South Korean Navy

Dae JoYoung

New Member
Also, Unlike South Korean Warships, Japanese Warships have no offensive capabilities what-so-ever. American government oversees every "neutered" Japanese warships, which is why the humiliated Japanese are trying to change their Constitution while they continue to deny the "Rape of Nanjing."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070619-0333-japan-china-.html

*North Korea itself has the 4th largest standing army.

Meanwhile US passes "Comfort Woman Resolution" that Japan continues to deny:

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/410607/all


Back on subject:


Gumdoksuri class patrol vessel, also known as the PKX class (Patrol Killer eXperimental), are the next generation patrol vessels that will replace the aging Chamsuri class patrol vessels. The Republic of Korea Navy began development of the PKX class in 2003 after a Chamsuri class (PKM class) patrol ship was sunk during a fight with North Korean patrol boats on June 29th 2002.

The ship will be armed with one 76mm cannon, one 40mm cannon and KSSM anti-ship missiles. It will also have an advanced radar system which can detect and track over 100 targets simultaneously.

The Gumdoksuri class standard displacement is planned to be 400 ~ 450 tons .

The Gumdoksuri class is planned to be launched in 2007 and commissioned in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_Killer_eXperimental
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=68005&page=9
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=81088&st=280&start=280
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
I really don't care whose navy is larger/more powerful/whatever...

However it is a fact that the Japanese navy has always been a blue water navy by which I mean a big oceangoing navy patrolling vast swathes of EEZ from the Arctic down almost to Taiwan, and with training missions taking it often to Hawai. I'm not even mentioning the AORs deployed to the Indian Ocean in recent years.
The Japanese Navy's key role used to be ASW (with the DDH using heavy ASW helos and the big ASW destroyers around them). AAW is growing significantly as old style SM-1 equipped DDGs are replaced by Aegis DDGs. Expect 8-10 operational in 10 years time. That's huge if compared with other advanced navies such as the larger European ones. Amphibious capability is increasing a lot with the Osumis... and I'm not even mentioning the 18 SSKs which are deleted after less than 20 years' service since replacements come in so fast !

The ROK navy used to be a heavily armed navy of light FFGs and corvettes to defend the coastline from NK. The very example of a very powerful brown water navy. In the last 10 years the ROK navy has added a dozen modern SSKs and the KDXs to replace the obsolete ex WW2 DDs. Add in the big LPH and we're seeing a splendid navy here appearing. It will however remain focused on NK and defending the coastline and shouldn't turn into blue water as it simply wouldn't make sense. Just look at a map...

cheers
 

Dae JoYoung

New Member
The issue isn't one of what S. Korea wants since S. Korea is a US Allie. America would prefer that S. Korea spend more money as part of an overall American strategic plan in that region. For now, the main problem for America is China and the growing China-Russian Nexus.

The overall American strategy is to build a "Great Wall around China." This strategy is one of containment, and America is expecting Korea to play a bigger important role since they have become an economic power.

--------------------------------------------------------


China slams India, US, Japan alliance

China has asked India, the United States, Japan and Australia, who are trying to forge a quadripartite format not to go against the global trend and be "open and inclusive" while a Chinese expert believes it would "divide" Asia.

"China believes that to enhance mutual trust, expand cooperation for mutual benefit and win-win, be open and inclusive is the global trend," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, when asked to comment on the emerging quadripartite relations among the four democratic nations.

All countries should conform to the trend and do more to enhance mutual trust and strengthen cooperation, Qin stressed.

"We have noticed relevant reports," Qin said without confirming or denying Indian media reports that China has sought an explanation from New Delhi, Washington, Tokyo and Canberra on the purpose of holding the first-ever meeting of senior officials of the four nations on May 24-25 in Manila, the Philippines.

According to media reports, the meeting, held on the sidelines of an ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) session, discussed issues like disaster management, economic cooperation and energy issue. All four countries also agreed to meet again to continue their dialogue.

Qin did not respond whether Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Dai Bingguo, who is also the Special Representative of China to the India-China boundary negotiations, raise the quadripartite issue during the fourth round of Sino-US Strategic Dialogue with US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte in Washington from June 20 to 21.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1857346/posts#comment?q=1
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
@performance
Eckherl talked about Type90 and not T-90. What do you know about it?
Modern digital FCS with autotracking, p/w ratio 30hp, 120mm L/44, autoloader, multi-layered armor including ceramic, variable suspension, TIs and LRFs for commanders periscope and gunners optic, deep forging capable, laser warning system with automatic IR fog launcher and for sure well trained crews.
Not what I would call an easy prey for any other tank out there...

