Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

LMV-6.jpg

LMV-4.jpg

LMV-3.jpg

LMV-2.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





South Korean Navy

This is a discussion on South Korean Navy within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Pretty soon the South Korean Navy will have a true blue water capability. They just commissioned an LPH and are ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old July 1st, 2006   #1
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 88
Threads:
South Korean Navy

Pretty soon the South Korean Navy will have a true blue water capability. They just commissioned an LPH and are building an aircraft carrier. The KDX II destroyers now entering service have very good capabilities and a stealthy design the follow on KDX III class (first commission 2008) will be equipped with the Aegis weapon system and appear to have improved stealth capabilities. Combining these ships with the already successful KDX I will give them a highly advanced destroyer fleet. Also a new class of frigates is on the way called FFX they are planned to replace the ulsan class and to have an advanced design with good multirole capabilites. Their submarine force is also being built up. The KSS I will be joined in 2007 by the first of three 1800 ton KSS II class submarines. The KSS II will then be followed starting in 2012 by three 3,000 ton KSS III submarines which when they enter service will be some of the most advanced non nuclear submarines in the world
fylr71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A really nice account of Pak Navy's psycological hold over Indian Navy. farooqjalalmalik Navy & Maritime 24 January 4th, 2005 01:20 PM
Indonesian Navy To Buy Korean Subs Worth $600 Million ullu Navy & Maritime 17 December 6th, 2004 03:18 AM
A new doctrine for the Indian Navy gf0012-aust Navy & Maritime 4 July 3rd, 2004 03:04 PM

Old July 1st, 2006   #2
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 51
Threads:
Great!

The South Korean navy will definitely be a big help for the US in this region of the world!

The North Korean navy, if it even exists, is definitely beginning to look bad now!

If China attacks Taiwan, the South Korean navy will be a strong ally for the ROCN.

Yeah! Go KDX III!!!

Mod edit:Path: How does this "LOLZ! Ph33r T3h C0r3ans!" statement contribute to the thread? Please avoid posting if you have nothing substantial to add.

Last edited by Pathfinder-X; July 1st, 2006 at 06:31 PM.
sunjerem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2006   #3
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 51
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunjerem
Great!

The South Korean navy will definitely be a big help for the US in this region of the world!

The North Korean navy, if it even exists, is definitely beginning to look bad now!

If China attacks Taiwan, the South Korean navy will be a strong ally for the ROCN.

Yeah! Go KDX III!!!

Mod edit:Path: How does this "LOLZ! Ph33r T3h C0r3ans!" statement contribute to the thread? Please avoid posting if you have nothing substantial to add.
Sorry, sometimes it's just hard for me to control my excitement!

I'll try control myself more in the future.
sunjerem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006   #4
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 230
Threads:
"and are building an aircraft carrier."

Info please.

Or are you confusing it with the second LPX that is building?
rickusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006   #5
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,700
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickusn
"and are building an aircraft carrier."

Info please.

Or are you confusing it with the second LPX that is building?
Ditto. the only reference I can find to additional hulls relates to up to 4 LP-X rather than a new design LPD/LPA or a purpsoe built aircarft carrier. Ref

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...lp-x-specs.htm

At 18000 odd tonnes full load it would appear to be a pretty tight fit, for a length fo 200m and a beam of 32m for the proposed laod shown in global security:

"The LP-X can carry a battalion of marines (about 700 men), 10 armored vehicles, up to 200 vehicles, 15 helicopters, and two LCAC hovercrafts capable of landing on enemy shores doing 40 knots"

Compared to the 240m LOL 33 beam 27000 tonmnes for the Navatia BPE iwth a similar laod. Global security goes on to say

"If it were equipped with a ski jump board module, 15-17 meters in length, it could operate short-range and vertical landing/take-off aircraft such as the Harrier or F-35B. Ships of this type are sometimes called a semi-aircraft carrier. However, Korean military authorities have made it clear that they have no plan to convert the LPX into such a semi-aircraft carrier. However, its flight deck is coated with special Urethane to resist heat generated from aircraft."

