South Korean Navy

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Second day Korean Madex from Xavier. Talking more on Korean CIWS, Korean VLS and DSME Submarine. On Submarine sides, even tough DSME 1400 still the export variance that so far got market demand (from Indonesia, and potentially Philippines), but they are moving to DSME 2000.

Seems they are also realize that market demand more, as Euro suppliers willing to provide more advance variance with also affordable financing.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Xavier's MADEX 2021 Day 3 report. This time looking at a new dual active / passive sonar buoy, new mine hunting consoles with 3D capability, rumours of a navalised KF-21 for operation off the ROKN CVL, the SM-2 and SM-3, and Babcock's cooperation with the ROKN CVL programme.

 

t68

Well-Known Member

Video from Xavier interview with HHI and DSME for South Korea Navy CVX concept. HHI shown their own concept, while DSME working with Fincantieri for design based on Italian Navy Trieste. In short DSME working on design base on proven ones, while HHI seems quite confident to work on their own design.

Just my opinion, seems HHI design eventough just like DSME shown twin islands, but seems more like enlarge Dokdo with ski jump.

No Bulbous bow would have thought it would be part of the design, donsn’t it make the ship more faster than traditional axe type bow?
 

CJohn

Active Member
No Bulbous bow would have thought it would be part of the design, donsn’t it make the ship more faster than traditional axe type bow?
That bow design on the HHI CVX looks very much like the Rolls Royce wave piercing bow concept used on HMNZS Aotearoa. The bulbous part of the design is incorporated in the hull.
From Rolls Royce "The hull shape pierces through the water rather than rides over the top, while the bulb contours the shape of waves along the ship's side to reduce wave resistance. The straight flare in the bow design also minimises speed loss and slamming during operation."
 

Git_Kraken

Member
The ROK have issues with 3 nations. Two are real and one is illusionary. The real issues are with the PRC and NK. They see the CV as a force projection asset as well as a counter to the PLAN CV force. Since the JMSDF are moving in the CV game as the ROK have this illusionary dispute with Japan. It's very real to the ROK, but not to Japan. So the ROK, especially under the Moon administration see Japan more as a foe than a friend.
I get why they are doing this. But if they really are worried about PRC then submarines would be a better deterrent against both particularly if they have cruise missile capability.

A carrier is for force projection far from your own shores, where you can't use land based aircraft. The argument is that NK might damage or destroy the ROK airbases and they need a second strike option. Submarines could do that better. However, considering that the ROK recently had a tanker hijacked by Iran they may be looking at their fuel supply lines and wondering if they need to start protecting those.

Not sure if you need a CV for that but perhaps you need one to make sure those energy supplies get past China.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A carrier is for force projection far from your own shores, where you can't use land based aircraft.
Not correct, an aircraft carrier can carry out multiple mission sets, they are not purely for projection. If you have a good look at the HHI solution you will see it is a multi mission carrier with ASW being a big focus, among others.
 

Git_Kraken

Member
It's completely correct. Carriers of some sort are quite literally the defining piece for a power projection blue water force (I include LHD, LPD, and the like in that category). Power projection means sea control in someone else's yard. Yes, it can do lots of jobs that's one of its strengths. Just because it isn't bombing someone doesn't mean it's not projecting power. And if it was only for ASW then they wouldn't be making such a big deal about F35's
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It's completely correct. Carriers of some sort are quite literally the defining piece for a power projection blue water force (I include LHD, LPD, and the like in that category). Power projection means sea control in someone else's yard. Yes, it can do lots of jobs that's one of its strengths. Just because it isn't bombing someone doesn't mean it's not projecting power. And if it was only for ASW then they wouldn't be making such a big deal about F35's
You have completely missed my point and did not say any of what you have alluded to above by adding different platforms into it.

Look again at your comment that I quoted in the above reply !
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I get why they are doing this. But if they really are worried about PRC then submarines would be a better deterrent against both particularly if they have cruise missile capability.

A carrier is for force projection far from your own shores, where you can't use land based aircraft. The argument is that NK might damage or destroy the ROK airbases and they need a second strike option. Submarines could do that better. However, considering that the ROK recently had a tanker hijacked by Iran they may be looking at their fuel supply lines and wondering if they need to start protecting those.