I still don't get how any country (apart from the US) should be able to land countable land forces on the Japanese homesoil?

I have a little bit the feeling that this here degenerates into a "my **** is longer than your ****"-discussion very fast.
Let me guess that a little bit animosity between Koreans and Japanese comes into the game here. ;)
 

Dae JoYoung

New Member
You can always start with Wiki:

The Type 90(Japanese: きゅうまるしき せんしゃ Kanji: 90式戦車) is the current main battle tank (MBT) of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF). It is built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and was designed as a replacement for all deployed Type 61s and a portion of their Type 74 tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_90

------------------------------------------------
K2 Black Panther (formerly known as KNMBT, or Korean New Main Battle Tank and XK2, or eXperimental K2) (Hangul: 차기전차 K2 '흑표') is the Republic of Korea's recently revealed prototype for a next-generation main battle tank. The vehicle was developed by the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) of South Korea using purely indigenous technology with budget of over $230 million U.S. dollars for the past eleven years since 1995, and will be the successor to the K1 series main battle tanks.

The ROK Army is planning to field approximately 680 Black Panthers when the full-scale mass-production starts in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther

--------------------------------------------

After competing against the Leclerc and Leopard 2, the K2 is finally seeing its first export customer, Turkey. In June, 2007, South Korea and Turkey have successfully negotiated for an arms export deal contract worth KRW₩500,000,000,000 (approximately USD$540,000,000) which will either export or license the design of the K2 as well as 30 KT-1 trainer planes to Turkey.[1]

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200706/200706220024.html

*Just in time for Turkey's invasion of Kurdistan.

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=070627100513.om9t1vna.php
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Also, Unlike South Korean Warships, Japanese Warships have no offensive capabilities what-so-ever. American government oversees every "neutered" Japanese warships, ...
So the anti-ship missiles on Japanese ships are dummies, just for show? Like the torpedoes & missiles in their submarines, & the anti-ship missiles their aircraft carry?
 

Dae JoYoung

New Member
Yes, compared to what Korea Warships carry, I would say they are "defense oriented." Do you really want to see the set of arsenals that Korean Warships carry compared to the Japanese? I don't think Japanese ships carry cruise missiles that can hit targets in another country, do you? Yes, I would say Japanese ships are for defensive purposes ONLY.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
... But you are not getting the point. EVERY military force in this world knows how weak the ground forces in Japan are.
...

What you dont understand is the proximity of Japan and Korea and how that is strategically important. You vastly overestimate Japan's naval forces. Neither SK or Japan have blue water navies. The number of active personnel in Japan's navy doesn't even make the top 10. They have currently 4 working AEGIS destroyers, which is much more than the 0-1 SK has but 4 is a very far cry from dominating the sea.....
This is getting silly. The relative strengths of the ground forces does not matter. What matters is how many can be got to the battle. Japan can not get its army to Korea to fight the South Koreans, & South Korea can not get its army to Japan.

Let us consider geography. It is > 150km from the nearest point of the Korean mainland to the nearest point of one of Japans main islands. I'm from England. Like Waylander (but from the opposite perspective, in terms of our respective national histories) I understand very well the strategic implications of that strait. We in England have benefited from physical separation, in exactly the way Japan does. The difference is that we are much, much closer: on a clear day you can see France from the nearest point of England. But that narrow strait, 1/5th as wide as the strait between Japan & S. Korea, has been of crucial strategic importance.

In order for an amphibious force to cross that distance, it must control the sea & air. That doesn't mean "have an edge", it means control. Against serious opposition, the amphibious transports of an invasion fleet would be sitting ducks. We're not talking about the Falklands, where the Argentinean air force could only launch sporadic raids from 1000km away, & their navy was powerless to intervene, we're talking about being within range of every Japanese aircraft, ship, & submarine for the entire crossing. The Japanese would see it coming, would see where it was heading, & could deploy accordingly. It would face shore-launched anti-ship missiles from the main islands for at least half the passage, & from Tsushima (in between, & Japanese) for the entire passage. The chance of getting any troops ashore is small. The chance of getting enough ashore to do more than die bravely is tiny. The chance of reinforcing them, or supplying them, is even less.

