South Korean Navy

[contedicavour]

I guess there's a confusion between total armed forces numbers and navy numbers.
Going back to what constitutes a blue water navy, I believe it means a large number of oceangoing destroyers and frigates with strong AAW and ASW assets, and of big enough (> 3000t) oceangoing SSKs (if not SSNs). Add the 50+ Orion patrollers and the huge number of SH60 (and now EH101). Japan fully qualifies as a blue water navy. Ok it doesn't yet have carriers (even if the latest DDH resemble closely to carriers, just add a sky jump...) but it trains for missions thousands of miles from shore against all sorts of threats.

cheers

 

[Tasman]

I guess there's a confusion between total armed forces numbers and navy numbers.
Going back to what constitutes a blue water navy, I believe it means a large number of oceangoing destroyers and frigates with strong AAW and ASW assets, and of big enough (> 3000t) oceangoing SSKs (if not SSNs). Add the 50+ Orion patrollers and the huge number of SH60 (and now EH101). Japan fully qualifies as a blue water navy. Ok it doesn't yet have carriers (even if the latest DDH resemble closely to carriers, just add a sky jump...) but it trains for missions thousands of miles from shore against all sorts of threats.

cheers

I agree with the points made by you, Swerve and Rickusn. The Japanese Navy also has a long and illustrious tradition as a blue water navy. Time seems to be gradually eroding the constitutional restrictions placed on the navy after WW2 and I believe that there is now no question that the Japanese Navy deserves to be recognised as a powerful blue water force.

The South Korean Navy is also developing as a very potent force but at this stage I believe it would be hard pressed to take on the Japanese Navy.

As a number of members have said, however, this seems a totally unreal scenario. Surely the South Korean Navy and the Japanese Navy are far more likely to be fighting together rather than against one another.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

I guess there's a confusion between total armed forces numbers and navy numbers....

cheers

Indeed. But the only person confused is the person who said "The number of active personnel in Japan's navy doesn't even make the top 10.", & has since responded to replies as if he meant total armed forces.

 

[Galrahn]

A recent article on the size and strength of the South Korean Navy:

The navy has deployed its first Aegis destroyer, a high-tech ship designed to fight other ships, chase submarines and defend against aerial attacks.

Two more Aegis destroyers are to be added over the next five years, at a cost of $3.4 billion, with three more possible after that.

South Korea's plans also call for nine smaller destroyers, nine frigates, 32 corvettes and more than 100 patrol ships, minesweepers and logistic vessels to be built over the next 15 years.

Two large amphibious ships, and maybe a third, will each carry a battalion of 750 marines and 15 helicopters. Added to that will be 23 landing craft.

For missions under the sea, the Koreans plan to acquire 36 diesel-electric submarines.

In the air, the navy plans to obtain eight to 16 P3C anti-submarine planes and nearly sixty helicopters.

A new base is on the drawing board for the island of Cheju at the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula to give the new fleet access to the East China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.

South Korea's navy already includes 39 warships, 20 submarines, 84 patrol and coastal combat vessels, 15 mine warfare ships, 12 amphibious vessels and 60 naval combat aircraft, according the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

I find it interesting how Navies are being compared today, like the discussion between Japan and South Korea. In some ways, these two nations may appear very similar to each other in the future, however today there is very little contest between them.

South Korea, like a number of countries today, is in the mid stages of a major naval upgrade. It is going to get more difficult to compare Navies in the future, becoming something of an exercise in futility, since the specific merits of Navies are being driven by different factors.

Example, there are a number of nations currently involved in major aviation and expeditionary warfare projects. How will we compare a nation like Spain, soon to have 2 major aviation platforms, 3 major expeditionary platforms, and a escort force of AEGIS frigates and FREMM frigates going to be compared to a nation like South Korea, with no major fixed wing aviation platforms but potentially a much larger surface and submarine fleet?