Image provided below from http://image06.webshots.com/6/4/96/7...6baXJDi_ph.jpg

http://image06.webshots.com/6/4/96/7...6baXJDi_ph.jpg

While the global security pages would seem to suggest it is not being consider in the aircarft carrier role othe pages show it with a ski jump, look at:

http://www.jjma.com/Documents/Servic...intnat/lpx.jpg
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006   #6
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 88
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickusn
"and are building an aircraft carrier."

Info please.

Or are you confusing it with the second LPX that is building?
On globalsecurity.org I found the following "According to some reports, an aircraft carrier is planned for sometime after 2010, as part of the Strategic Mobile Fleet. In 20 March 2001 ROK President Kim Dae-jung said that South Korea would create a new "strategic mobile fleet" consisting of destroyers, submarines and anti-submarine aircraft. In a speech before graduating midshipmen at the Korea Naval Academy in the southeastern port city of Chinhae, President Kim said, ``We will soon have a strategic mobile fleet that protects state interests in the five big oceans and play a role of keeping peace in the world.''

Korea's Strategic Mobile Fleet could be sent to secure a sea lane in East Asia in the event of a maritime dispute. Currently, the Korean Navy is divided into three sectors -- one each assigned to East, West and South Seas surrounding the southern half of the Korean peninsula. The Strategic Mobile Fleet will take a form of an integrated fleet that can be rapidly deployed into the area of trouble. In this respect, the Stratgic Mobile Fleet is a transition from the current coastal navy to the blue water navy. Under prevailing naval doctrines, the presence of an aircraft carrier is pivotal to a blue water navy."



granted it is limited about the aircraft carrier. But given the desire of South Korea to achieve a blue water navy, it is not surprising that an aircraft carrier is at least being planned
fylr71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006   #7
Super Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,133
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fylr71
Pretty soon the South Korean Navy will have a true blue water capability. They just commissioned an LPH and are building an aircraft carrier. The KDX II destroyers now entering service have very good capabilities and a stealthy design the follow on KDX III class (first commission 2008) will be equipped with the Aegis weapon system and appear to have improved stealth capabilities. Combining these ships with the already successful KDX I will give them a highly advanced destroyer fleet. Also a new class of frigates is on the way called FFX they are planned to replace the ulsan class and to have an advanced design with good multirole capabilites. Their submarine force is also being built up. The KSS I will be joined in 2007 by the first of three 1800 ton KSS II class submarines. The KSS II will then be followed starting in 2012 by three 3,000 ton KSS III submarines which when they enter service will be some of the most advanced non nuclear submarines in the world
South Korean navy is definitely looking very impressive. Also, when you consider the strength of the South Korean shipbuilding industry, the new strength should not be surprising. It's kind of interesting, we are seeing basically a naval race between Japan, China and South Korea.
tphuang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2006   #8
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,700
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fylr71
On globalsecurity.org I found the following "According to some reports, an aircraft carrier is planned for sometime after 2010, as part of the Strategic Mobile Fleet. In 20 March 2001 ROK President Kim Dae-jung said that South Korea would create a new "strategic mobile fleet" consisting of destroyers, submarines and anti-submarine aircraft. In a speech before graduating midshipmen at the Korea Naval Academy in the southeastern port city of Chinhae, President Kim said, ``We will soon have a strategic mobile fleet that protects state interests in the five big oceans and play a role of keeping peace in the world.''

Korea's Strategic Mobile Fleet could be sent to secure a sea lane in East Asia in the event of a maritime dispute. Currently, the Korean Navy is divided into three sectors -- one each assigned to East, West and South Seas surrounding the southern half of the Korean peninsula. The Strategic Mobile Fleet will take a form of an integrated fleet that can be rapidly deployed into the area of trouble. In this respect, the Stratgic Mobile Fleet is a transition from the current coastal navy to the blue water navy. Under prevailing naval doctrines, the presence of an aircraft carrier is pivotal to a blue water navy."