The Japanese navy has far fewer coastal patrol boats & corvettes than S. Korea & far fewer landing ships & landing craft. It has slightly more manpower (all long-service professionals). Since it doesn't have to crew so many small vessels, it has a lot more available to crew major ships, & unsurprisingly it has a lot more of them, mostly carrying anti-ship missiles. It also has more open water submarines, far more ASW capability, & far more airborne anti-shipping strike. All of that could be brought to bear on any invasion fleet, & the smaller S. Korean combat fleet would be unable to protect transports from it. It would be hard-pressed to protect itself. It would have to rely on the air force, & there, again, the edge is probably with Japan. 14 AEW aircraft vs none at present, fewer but longer-range & generally more capable fighters, tankers entering service enabling greater combat persistence & the use of more dispersed bases.

Now can we please get away from this rather nasty fantasy, & discuss what the S. Korean navy might actually be used for, & how its capabilities fit its role?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yes, compared to what Korea Warships carry, I would say they are "defense oriented." Do you really want to see the set of arsenals that Korean Warships carry compared to the Japanese? I don't think Japanese ships carry cruise missiles that can hit targets in another country, do you? Yes, I would say Japanese ships are for defensive purposes ONLY.
Which does not reduce their ability to defend against an invasion fleet. They can hit ships at sea, ships in port, & coastal installations.
 

daewon

New Member
Back on topic:(

South Korea launched its new patrol boat today.
Name after the boat commander "Yoon Young-Ha" who fought and died on the PKM357 during the naval clash between Seoul and PyounYang back in 2002. This new class of PBs are to ensure the dominance over NK flotilla in littoral waters. After the clash doubts were raised about the firepower of SK patrol boats which were unable to sink the NK PBs even though they wreaked havock on them. Also screw propellers proved inadequate in fishing areas strewn with fishing nets. Waterjet propulsion has been employed to enhance mobility.
Total of 24 missile carrying variants(full displacement at 570t) and 18 torpedo and sonar equipped variants(200t) are planned. They are to replace the current aging PKMs and some PCCs.

Specifications
dimensions(m) : 69X9X5
displacement : 570t full
max speed : 40kts+
range : 2,000nm / 15kts
crew : 40+
armament : 8 SSMs, 1 76mm gun, 1 40mm gun ,
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Back on topic:(

South Korea launched its new patrol boat today.
Name after the boat commander "Yoon Young-Ha" who fought and died on the PKM357 during the naval clash between Seoul and PyounYang back in 2002. This new class of PBs are to ensure the dominance over NK flotilla in littoral waters. After the clash doubts were raised about the firepower of SK patrol boats which were unable to sink the NK PBs even though they wreaked havock on them. Also screw propellers proved inadequate in fishing areas strewn with fishing nets. Waterjet propulsion has been employed to enhance mobility.
Total of 24 missile carrying variants(full displacement at 570t) and 18 torpedo and sonar equipped variants(200t) are planned. They are to replace the current aging PKMs and some PCCs.

Specifications
dimensions(m) : 69X9X5
displacement : 570t full
max speed : 40kts+
range : 2,000nm / 15kts
crew : 40+
armament : 8 SSMs, 1 76mm gun, 1 40mm gun ,
Looks like a useful boat for countering the large numbers of North Korean patrol boats.

I can't find evidence of S. Korean navy helicopters armed to fight patrol boats. The performance of British helicopters armed with Sea Skua against Iraq light naval forces in 1991 shows that suitably armed helicopters are very effective in this role. Are there any S. Korean helicopters armed & trained to fight FACs?
 

daewon

New Member
S.Korea has in the past employed its Allouette-III helicopter armed with SS-12 missles to track and destroy NK Spy boats. They actually have a single kill record.
They have all retired now, 40+ Lynx choppers make up the core of ROKN naval aviation and as you know they can carry Sea Skua missles.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
But the question is more if ROKN procured those Sea Skua missiles and operates them (regularly).
 

daewon

New Member
Yes ROKN has them in service though the quantities are not known.
Pics of firing practice rounds had been released though. So I'd think
that they are actively employing them.

However Lynx operations are mainly focused on ASW roles. Countering NK PBs is more for surface ships.
US Army Apaches were actually used for interception of NK fast crafts but they have withdrawn now from what I hear.
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I will enlighten you. 2020 is the goal set by the government. Will they suceed? I have no idea. But I assure you that 2020 is the goal. The Kaesong Industrial Complex and the new US-ROK FTA agreement includes North Korean made goods for this reason.