Not sure if you need a CV for that but perhaps you need one to make sure those energy supplies get past China.
Wrong. A CV gives you more options AND it complicates an enemies options. Yes it's about force projection, because it keeps the enemy further away from your coast.
It's completely correct. Carriers of some sort are quite literally the defining piece for a power projection blue water force (I include LHD, LPD, and the like in that category). Power projection means sea control in someone else's yard. Yes, it can do lots of jobs that's one of its strengths. Just because it isn't bombing someone doesn't mean it's not projecting power. And if it was only for ASW then they wouldn't be making such a big deal about F35's
Totally disagree. LH/P/A/SD etc., a CV do not make, except the LHD/A in the USN with some operating USMC F-35B. They have different CONOPS. If the ROK see the requirement for a CVL then it's their choice because they are the ones paying for it. I understand their reasoning and I see why they have gone down this path. The CVL provides another string to their bow and a CBG that will be in time a thorn in an enemy's side.

Submarines are good, but they are not the be all to end all, though some submariners would tell you differently. They're just like fighter pilots :D
 

Git_Kraken

Member
Wrong. A CV gives you more options AND it complicates an enemies options. Yes it's about force projection, because it keeps the enemy further away from your coast.
Nothing I said in the post was incorrect. Carriers are for force projection. That is their primary role. Submarines are better defensive assets than carriers are particularly if you have land-based aircraft backing them up. You want to keep enemies further away, take a page from everyone else in the Asia-Pacific or the Russians. Get more subs and build more airfields.

Secondly how is ROK going to keep NK "further away" from their coast. Their cost is literally contiguous with NK. The main threat to South Korea is land-based attacks and nuclear from the north. Some of that nuclear threat comes from NK SSBN's. Submarines playing the stalk and shadow game with those threats would be a much better use of funds.

Totally disagree. LH/P/A/SD etc., a CV do not make, except the LHD/A in the USN with some operating USMC F-35B. They have different CONOPS.
You misunderstand (I blame bad sentence structure on my part). LHD, LPD etc.. are in the same category of a CV "as one of the things that define a blue water power projection navy". Not that they are the same thing with the same CONOPS. ie: Australia has two LHD's and a fleet to protect them. No CV's. Still a power projection navy.

If the ROK see the requirement for a CVL then it's their choice because they are the ones paying for it. I understand their reasoning and I see why they have gone down this path. The CVL provides another string to their bow and a CBG that will be in time a thorn in an enemy's side.
Yes they are, but not without controversy and a push for more submarines.

As I stated, I wonder if it's for the protection of energy supplies as the majority of their oil comes through the South China Sea. Perhaps ROK is looking further down the road at potential problems and selling this to their public as a NK-threat purchase when they know that they can pivot if they need to. As pointed out a CV is a flexible resource, and this could be a hedge play instead of a direct threat counter. If its for thatthen the logic over a sub increase is the right choice IMHO.

1623676073891.png
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
There are certainly some interesting developments regarding the Korean carrier program. The models vary quite a bit, and its interesting to see how the development changes the designs. Interesting the mini dock for UUV's and the angled flight deck.

To be fair the Koreans have a pretty active submarine program. They may not be able to expand it as quickly as they wish. The CVX program is an interesting idea, however it will be interesting when the design is finalised and there is a CONOPs for it that kind of explains how they intend to use it.

The Fincantieri link is interesting.
 

FormerDirtDart

Active Member
There are certainly some interesting developments regarding the Korean carrier program. The models vary quite a bit, and its interesting to see how the development changes the designs. Interesting the mini dock for UUV's and the angled flight deck.

...
I'm sorry, but what angled flight deck. While the DSME model showed a ship relatively similar in design to the American LHD/LHA though with two islands.


The HHI model showed a straight through flight deck, significantly wider above waterline beam, but with landing spots well to port and a central runway (for lack of a better term) leading to the ski jump.


Images via Defense News - South Korean shipbuilders unveil competing carrier designs

Are there other models or designs that I have missed coverage of?
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
This is some news from a couple of days ago, but if im not wrong, these will be the first submarines in the world with both AIP and Li-Ion batteries.

Edit: The SS-511 Oryu and SS-512 Toryu are the first submarines utilizing Li-ion battery propulsion technology, but from which i understand, the Li-Ion batteries inside the Japanese submarines have completely replaced the AIP-system.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
A few interesting tid bits.
  • VLS to go from 6 to 10
  • Lithium Ion improve sprint range to 300% while cruise range is 160%
  • Two large lithium packs.
  • Based off commercial cells.

Lithium batteries in subs will last twice as long as traditional lead acid before replacement.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
At last...13 years after the first of class Dokdo LPH-6111 was commissioned in 2007, South-Korea has commissioned the second vessel of the class.



 
Last edited:

FormerDirtDart

Active Member
At last...13 years after the first of class Dokdo LPH-6111 was commissioned in 2007, South-Korea has commissioned the second vessel of the class.


I hate to break it to you, but it's 2021 not 2020.
So, either your basic arithmetic skills are lacking or you've somehow forgotten the past year.
Either way, you should seek help

/s
 
Top