granted it is limited about the aircraft carrier. But given the desire of South Korea to achieve a blue water navy, it is not surprising that an aircraft carrier is at least being planned
I still think any reference to aricraft carrier would relate to the LP-X rather than a dedicated design noting the drawings showing a ski jump. The desing and construction time for a new dedicated vessel would be considerable but the LP-X seems to offer the prospect of fixed wing organic air in the VSTOL form.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2006   #9
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
What I have trouble understanding is why South Korea needs such a strong blue-Ocean Navy. Its main security threat is North Korea, which has a lot of old submarines, so I find it logical that it invests so much in the U214 AIP SSKs in addition to its 9 T209s. North Korea also has tens of small FAC(M)s, so I also understand the logic of developing FF(X) to replace the ageing Ulsan. Even LPDs make sense in case of amphibious warfare up and down the Korean coast (as in the Korean War in the early 50s).
However, building an aircraft carrier when you are well under cover of land-based F16s and F15s, this seems to me a waste of money.
So let's hope that the reference to an aircraft carrier in reality was inaccurate. Otherwise all it would generate would be a further call to arms among its neighbors, potentially pushing China and Japan to accelerate their plans for carriers.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2006   #10
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour
What I have trouble understanding is why South Korea needs such a strong blue-Ocean Navy. Its main security threat is North Korea, which has a lot of old submarines, so I find it logical that it invests so much in the U214 AIP SSKs in addition to its 9 T209s. North Korea also has tens of small FAC(M)s, so I also understand the logic of developing FF(X) to replace the ageing Ulsan. Even LPDs make sense in case of amphibious warfare up and down the Korean coast (as in the Korean War in the early 50s).
However, building an aircraft carrier when you are well under cover of land-based F16s and F15s, this seems to me a waste of money.
So let's hope that the reference to an aircraft carrier in reality was inaccurate. Otherwise all it would generate would be a further call to arms among its neighbors, potentially pushing China and Japan to accelerate their plans for carriers.

cheers
While Nth Korea is the main threat I would think South Korea is a maritime trading nation with an interest in maintaining open sea lanes around the world.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2006   #11
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,700
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
While Nth Korea is the main threat I would think South Korea is a maritime trading nation with an interest in maintaining open sea lanes around the world.
Could not agree more. While Australia's domestic is not tied to its export industry in the same way S Korea is it does have a high volume resource trade and this is something many commentators ignore in the Australian situation when discussing defending fortress Australia.

You don't need a full blown war to efect trade just instability in an area or closure of SLOCs. Power projection can (depending on the political will and how sensibly action is taken) help resolve such issues.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2006   #12
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 88
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour
What I have trouble understanding is why South Korea needs such a strong blue-Ocean Navy. Its main security threat is North Korea, which has a lot of old submarines, so I find it logical that it invests so much in the U214 AIP SSKs in addition to its 9 T209s. North Korea also has tens of small FAC(M)s, so I also understand the logic of developing FF(X) to replace the ageing Ulsan. Even LPDs make sense in case of amphibious warfare up and down the Korean coast (as in the Korean War in the early 50s).
However, building an aircraft carrier when you are well under cover of land-based F16s and F15s, this seems to me a waste of money.
So let's hope that the reference to an aircraft carrier in reality was inaccurate. Otherwise all it would generate would be a further call to arms among its neighbors, potentially pushing China and Japan to accelerate their plans for carriers.

cheers
You make a very good point: Looking at the biggest potentia threat to South Korea (North Korea) one would think that a large ocean going navy is completely unnessary for purposes of national defense. The reason however is national pride. In order to be considered among the most powerful nations in the world one must have a powerful navy. This has always been the case. In the late 1800's It was presumed that although Germany had the best army in Europe they couldn't win a war with the Britain who not only had the largest and best navy but was considered the most powerful nation in the world. South Korea wants to be able to project power beyond the Korean peninsula and in order to that today a nation needs aircraft carriers. Today when ever there is an international security incident in which armies must be deployed oversees the first question is will America, Britian, and France send troops. The second question is will Italy and Spain send troops(From a purely strategic stampoint, Japan even though they lack an aircraft carrier would be included in this second group. However it is still somewhat taboo for Japan given its past to deploy combat troops.) This is because these are the only nations that could send troops far oversees and have the ability to support these troops. South Korea wants to be a major international player and an aircraft carrier combined with their new amphibious capability, the KDX destroyers and good logistical support would be the perfect way to place them in the same group as the other major powers and increase their international standing and national pride and prestige.
fylr71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2006   #13
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
A re-edition of the 1930s arms race between Germany and UK/France/Italy in the Northern Pacific Ocean is unfortunately plausible with S. Korea, Japan and China watching each other's moves very very closely. Very dangerous...