Forgot to add this, but the current plan for reunification according to the ROK government is to keep North and South two separate entities controlled by 1 government. The technological gap between the two would bring SK down like a rock.

No China will not do whatever it can to stop a democratic Korea. It is limited to its options. China in its current state up to 2020 will not have the option of war. US is still by far stronger and could easily destroy the Chinese navy. This is one of the reasons why China pressured NK, although reluctantly. This is one of the reasons why they stress to the US government that they will grow peacefully. If the US intelligence even gathers a whiff of some new objective set by the Imperials in China you can bet your ass that US will sent some big ass carriers that way. You are talking politics when you have zero clue what is going on in the region.

I haven't overestimated the XK2. You are in a state of denial about the XK2. It is far superior to the t90. It is up there with Leclerc, Leopard and M1A2.

I have a ton of respect for Japan's navy. They are in a similar geopolitical situation as the Brits, which is why they stress Naval force so much. But you are not getting the point. EVERY military force in this world knows how weak the ground forces in Japan are.

Japanese government's defense policy, which is publicly available, states how protecting Japan from a ground invasion is next to impossible even with the best Naval force in the world.

What you dont understand is the proximity of Japan and Korea and how that is strategically important. You vastly overestimate Japan's naval forces. Neither SK or Japan have blue water navies. The number of active personnel in Japan's navy doesn't even make the top 10. They have currently 4 working AEGIS destroyers, which is much more than the 0-1 SK has but 4 is a very far cry from dominating the sea.

You have no idea what you are talking about. And please dont give me this crap about I'm a master gunner and I was stationed in SK.
What the hell does being a Master gunner or stationed in ROK have anything to do with this, you have not heard anybody on this forum talk badly about the Black Panther, and get it straight - Type 90 from Japan. Again give me data more realistic that shows during the current moment that ROK wants North Korea by 2020, matter of fact I would prefer to hear @Daewons comments and views on it over yours, because you are pretty much living in a unrealistic world.:rolleyes: Now lets take the Black Panther topic back to where it belongs and keep all the other non naval BS out of this topic.
 

performance

New Member
What the hell does being a Master gunner or stationed in ROK have anything to do with this, you have not heard anybody on this forum talk badly about the Black Panther, and get it straight - Type 90 from Japan. Again give me data more realistic that shows during the current moment that ROK wants North Korea by 2020, matter of fact I would prefer to hear @Daewons comments and views on it over yours, because you are pretty much living in a unrealistic world.:rolleyes: Now lets take the Black Panther topic back to where it belongs and keep all the other non naval BS out of this topic.
And why exactly is the year 2020 unrealistic? What is your point about the T90?
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
performance
Enlighten us all here.

In one sentance please - why do you envisage/want to have a war with Japan?

And hard evidence on the 2020 thing would be nice too. I want an Aston Martin DB9 by 2010 but can't give hard proof either.

This still is South Korean Navy right????
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Whoa there.:

"The number of active personnel in Japan's navy doesn't even make the top 10."

Only the USN, Russia, China, India and Turkey(with only a few thousand more than Japan) have more personnel than Japan.

Turkey certainly isnt in Japans class.

Russia, China and India all have their problems and weaknesses so I would be careful rating them better than Japan.

France has about the same # of personnel but they have fewer AAW ships than Japan.

So by my reckoning they are solidly in the Top 10

The UK has about 10000 fewer than Japan.

Capability and professionally wise they are also solidly in the Top 10.

Their AAW capable ships are now Five AEGIS destroyers plus another to commission next year and 2 older DDGs.

As potent or more so than any other navy bar the USN.

They have 33 extremely potent ASW Destroyers armed with Sea Sparrow and soon in the newer units ESSM.

Plus four DDH soon to be replaced by new construction.

Thats 44(BTW Blue -water) excellent surface combatants that is second only to the USN.

Not to mention nine smaller frigates and a dozen guided missle patrol boats for close in work.

Not to mention a very modern and competent diesel submarine force.

This Navy in many areas is at least a Top five Navy or better.

What was your point again?

Maybe you underestimate this navy and overestimate others?
 

performance

New Member
Whoa there.:

"The number of active personnel in Japan's navy doesn't even make the top 10."

Only the USN, Russia, China, India and Turkey(with only a few thousand more than Japan) have more personnel than Japan.

Turkey certainly isnt in Japans class.

