• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Korea to Build Light Aircraft Carrier

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
367
Reaction score
376
^ 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.
Its definitely being built for Australia, an obvious and sensible follow on from the SPG and AIFV offers at the moment.;)
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
988
Reaction score
43
^ 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.
That's a terrible argument, because you literally can insert any equipment in the blank and use the same logic. What if Huyndais put on display a stealth version of the nimitz sized carrier that can also carry 200 missiles for BMD? That same argument can still be applied but it wouldn't make much sense right? The real issue isn't whether in war you'll need that capability. More capabilities > less capabilities. That much is true but that's not the issue. The issue is with finite fiscal funding, how do you prioritize different spending needs across the board. Overinvesting in one platform type means less funding in another platform.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
664
Reaction score
992
so this CVX news finally made it to Bemil, which is a popular Korean defense blog

the comments are interesting, especially the top comment (translation via google).
very reasonable points but the last one was hilarious

Although this is purely my personal opinion, the aircraft carrier design proposed by Hyundai Heavy Industries seems to be a failure even though it may seem plausible to the general public without knowledge of logistics and movement.

1) A fairly large and valuable space on both sides of the ski jumping platform is wasting.

2) As the aircraft take-off and landing runway is designed to be close to the island, the elevator between the islands and the movement of the aircraft parked next to the first island (forward island) overlap. In other words, it interferes with the main movement of aircraft aircraft and the movement flow for loading, which adversely affects the sortie. With this design, the effect of the angled deck disappears. Furthermore, the route from the elevator for rearming, refueling, etc. of the aircraft parked next to Island 1 is too long, and the space between the island and the runway is too narrow. It is difficult to move equipment and personnel for arming and refueling. (I don't know exactly how far the actual movement will be, but it is from the current photo)

3) The idea of making an unmanned helicopter take-off and landing space by cutting the deck at the back of the hull is absurd. The reason is that the approach path for the landing of the aircraft and the take-off and landing path for the unmanned helicopter are not available. This is because they overlap and seriously interfere with each other's paths. Rather, by extending the upper deck as it is, the space next to the second island (right stern) is increased to secure the UAV operating space. This is more preferable as it avoids path interference.

4) It is unfortunate that the rear space of the stern part cannot be utilized at all. If you are more greedy or more greedy, make a small space in the back of the stern part for aircraft engine maintenance. I think that installing a small elevator is effective in increasing the sorting of the aircraft and improving the maintenance efficiency.

5) I don't know exactly what the partition is on the left side of the drone operation space in the stern, but it's wasting a lot of space. I don't know what you're thinking.

6) The most serious thing is that no matter where the control bridge is located on the 1st island or the 2nd island, the islands interfere with the deck view and are located next to the islands in the bow and stern parts. It is not possible to monitor the aircraft cycle status. This makes it very difficult to control the logistics flow on the deck and can cause serious situations such as collisions of aircraft during movement and interference of routes. Thus, this island-and-deck layout eliminates all of the advantages of having two independent islands, but rather makes it a fatal flaw as an aircraft carrier.

=> If you go according to Hyundai Heavy Industries' design plan, it seems that the operating efficiency of the aircraft will be extremely bad because the aircraft take-off and landing, movement for maintenance, and various helicopter and drone movement paths are intertwined. It seems that the designer has no basic knowledge of moving logistics on deck. When the Japanese people see this design, they will probably laugh and like it very much. Most of all, I am very afraid that the Navy will decide on the design without any thought or concept. If it proceeds like this, it will become a complex with flaws that only accumulates defense spending.

anyways here are the specs. Basically slightly smaller than the Queen Elizabeth Class

2021060900334547010.jpg

2021060900375980951.jpg
 
Last edited:

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
299
=> If you go according to Hyundai Heavy Industries' design plan, it seems that the operating efficiency of the aircraft will be extremely bad because the aircraft take-off and landing, movement for maintenance, and various helicopter and drone movement paths are intertwined. It seems that the designer has no basic knowledge of moving logistics on deck. When the Japanese people see this design, they will probably laugh and like it very much. Most of all, I am very afraid that the Navy will decide on the design without any thought or concept. If it proceeds like this, it will become a complex with flaws that only accumulates defense spending.

anyways here are the specs. Basically slightly smaller than the Queen Elizabeth Class