Vs the argument that S. Korea needs to protect its sea lanes since it depends a lot on exporting products all around the world, I agree with the analysis, though not necessarily with the programmes S. Korea puts in place. I'll make myself clearer : if you need to make sure your container ships are not being attacked by pirates in the Malacca Straits, or that your oilers are coming back in one piece from the Persian Gulf, then you need a mix of FFGs and DDGs for AAW, though aircraft carriers are a bit of an overkill...
Based on this argument, Japan needs at least 5 USN-sized carrier battle groups in order to have one permanently stationed in the Indian Ocean, one near Singapore and one facing North Korea. Dangerous arguments...
I would rather opt for Flyr71's analysis (national pride justifying a splurge in military investment).

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2006   #14
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour
A re-edition of the 1930s arms race between Germany and UK/France/Italy in the Northern Pacific Ocean is unfortunately plausible with S. Korea, Japan and China watching each other's moves very very closely. Very dangerous...

Vs the argument that S. Korea needs to protect its sea lanes since it depends a lot on exporting products all around the world, I agree with the analysis, though not necessarily with the programmes S. Korea puts in place. I'll make myself clearer : if you need to make sure your container ships are not being attacked by pirates in the Malacca Straits, or that your oilers are coming back in one piece from the Persian Gulf, then you need a mix of FFGs and DDGs for AAW, though aircraft carriers are a bit of an overkill...
Based on this argument, Japan needs at least 5 USN-sized carrier battle groups in order to have one permanently stationed in the Indian Ocean, one near Singapore and one facing North Korea. Dangerous arguments...
I would rather opt for Flyr71's analysis (national pride justifying a splurge in military investment).

cheers
I agree with you... S. Korea building this fleet is dumb. N. Korea has the loudest hunks of junk turning the bubbles down there. She can pick her subs up 20 miles away even when rigged for silent running. Why does S. Korea need AEGIS? This is stupid as well when NK isn't going to launch over open ocean, it would come from land so you would want PAC3 batteries. What does SK need with such amphib assets? Is she planning on invading Okinawa? The final straw in this cap is why on earth does she need a carrier? To go bomb pirates in the Malacca straights? Oh wait, I think I know. They are expecting for NK to invade and they can just have these ships waiting for them when they get done. SK does not need a navy, she needs to be more concerned about a NK land invasion which apparently she isn't.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6th, 2006   #15
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E
I agree with you... S. Korea building this fleet is dumb. N. Korea has the loudest hunks of junk turning the bubbles down there. She can pick her subs up 20 miles away even when rigged for silent running. Why does S. Korea need AEGIS? This is stupid as well when NK isn't going to launch over open ocean, it would come from land so you would want PAC3 batteries. What does SK need with such amphib assets? Is she planning on invading Okinawa? The final straw in this cap is why on earth does she need a carrier? To go bomb pirates in the Malacca straights? Oh wait, I think I know. They are expecting for NK to invade and they can just have these ships waiting for them when they get done. SK does not need a navy, she needs to be more concerned about a NK land invasion which apparently she isn't.
I think I saw a few pics of N.Korean patrol boats with T-34 turrets on them.

Anyways I'm sure the sudden build-up is related to deteriorated relations with Japan and the ever-increasing naval capability of China. For sure they do not need such powerful assets when it comes to the North Korean navy.
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know youre not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch. Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 AM.