Russia, China and India all have their problems and weaknesses so I would be careful rating them better than Japan.

France has about the same # of personnel but they have fewer AAW ships than Japan.

So by my reckoning they are solidly in the Top 10

The UK has about 10000 fewer than Japan.

Capability and professionally wise they are also solidly in the Top 10.

Their AAW capable ships are now Five AEGIS destroyers plus another to commission next year and 2 older DDGs.

As potent or more so than any other navy bar the USN.

They have 33 extremely potent ASW Destroyers armed with Sea Sparrow and soon in the newer units ESSM.

Plus four DDH soon to be replaced by new construction.

Thats 44(BTW Blue -water) excellent surface combatants that is second only to the USN.

Not to mention nine smaller frigates and a dozen guided missle patrol boats for close in work.

Not to mention a very modern and competent diesel submarine force.

This Navy in many areas is at least a Top five Navy or better.

What was your point again?

Maybe you underestimate this navy and overestimate others?
Where are you getting these numbers?

Turkey has double the active force than Japan. S.K. has about 150,000 more than Turkey. China is currently #1 I believe and India somewhere behind.

Japan's active force is not in the top 10. I wouldn't compare 1v1 Turkey vs Japan since that entirely depends on who's the aggressor.

33 outdated ASW destroyers. Frigates and destroyers capable of operating in deep ocean waters does not make a Navy blue-water. Nor does having 33 ships for ASW purposes. I think you have completely misunderstood what "blue-water" means.

Their submarine force is impressive but doesn't go into the category of blue-water either.

Dont get me wrong, i've never said that Japan had a deficient Navy. I mentioned that in a hypothetical war of SK vs Japan that it will not necessarily be a naval war.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Where are you getting these numbers?

Turkey has double the active force than Japan. S.K. has about 150,000 more than Turkey. China is currently #1 I believe and India somewhere behind.

Japan's active force is not in the top 10. I wouldn't compare 1v1 Turkey vs Japan since that entirely depends on who's the aggressor.

33 outdated ASW destroyers. Frigates and destroyers capable of operating in deep ocean waters does not make a Navy blue-water. Nor does having 33 ships for ASW purposes. I think you have completely misunderstood what "blue-water" means.

Their submarine force is impressive but doesn't go into the category of blue-water either.

Dont get me wrong, i've never said that Japan had a deficient Navy. I mentioned that in a hypothetical war of SK vs Japan that it will not necessarily be a naval war.
What? :confused: Where are you getting your numbers? We're talking about NAVY strength. You raised the subject; you should remember your own words.

The Turkish navy, according to the IISS Military Balance 2007, has naval manpower of 48600, including 2200 Coast Guard. 34500 of that total are conscripts. The Turkish navy uses a lot of its manpower (the poor bloody conscripts) for guarding shore installations, doesn't use civilian staff for anything (e.g. cleaning) a conscript can do. Been there, seen it. Turkey has 12 submarines, & 26 destroyers & frigates. The average age of its ships is much higher than the JMSDF.

The JMSDF has 44500, plus Coast Guard of 12250. All long-service regulars. It doesn't waste its highly-trained manpower on menial jobs or jobs that can be done by cheaper civilians. 16 submarines, 53 destroyers & frigates.

South Korea has 44000, including 19000 conscripts. 9 submarines (plus 11 mini-subs with very limited endurance & speed, for inshore use only), 15 destroyers & frigates, 28 corvettes.

Comparing logistics & support ships, which is what really makes a blue-water navy, we see that Japan has as many as S. Korea & Turkey combined (& much bigger than S. Koreas), though far fewer than the RN. Enough, though, to provide useful support to the USN & other navies operating in the Arabian Gulf . . .
http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news_images/0603/060317d.htm

So not only more capability, but highly experienced in at-sea replenishment.

And as for your last point, I'm beginning to worry about your detachment from reality. A hypothetical war between Japan & Korea (which, BTW, I'm sure won't happen) can only be an air & naval war up to the point at which one navy & air force is defeated. It could then - and only then - become a land war. Therefore, to demonstrate that your hypothetical land war is possible, you must first prove that the S. Korean navy & air force can defeat the JMSDF & JASDF so thoroughly that they are incapable of disrupting an invasion. You have totally failed to do so. This has been pointed out to you, & demonstrated to the satisfaction of everyone else here. Do you not wonder why everybody disagrees with you? Can you not conceive of the possibility that it might be because you are wrong?
 
Last edited:
Top