I have to wonder if this is a ploy: SK MoD says "You're right - there are a lot of issues with this design! Hmmm... what about the CVF? It does the same things, and is operational too!"
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
23
From my couch, I find design to be inefficient one. You've got a Kuznetsov displacement, and yet the ability to rotate aircraft is worse. Kuz design can use both CATOBAR and STOVL planes, has three launch positions. So instead of more short-ranged F-35B one can successfully launch F-35A. And can have actually both. Here it's all limited to STOVL planes, when displacement and size allow for much more.
This is my issue with QE as well.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,765
Reaction score
3,980
Sensible carrier designs are seemingly very hard to come by. Compromises to be made seems pretty interlocked - and daunting...
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,068
Reaction score
4,803
It seems that the designer has no basic knowledge of moving logistics on deck.
Unless he was assuming or knew that a computer coordinated deck handling system was part of the overall design. Of course, whether such a system would work well in practise...
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
664
Reaction score
992
It seems that the designer has no basic knowledge of moving logistics on deck.
Unless he was assuming or knew that a computer coordinated deck handling system was part of the overall design. Of course, whether such a system would work well in practise...
I guess a lot of people think I wrote that. its a translation of what some one on the Korean site wrote.
so I've edited and put it in quotes to avoid confusion
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
257
Some clarifications.

The now CVX program started as LPX-II as we all know. It initially had a well dock and was planned as LHD style landing ship with F-35B operations in mind. So it was primarily landing ship with some fixed wing operation capabilities. Since ROKN wanted an actual aircraft carrier for almost 2 decades now, they saw it as an opportunity, that they now had an official requirement institution that passed upper DoD approval, which featured a flat deck and was over 30,000 tons (light displacement. All official displacements of any ROKN ships are in light displacement tonnage).

So their first step was to delete the well dock. This wasn't obviously ideal since it meant no more LCAC or amphibious landing vehicles but at least there were precedents like some ships of America class LHA. Sooner ROKN's intentions became more clear that they want an actual aircraft carrier, as they've officially announced that LPX-II was going to be one and it was going to have a single floor hangar. They've also assigned some research programs to universities and shipbuilders to set the exact requirements for the carrier and eventually changed the name of the program from LPX-II to CVX. I would say it's kinda like how Japan built its Izumo class helicopter carriers with clear intentions to use it as a fixed-wing aircraft carrier in the future, which is exactly what they are trying to do right now. In that sense the LPX-II was a mix of Trieste, Izumo and America.

Talking about its displacement, as I've said the official numbers provided by ROKN are light displacement. It should also be considered that already during the LPX-II days the ship was supposed to be considerably bigger than Trieste and was supposed to equal the size or be a bit larger than America class LHA. So it was not going to be straight cut 30,000 tons displacement but rather "30,000 tons class", which means anywhere from 30,000 ~ 39,999 tons light displacement. The loaded displacement was obviously going to be way over 40,000 tons. Also, in ROKN's book a "light carrier" is a ship with a displacement anywhere in between 20,000~50,000 tons. So obviously the CVX is a light carrier in their definition.

Both of the models from DSME and HHI are of their own design. Although DSME's design seems to be way more refined atm. They are both in early stages of the designing process and since DSME is going to cooperate with Fincantieri and HHI with Babcock going forwards, the final product, be it DSME's or HHI's would probably look significantly different to that of what's shown in MADEX 2021.

Talking more about HHI's design, the deck is about 10 m shorter and narrower than that of QE class aircraft carrier. So obviously can't be near the 60,000 tons displacement. The tradeoff for a larger deck, compared to DSME's design, was a smaller internal displacement, especially the hull compartment under the draft. According to HHI they've somehow managed to retain the hangar displacement, but that obviously would mean tradeoffs elsewhere.

Last to add, the speed requirement is said to be 27 knots, which would obviously mean the need for a gas turbine propulsion, probably MT30.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
257
I counted max capacity seems to be 24 F-35s and 6 helicopters
They said the hangar can fit 12 F-35Bs. Arrangement on the deck would depend on different situations buy you should also take into consideration that only 20 F-35Bs are planned for procurement. Iirc the goal was like 20-ish F-35B alongside 8 MH-60R.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
703

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
257
Btw, DSME showed 3 different deck size options, ranging from small sized sponson to large sized sponson design. The model presented in MADEX was built based on the medium sized sponson design. The large sized sponson design kind of looks like a mishmash of QE class and Trieste class ships.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
892
Reaction score
515
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?

STOVL will put weight and range limits on operations, and I think the launch rate suffers as well. Also don't think launches and recoveries can happen at the same time, though I'm not familiar with QE's operations; they are easily the largest of STOVL CVs so perhaps they can manage it. And the E-2 is clearly vastly superior to anything you could bolt on to a MV-22. But there is a much lower cost of ownership in terms of training to go STOVL. From accounts I've heard from test pilots, the F-35B is an absolute dream to land compared to a Harrier.
 

