South Korean Navy

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting, yet another middle power seeing the benefits of carrier airpower. It makes sense, so long as you have a certain level of capability from your existing surface and subsurface combat forces a carrier will add to your overall capability rather than sapping resources needed for other purposes. i.e. once you have AWDs that can escort a flat deck the aircraft carried by that flat deck add capability exponentially, i.e. the ability to reach well beyond the horizon for every mission set its aircraft can cover.

The F-35B is a game changer as it provides light carriers a level of performance never before seen. Combine it with AEW and CEC and there will be very few nations that could deny access. The carrier, rather than being a burden that needs to be defended becomes a pillar that defends and supports other assets with its aircraft providing a defensive umbrella, ISATR, ASW, AEW, AD, land and maritime strike.

Smart move South Korea.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Could South Korea decide to build their own VTOL Fighter/Attack airplane?
Theoretically, there does seem that a market could be found for something between aging AV-8Bs and F-35Bs.
Spain will need to replace it's Av-8Bs relatively soon. And, wouldn't a VTOL carrier(s) make sense for Brazil?
And, it does seem the KFX/IFX program is hindered by cost, and the technical abilities of the two countries. Might a F/A VTOL a more accomplishable, less grandiose objective?
Face it, F-35Bs are never going to truly be "affordable".
A straight up purchase of 24-48 F-35B's is going to be FAR more affordable than developing your own fighter of ANY type.

And far more capable...
 

t68

Well-Known Member
A straight up purchase of 24-48 F-35B's is going to be FAR more affordable than developing your own fighter of ANY type.

And far more capable...

Agreed, but they do have the T-50 family of advanced trainer/ light fighters the Koreans should have the ability to make a carrier version of F/A-50 similar to the T-45 Goshawk if they want to keep it homegrown. The Americans/British can show them the way on a small conventional CATOBAR carrier.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
A straight up purchase of 24-48 F-35B's is going to be FAR more affordable than developing your own fighter of ANY type.

And far more capable...
If such a plan did become reality, and of course it is still an 'if' at this stage, we could end up seeing both the South Korean and Japan navies with F-35B's and their respective Air Forces operating F-35A's.

Add to that the talk a while back of Singapore being interested in F-35B's too.

Dear Australian Government, are you taking note of what is happening to the North of us??
 

t68

Well-Known Member
If such a plan did become reality, and of course it is still an 'if' at this stage, we could end up seeing both the South Korean and Japan navies with F-35B's and their respective Air Forces operating F-35A's.

Add to that the talk a while back of Singapore being interested in F-35B's too.

Dear Australian Government, are you taking note of what is happening to the North of us??

I dont think they are oblivious to the fact, but don't want the expense of it even though it's a logical move.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If such a plan did become reality, and of course it is still an 'if' at this stage, we could end up seeing both the South Korean and Japan navies with F-35B's and their respective Air Forces operating F-35A's.

Add to that the talk a while back of Singapore being interested in F-35B's too.

Dear Australian Government, are you taking note of what is happening to the North of us??
Singapore will likely have a carrier before we do.

One thing I have noticed is the major Australian Political parties disagree on the common sense stuff that most Australian support and only extremist nutters oppose, but will agree on things they should be arguing about and doing instead of agreeing not to do.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Singapore will likely have a carrier before we do.

One thing I have noticed is the major Australian Political parties disagree on the common sense stuff that most Australian support and only extremist nutters oppose, but will agree on things they should be arguing about and doing instead of agreeing not to do.
It was my understanding that Singapore has no intension of getting a light carrier for fixed wing aviation, F35B was to be used from emergency runways and the like in times of national emergencies.

Singapore and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter | The Diplomat
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Singapore will likely have a carrier before we do.

One thing I have noticed is the major Australian Political parties disagree on the common sense stuff that most Australian support and only extremist nutters oppose, but will agree on things they should be arguing about and doing instead of agreeing not to do.
Common sense?

As they say, 'the problem with common sense is that it's not common enough!!
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The article also mentioned the possible purchase and refit of the USN's old S-3 Vikings.

