still need wires to recover it.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,290
^ yes i do recall somewhere that while Harrier landings can be hard, the F-35B automated much of it, making it a lot easier.

I also agree with the conflicting deck space issues with STOVL, but during peace time which makes up a majority of the operations is it as nearly a major issue?

the AWACS situation, you're probably right.. it seems Osprey AWACS is very unlikely.. and the Brits last month, decided to nerf their Merlin radar, going for the older model instead of the AESA.

I just found a video of the two carriers.. the actual light carrier (the smaller one), and the new fantasy one.
Interestingly they show a part where theres a diagram that says it can be configured as STOBAR or STOVL.
I am now wondering if this is really intended for India not Korea

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9yZFqFBXHk
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
^ yes i do recall somewhere that while Harrier landings can be hard, the F-35B automated much of it, making it a lot easier.

I also agree with the conflicting deck space issues with STOVL, but during peace time which makes up a majority of the operations is it as nearly a major issue?

the AWACS situation, you're probably right.. it seems Osprey AWACS is very unlikely.. and the Brits last month, decided to nerf their Merlin radar, going for the older model instead of the AESA.

I just found a video of the two carriers.. the actual light carrier (the smaller one), and the new fantasy one.
Interestingly they show a part where theres a diagram that says it can be configured as STOBAR or STOVL.
I am now wondering if this is really intended for India not Korea

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9yZFqFBXHk
Well, you don't design a carrier for peace, you design it for war. Even if you never maximize its full warfighting capability, it's far safer to design it to maximize its usefulness in war and never use it then to say, "who cares about that extra efficiency? 90% of the carrier's life will be spent in peace time." That 10% spent fighting can really come back and bite you.

I doubt it's intended for India. They're already building indigenously. I mean, they might be interested in the base design, but I see a lot of "features" on that ship that any serious carrier Navy is going to nerf immediately.
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
1,094
That bow design is hideous. The entire forward half of the flight deck is only usable for launching aircraft. If they want to design it for STOVL or STOBAR, they should do what the UK did and put the ramp offset to port so you can use the forward deck area to park aircraft during recovery operations or even just for a deck park. You could fit five F-35s up there beside the ramp. (There are photos of that many there on QE). In this design, that's just wasted space. Also, those cut-outs at the forward edge of the flight deck. Looks like they have some sort of BPDMS there. That's more wasted space that could be put to better use by enlarging the flight deck. Those missiles can be put on sponsons where they're out of the way. They should also ditch the port deck edge elevator and put both elevators on the starboard side. One between the islands and one forward of them. Also, that aft island looks like they just copied the forward one to show something there. It needs to be optimized for managing flight operations, not be a secondary/flag bridge.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,352
Reaction score
2,414
The first carrier with a 5 year manufacturer's warranty! :D

This shows the scale of ambition, there is no doubt that South Korea could build such a ship.
Sure the design has some oddities and suboptimal features but this is just a concept, not a final design. It shows the intent and showcases Hyundai has the appetite to build a big carrier - whether for home or export orders.

I wouldn't worry too much about traditional AEW, within another few years UAVs might have taken over this role with data crunching done aboard ship.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
309
Another bad point, though I am not an aircraft carrier operations person: the runway down the centerline would seem to make simultaneous takeoffs and landings a lot more difficult. Having it off the centreline like on the CVFs at least leaves the starboard rear quadrant far from any takeoff turbulence.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top