How will we compare a nation like Japan to a nation like Britain, when Japan has twice as many surface combatants, nearly three times as many submarines, but no major aviation and few expeditionary platforms like the Royal Navy, not to mention no nuclear submarines?

At what point does a SSBN influence a discussion on naval comparisons?

Because so many Navies worldwide are evolving in so many different ways, with some a heavier focus on aviation or expeditionary warfare, while others focus on surface combatants and submarines, the comparison game no longer plays very well unless a criteria for comparison can be established.

When comparing South Korea to anyone right now, my observation would be this. There appears to be an ambitious plan with enough political will, money, and technology to compete with a number of regional and worldwide competitors in the maritime domain. If successful, South Korea is poised to have a very formidable naval force capable of defending its maritime interests, specifically its imports, from a wide variety of potential threats in the future both near to home and on foreign shores if necessary.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

That article is rather misleading when it says the ROKN has "deployed" its first AEGIS ship, as it implies it is in service. Defencetalk needs to screen its articles more closely.

 

[Galrahn]

That article is rather misleading when it says the ROKN has "deployed" its first AEGIS ship, as it implies it is in service. Defencetalk needs to screen its articles more closely.

It is actually the "world peace herald" that had the article, which basically sums up why the mistake was probably missed.

Although it would be like when UPI reported the Type 45 was deployed on its launch day. Informed people generally get the idea, while ignorant people usually wouldn't understand the difference anyway.

 

[performance]

What? 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 . . .

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?

I was mentioning total armed forces. You've missed my point completely or its become convoluted over the thread's pages.

Ok one for you need a much larger Navy than what Japan has to defend its borders. Frigates meant to target submarines and 4 active AEGIS ships will not defend the coast line of Japan sufficiently.

You say this will be primarily air/water but it wont be. Japan knows it, we know it, SK knows it.

If Japan was the size of Taiwan then yes it would be primarily a naval/air water depending on whether dominance is achieved.

Logistics and support is one of the things that make a navy blue-water. Japan has neither the capability, support or logistics of operating sustained operations self-sufficient of mainland support.

I am not the one who is delusion. You've convinced yourself a war's won based solely on numbers.

 

[Waylander]

Stop saying the same and go with some facts!

Answer the following questions:
- Which country (Besides the US) on this planet has the amphibious and naval capabilities to rule the sea- and airspace around Japan and land a significant ground force?

- What exactly makes you sure that a war between SK and Japan (As unlikely as it is) is not going to be restricted onto sea and air engagements?

- How do you think SK is going to land even a small part of its army?

And some things previously mentioned in this thread which you ignore all the time:

- Japan operates in a big radius of the sea around its islands for decades. And this bubble defenitely reaches Korea.

- Japan has more blue water/oceangoing vessels and more support assets. Many of these vessels maybe ASW ships but nevertheless they also carry ASuW weapons.
Add to this their relatively high number of modern fighters, huge numbers of Orions as well as a modern, big and very capable SSK force.

- Japans army might not be very big but is good equipped and trained. Every possible landing force be it amphibious or airborn (If it comes through the defense which is highly unlikely) is confronted with very capable mech forces with huge artillery and gunship support.

 

[swerve]

I was mentioning total armed forces. You've missed my point completely or its become convoluted over the thread's pages.

Ok one for you need a much larger Navy than what Japan has to defend its borders. Frigates meant to target submarines and 4 active AEGIS ships will not defend the coast line of Japan sufficiently.

You say this will be primarily air/water but it wont be. Japan knows it, we know it, SK knows it.....

I am not the one who is delusion. You've convinced yourself a war's won based solely on numbers.

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

All that's nonsense. It's clear you don't have the slightest notion of naval operations. You seem to think of them as like land battles at sea.