The Navy also puts a priority on acquiring reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. In particular, the service laid out plans to buy the Lockheed S-3 Vikings retired from front-fleet service aboard aircraft carriers by the US Navy in January 2009.

The service will purchase 18 S-3 jets and modify them into a new configuration meeting the Navy’s operational requirements. If adopted, it will be the first fixed-wing jet patrol aircraft operated by the South Korean Navy, which flies 16 P-3CK turboprop patrol aircraft.
If so this makes me smile, I have always liked that plane.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
The article also mentioned the possible purchase and refit of the USN's old S-3 Vikings.



If so this makes me smile, I have always liked that plane.
The S-3 really shouldn't have been let go by the USN such a useful plane lots of added capability pretty cheaply and space for it to be altered for new tasks
 

Belesari

New Member
The S-3 really shouldn't have been let go by the USN such a useful plane lots of added capability pretty cheaply and space for it to be altered for new tasks
So many reasons getting rid of the S-3 was stupid. We capable of doing refueling also leaving the Super Bugs to carry the weapons instead of loading them down with fuel.

USN needs a logistics plane bad. And a fast carrier launched ASW platform.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
There are a lot more than 18 S-3s in storage, & most have a lot of airframe hours left. The spares stocks are supposed to be large. They'd need a thorough overhaul & new avionics, but by drawing on the boneyard, it should be possible to keep such a fleet running for many years at moderate cost.
 

Belesari

New Member
There are a lot more than 18 S-3s in storage, & most have a lot of airframe hours left. The spares stocks are supposed to be large. They'd need a thorough overhaul & new avionics, but by drawing on the boneyard, it should be possible to keep such a fleet running for many years at moderate cost.
Why don't we bring them back then? We could use them. The US I mean.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Why don't we bring them back then? We could use them. The US I mean.
Budget cuts. it is as simple as that. None of the S-3s were upgraded with modern cockpits, all of their electronics are ancient. They cost more to operate than Greyhounds in the COD role. In pretty much the same fashion as the British Vulcan bombers they were never upgraded and are now too expensive to operate.
 

knprk8

New Member
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
Korea needs strong navy because of all the disputed islands around Korean peninsula. Furthermore because both of the country they are facing are one of the strongest countries in the world they need to maintain strong naval force to stay in power around the territorial water. Also, Chinese Japanese and Koreans does not have good history in general.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
None of that particularly translates into why naval air is necessarily a good idea for them to pursue, if maintaining air dominance over islands and surrounding territorial waters/airspace around the goal then this can be done through land based air power at a cheaper cost. Factor in platforms like SSK's (which ROK is investing in) and you have the makings of a flexible self defence force.

The point of aircraft carriers is to give yourself the ability to project air power where access to land bases isn't an option. Why would a territorial force need an aircraft carrier if it's goal is to protect their territories? It's an expeditionary capability, a power projection tool. There's no point if where you want to project is within relatively close proximity.

AAR investment would seem the smarter option.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
None of that particularly translates into why naval air is necessarily a good idea for them to pursue, if maintaining air dominance over islands and surrounding territorial waters/airspace around the goal then this can be done through land based air power at a cheaper cost. Factor in platforms like SSK's (which ROK is investing in) and you have the makings of a flexible self defence force.

The point of aircraft carriers is to give yourself the ability to project air power where access to land bases isn't an option. Why would a territorial force need an aircraft carrier if it's goal is to protect their territories? It's an expeditionary capability, a power projection tool. There's no point if where you want to project is within relatively close proximity.

AAR investment would seem the smarter option.
.

I think SK has a justification for a ASW carrier not a full blown carrier like the UK/US

If one thinks of the the subsurface threat confronting both Japan and Korea it does make sence to have a heavy ASW presences, it's a case of the original idea of the invincable class carrier heavy on the ASW helicopters with 6-9 fixed wing for CAP UK was originally going to have CVA01 plus ASW heavy carriers
 
Top