Korea to Build Light Aircraft Carrier

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
930
Now i'm curious on what kind of power projection can be made available from this carrier.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
964
Reaction score
1,668
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
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
925
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
964
Reaction score
1,668
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

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
2,379
Website
beyondthesprues.com
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

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
239
Reaction score
385
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
964
Reaction score
1,668
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
763
Reaction score
1,313
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

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
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

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
763
Reaction score
1,313
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

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
How many large amphibs does the USMC presently has ? I'm a bit lost between classes...
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
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

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
305
Reaction score
517
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
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).
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
964
Reaction score
1,668

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.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341

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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
925

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

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
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

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
925
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
673
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

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
353
Reaction score
708
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).
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,823
Reaction score
2,868
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

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
99
Reaction score
48
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
964
Reaction score
1,668
new cg video of the light carrier emerges.. I believe its DSME design again


2021120109270874828.jpg


2021120109272976255.jpg
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
925

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Awesome. Somebody needs to put Top Gun soundtrack on that video ! :cool:
(I tried Dragon Ball main theme, and it is awesome, too)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top