You don't have to defend every inch of coast, you have to be able to intercept any force large enough to land a dangerous number of troops. That is a large force, & impossible to hide. It would be seen forming up in port, & observed by Japanese submarines, sitting silently offshore, as soon as it sailed. It would be found & intercepted. If Japan felt threatened by invasion, you can be sure that Japan would have satellites up. Etc. An invasion fleet from Korea could not attack most of Japans coast, but only the west coast of Honshu & Kyushu, & the northern Ryukyu islands, & ships positioned to defend the nearest parts of Kyushu & Honshu from a fleet sailing from Korea would easily be able to intercept any fleet before it reached land. Indeed, the further it sailed, the easier to defend against, as it would be exposed to attack for longer before it reached land.

You seem unaware of the capabilities of Japanese submarines. You seem unaware of the ranges of anti-ship missiles. You completely ignore the anti-shipping capabilities of Japanese aircraft. You ignore the fact that those "Frigates meant to target submarines" carry anti-ship missiles. You ignore a sizable part of Japans navy. You don't seem to have looked at a map.

Numbers? Yes, wars are won by numbers. Numbers of troops, numbers of weapons, the numbers which represent the relative qualities of those weapons, numbers of hours spent training, numbers of rounds of ammunition, numbers of tons of fuel, etc, etc. You seem convinced none of these matter. Ah well, as the old saying goes "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

 

[performance]

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

All that's nonsense. It's clear you don't have the slightest notion of naval operations. You seem to think of them as like land battles at sea.

You don't have to defend every inch of coast, you have to be able to intercept any force large enough to land a dangerous number of troops. That is a large force, & impossible to hide. It would be seen forming up in port, & observed by Japanese submarines, sitting silently offshore, as soon as it sailed. It would be found & intercepted. If Japan felt threatened by invasion, you can be sure that Japan would have satellites up. Etc. An invasion fleet from Korea could not attack most of Japans coast, but only the west coast of Honshu & Kyushu, & the northern Ryukyu islands, & ships positioned to defend the nearest parts of Kyushu & Honshu from a fleet sailing from Korea would easily be able to intercept any fleet before it reached land. Indeed, the further it sailed, the easier to defend against, as it would be exposed to attack for longer before it reached land.

You seem unaware of the capabilities of Japanese submarines. You seem unaware of the ranges of anti-ship missiles. You completely ignore the anti-shipping capabilities of Japanese aircraft. You ignore the fact that those "Frigates meant to target submarines" carry anti-ship missiles. You ignore a sizable part of Japans navy. You don't seem to have looked at a map.

Numbers? Yes, wars are won by numbers. Numbers of troops, numbers of weapons, the numbers which represent the relative qualities of those weapons, numbers of hours spent training, numbers of rounds of ammunition, numbers of tons of fuel, etc, etc. You seem convinced none of these matter. Ah well, as the old saying goes "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

You need numbers but numbers are not everything.

I am well aware of Japanese naval power and I have never once doubted their capabilities.

Naval war is never that simple. What you are talking about is complete dominance, which Japan does not have. SK has an inferior Navy but it is not comprised of old rusty ships, although they have more ships being built and planned than they currently have.

Also Japanese naval forces do not have an offensive capability. One of the our restrictions on them after the Pacific war.

My original intent was to post briefly about the weakness of Japanese mainland troops but its turned into something else.

 

[swerve]

You need numbers but numbers are not everything.

A mistake made by almost everyone who's ever lost a war. They don't take enough account of numbers, e.g. they count the tanks but don't count the lorries, or radios, or reliability, or how long the troops have trained (a number which is in Japans favour compared to S. Korea, BTW), or the quality of their training. Numbers (all the numbers, not just the obvious, visible ones, such as how many men) are one of the two classes of things that count: the other is will.

I am well aware of Japanese naval power and I have never once doubted their capabilities.

Then why do you keep understating it? You've consistently understated their numbers of ships, their capabilities, & their naval air power.

Naval war is never that simple. What you are talking about is complete dominance, which Japan does not have.