KimIrSen

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
7
Reaction score
8
Supposedly HHI is in the leading position to build the CVX, which makes sense since they are the biggest shipyard. HHI won a contract for a conceptual carrier concept last year. DSME's proposal is unsolicited by the ROK Navy.
more pics from MADEX,
this time from the more realistic model of DSME
I counted max capacity seems to be 24 F-35s and 6 helicopters
45,000 tons


2021061010522224043.jpg

202106101057227241.png

2021061011003228239.png




So which is your pick?

Hyundai or DSME?
2021061011081548191.jpg
 
Last edited:

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
647

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
664
Reaction score
992
Supposedly HHI is in the leading position to build the CVX, which makes sense since they are the biggest shipyard. HHI won a contract for a conceptual carrier concept last year. DSME's proposal is unsolicited by the ROK Navy.
more pics from MADEX,
this time from the more realistic model of DSME
I counted max capacity seems to be 24 F-35s and 6 helicopters
45,000 tons


2021061010522224043.jpg

202106101057227241.png

2021061011003228239.png




So which is your pick?

Hyundai or DSME?
2021061011081548191.jpg

yeah i was wondering why we are only seeing models from Hyundai and DSME
but not from Hanjin, which built the Dokdo ships.

also.. how often do we see a carrier competition? thats pretty rare isnt it.

so which proposed model do yall prefer?
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
257
yeah i was wondering why we are only seeing models from Hyundai and DSME
but not from Hanjin, which built the Dokdo ships.
Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction is in a really bad shape atm due to the failed ventures of Subic Bay shipyard in Philippines. It's similar to what STX went through with their Shipyard in China.

During 2000s Korean shipbuilders thought it was a great idea to go to China or SEA and build big shipyards there, as shipbuilding is a very labour intensive industry and labour costs in those region were dirt cheap. In reality, it turned out to be that the workers in those countries were substandard, not only the quality but also quantity wasn't able to meet their expectations and the overall productivity stayed well under 30% when compared to shipyards in Korea (their goal was to bring those numbers up to or over 70%).

That, coupled with Hanjin's lack of technologies to build high value-high margin ships like LNG/LPG or ethanol carriers, points torwards less than optimal financial outlook for the company. In fact, there's an ongoing acquisition of Hanjin HI&C by a Korean construction company and rumors are, they will only going to take over the construction division and liquidate the shipyard in Busan.

To add, I would also want DSME or Hyundai HI to build my flagship if I were to be ROKN top brass.
 
Last edited:

KimIrSen

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
7
Reaction score
8
(South) Korean shipbuilders thought it was a great idea to go to China

... a country actively supporting their country worse ennemy: North Korea.

Yeah, great idea !

...greed and profits sometimes lead to stupid decisions...
China is also the number one export market for Korea: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/chn/partner/kor . Both China and South Korea need each other long term to sustain their industries. The ROK will sooner decouple from the US than China, and the expansion of south korean military capabilities to allow it to operate independently from the US will lessen its reliance on US military and the US long term. For south koreans, north korea is an afterthought and the NK leadership doesn't want war anyways with the south.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
367
Reaction score
376
yeah i was wondering why we are only seeing models from Hyundai and DSME
but not from Hanjin, which built the Dokdo ships.
Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction is in a really bad shape atm due to the failed ventures of Subic Bay shipyard in Philippines. It's similar to what STX went through with their Shipyard in China.

During 2000s Korean shipbuilders thought it was a great idea to go to China or SEA and build big shipyards there, as shipbuilding is a very labour intensive industry and labour costs in those region were dirt cheap. In reality, it turned out to be that the workers in those countries were substandard, not only the quality but also quantity wasn't able to meet their expectations and the overall productivity stayed well under 30% when compared to shipyards in Korea (their goal was to bring those numbers up to or over 70%).

That, coupled with Hanjin's lack of technologies to build high value-high margin ships like LNG/LPG or ethanol carriers, points torwards less than optimal financial outlook for the company. In fact, there's an ongoing acquisition of Hanjin HI&C by a Korean construction company and rumors are, they will only going to take over the construction division and liquidate the shipyard in Busan.

To add, I would also want DSME or Hyundai HI to build my flagship if I were to be ROKN top brass.
Yes there is a big difference between smashing out bulk carriers, container ships and oil tankers verses more complex commercial types and modern warships. Had a circular argument with a troll on another site about the true differences in building costs, my argument was as the skills and experience of the workforce increased, so did the costs initially and you ended up paying for low cost labour through poor quality. There is a sweet spot that requires continuous build programs where the work forces skills build to the point you start making significant efficiency savings.
 

Similar threads

Top