You've stood this on its head. Japan does not need complete dominance to defend its shores. An invader needs dominance over Japans navy & air force in order to land & supply an invasion force. Japan needs only the ability to disrupt the invasion sufficiently to prevent a significant force being landed & supplied. Parity is more than enough for that, & Japan has better than parity.

Also Japanese naval forces do not have an offensive capability. ...

So what? We're discussing their ability to defend Japan, not attack anyone else. If you'd suggested that a Japanese invasion of Korea was possible, I'd be describing why it would fail even if Koreas army was weaker than Japans, i.e. because Japan does not have the degree of naval dominance necessary to get an invasion force safely ashore.

My original intent was to post briefly about the weakness of Japanese mainland troops but its turned into something else.

Because it's completely irrelevant to a naval discussion.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

swerve, just ignore him. He's obviously a Korean nationalist/military fan-boy with some strange agenda and/or prejudice that's making him say all this rubbish. You're just wasting your time talking to him - you can't reason with someone who isn't playing with a full deck of cards.

 

[performance]

A mistake made by almost everyone who's ever lost a war. They don't take enough account of numbers, e.g. they count the tanks but don't count the lorries, or radios, or reliability, or how long the troops have trained (a number which is in Japans favour compared to S. Korea, BTW), or the quality of their training. Numbers (all the numbers, not just the obvious, visible ones, such as how many men) are one of the two classes of things that count: the other is will.

You haven't really countered my point, you've elaborated quite well. Numbers are important never stated that they weren't. Numbers are not the end all of wars. US was heavily outnumbered in the Pacific war with Japan but superior strategy and planning prevailed and won the war.

Then why do you keep understating it? You've consistently understated their numbers of ships, their capabilities, & their naval air power.

You have zero idea what the Naval force is capable of. Do you even realize that Japanese destroyers were not built to same military specifications as American destroyers?

You've stood this on its head. Japan does not need complete dominance to defend its shores. An invader needs dominance over Japans navy & air force in order to land & supply an invasion force. Japan needs only the ability to disrupt the invasion sufficiently to prevent a significant force being landed & supplied. Parity is more than enough for that, & Japan has better than parity.

Japan needs superiority at the least to prevent a ground force of any size landing. Japanese ships are not made out of some special alien material that prevents them from harm.

So tell me how do you have dominance of u214 subs? How do you dominant the seas and air when the enemy has missile capabilities? I seriously doubt SK has the potential to win a purely naval/air war but does Japan have the capability of preventing a ground force landing? Not a chance, why dont you look up Japanese documents regarding their defense policies what I'm saying is backed up by them.

Remind you this is not America where we are thousands of miles away. In the pacific war we had no option but to decimate their navy first which we did.

So what? We're discussing their ability to defend Japan, not attack anyone else. If you'd suggested that a Japanese invasion of Korea was possible, I'd be describing why it would fail even if Koreas army was weaker than Japans, i.e. because Japan does not have the degree of naval dominance necessary to get an invasion force safely ashore.

You are not getting it. Its similar to the weakest link. You see numbers and think its won. There's no point in arguing with you as you refuse to see anything but numbers rather than the strategy regarding military geography or the actual capabilities of Japanese ships.

Admin: Text deleted. This kind of response and type of engagement is completely unacceptable. Please make an effort to read the rules anout expectations of how members participate - and the issue of courtesy.

You have been on these forums long enough to know what and what is not an acceptable style of participation.

 

[Waylander]

Alright Mr. Musashi_kenshin, you can talk when you aren't a subsidary of the US. I'm American and I'm white. Let me put it to you in a simple way, you get what we give you. You do what we say. Do you understand?

Ok, that's it.
Pure racism.
Mod?

 

[swerve]

You haven't really countered my point, you've elaborated quite well. Numbers are important never stated that they weren't. Numbers are not the end all of wars. US was heavily outnumbered in the Pacific war with Japan but superior strategy and planning prevailed and won the war.

You have zero idea what the Naval force is capable of. Do you even realize that Japanese destroyers were not built to same military specifications as American destroyers?

Japan needs superiority at the least to prevent a ground force of any size landing. Japanese ships are not made out of some special alien material that prevents them from harm.

So tell me how do you have dominance of u214 subs? How do you dominant the seas and air when the enemy has missile capabilities? I seriously doubt SK has the potential to win a purely naval/air war but does Japan have the capability of preventing a ground force landing? Not a chance, why dont you look up Japanese documents regarding their defense policies what I'm saying is backed up by them.

Remind you this is not America where we are thousands of miles away. In the pacific war we had no option but to decimate their navy first which we did.

You are not getting it. Its similar to the weakest link. You see numbers and think its won. There's no point in arguing with you as you refuse to see anything but numbers rather than the strategy regarding military geography or the actual capabilities of Japanese ships.

Alright Mr. Musashi_kenshin, you can talk when you aren't a subsidary of the US. I'm American and I'm white. Let me put it to you in a simple way, you get what we give you. You do what we say. Do you understand?

Oh dear. As well as racist rants (I don't see you lasting much longer), you can't get your facts right. The USA was not "heavily outnumbered in the Pacific war with Japan". The Japanese forces which seized the Philippines, Malaya, the NEI & Burma were fewer in number than the defenders. The US Pacific offensives later in the war invariably employed more men, & far more ships, guns & aircraft than the Japanese had to oppose them. In between, there was a period when, because of the favourable (to Japan) loss ratio at the beginning of the war, Japanese forces in the Pacific (excluding China) had superior numbers & firepower. But it was brief, & the numbers behind the troops were always against them.

For example, smaller, worse-equipped Japanese shipyards, short of materials, weren't able to repair damaged ships as fast as the USA could, hence the Japanese only having 4 carriers at Midway (all they could deploy), & being surprised to encounter 3 US carriers (they underestimated how fast Yorktown could be repaired). Midway would probably have been a crushing Japanese victory if certain numbers (in this case, ship repairing capacity) hadn't been in the US favour. If Japan had repaired ships as fast as the USA, & the USA as fast as Japan, six Japanese carriers could have met two US carriers. But even then, their air wings would have been understrength, because Japans losses ratio up to that point had still been faster than it could build fighters & train pilots, while the USA had more of both than before it entered the war, although Japan had lost fewer than its opponents. Numbers, y'see? WW2 is the classic example of a war won by numbers. The US military, very sensibly, fought it that way, & it worked very well for them.

Now as for geography - I can't see you taking any account of geography in your fantasies about a Korean invasion of Japan (BTW, how old are you? 13? It seems like a kids wargame scenario). You've not acknowledged what I said about Great Britain & the sea, for example. You've shown no awareness of the geography of Japan & Korea in relation to each other, & how it affects your scenario.

Dominance: again, you've completely failed to understand anything. THE DEFENDER DOES NOT NEED DOMINANCE (sorry for shouting, everyone else). THE ATTACKER NEEDS DOMINANCE. For a seaborne invasion of defended territory to succeed, almost everything has to go right. You are assuming the defender needs to crush the attacker, which is wrong. The defender needs only to prevent the attacker achieving his goal. If the battle between the attacking & defending naval forces is a stalemate, the invasion is defeated. I do not need to show Japanese superiority, or invulnerability, or ability to dominate anything. You need to show Korean invulnerability & ability to dominate. Korean ships have missiles - so? Japanese ships have missiles. Japanese naval shipbuilding standards aren't the same as American - so? You don't know what they are. They aren't published.

If you aren't banned first, I'd like you to tell us
1) how many troops you think S. Korea could embark, on what ships, & with what equipment.
2) what part of that force could be successfully landed in Japan
3) what casualties the JMSDF & JASDF would suffer attempting to prevent it
4) what casualties the S. Korean navy & air force would suffer attempting to prevent it. 3 & 4 should be compared
5) the implications of 3 & 4 for supplying any landed force.
6) what landed force you think it would take to conquer Japan.

If the results of 1-2 don't end up with 6, & 5 is not favourable, you're stuffed. You've not said anything (no numbers!) to show that you have any answers. Now put up or shut up.

 

[contedicavour]

Let's just go back to topic, ie the new ships and subs of the South Korean Navy.
Does anybody know if the potential aircraft carrier often mentioned would be a sort of enlarged LPX (which at 12,000t is already close to the Italian CVV Garibaldi) ? Does anybody have some details on the plan for a carrier ?

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I assume the other part of what he said is that Masushi is Japanese & that Japan is a subsidiary of US, does & gets what US gives them.

Jesus wept, you idiot. I'm not Japanese - look at my bloody profile location! I've told you more than once. How many more times do I have to tell you?

I actually don't see this as too far from the truth although I would've been more discreet.

No one has the right to tell others to "shut up" because they feel they're in a position of dominance. That sort of behaviour is one reason why Americans generally get a bad rep - because of arrogant jerks like performance.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Everyone needs to calm down.

Racist comments are not acceptable - and there needs to be some self control in replying even if you are the target of such comments.

As has happened here, posts will be reported to the Mods and the offending thread and/or poster will be dealt with as soon as one of us is available. Do not accelerate the problem by furthering the issue and by losing self control.

Apart from the member who has been banned for racist comments, can all others who were targets of this go back and self edit their earlier posts.

 

[daewon]

Let's just go back to topic, ie the new ships and subs of the South Korean Navy.
Does anybody know if the potential aircraft carrier often mentioned would be a sort of enlarged LPX (which at 12,000t is already close to the Italian CVV Garibaldi) ? Does anybody have some details on the plan for a carrier ?

cheers

ROKN has no plans in the foreseeable future to acquire a carrier. LPX(reclassified as LPH) doesn't have the space and capability to operate fixed wing aircrafts. It's well-dock takes up too much space and the hanger deck isn't roomy enough to accommodate fighter jets. At its current size it can only support helo activities.

Although ROKN has continously expressed its desire for at least a small carrier carrying VSTOL planes, there simply DOESN'T exist a plan for it. ROKN is hard pressed to get choppers for its new LPH, they wouldn't have the money to get itself shiny new F-35s or even Harriers for that matter. Besides without nuclear submarines and adequate AAW destroyers carriers wouldn't be worth a ****. SK is in the process of building a capable "escort" force and its Taskforces are likely to be built around Amphibious assets like the LPH rather than a true carrier. Once ROKN has established its surface combatants as fully capable Bluewater navy and acquired enough AIP if not nuclear subs then they can start thinking about carriers. At the moment its just an overly ambitious dream.

 

[contedicavour]

ROKN has no plans in the foreseeable future to acquire a carrier. LPX(reclassified as LPH) doesn't have the space and capability to operate fixed wing aircrafts. It's well-dock takes up too much space and the hanger deck isn't roomy enough to accommodate fighter jets. At its current size it can only support helo activities.

Although ROKN has continously expressed its desire for at least a small carrier carrying VSTOL planes, there simply DOESN'T exist a plan for it. ROKN is hard pressed to get choppers for its new LPH, they wouldn't have the money to get itself shiny new F-35s or even Harriers for that matter. Besides without nuclear submarines and adequate AAW destroyers carriers wouldn't be worth a ****. SK is in the process of building a capable "escort" force and its Taskforces are likely to be built around Amphibious assets like the LPH rather than a true carrier. Once ROKN has established its surface combatants as fully capable Bluewater navy and acquired enough AIP if not nuclear subs then they can start thinking about carriers. At the moment its just an overly ambitious dream.

Thanks. So no CVL/CVV in the near future.
You mention however SSNs in your post - U214s with AIP are enough in terms of autonomy (submerged) and weapons aren't they ? ... at least for the foreseeable future.

cheers