South Korean Navy

[StingrayOZ]

I belive neither the South Korean nor the Japanese ships can operate the F-35B. They aren't really long enough (another 20m would do it), they also lack a ski jump. Also they would require the entire deck to launch and they aren't quite wide enough to do that operationally with other aircraft on deck.

You could maybe squeeze a Harrier on if there were any about..

It would be a possible task to extend either design on a new build ship.

 

[contedicavour]

I belive neither the South Korean nor the Japanese ships can operate the F-35B. They aren't really long enough (another 20m would do it), they also lack a ski jump. Also they would require the entire deck to launch and they aren't quite wide enough to do that operationally with other aircraft on deck.

You could maybe squeeze a Harrier on if there were any about..

It would be a possible task to extend either design on a new build ship.

Just a question : if the F35B is fully STOVL as the Harrier is, then length of runway isn't really an obstacle is it ?
I'd rather look at the size of the elevators and of the hangars to see to what extent F35Bs would fit.
Sure, taking off vertically or almost reduces autonomy and weapons load, but if you use air to air capabilities only, then it should be enough.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Just a question : if the F35B is fully STOVL as the Harrier is, then length of runway isn't really an obstacle is it ?

But even if it wasn't a problem, the lack of hanger space/adequate lift size means you could only have a few on-board.

Really that's not enough - you need a properly configured aircraft carrier.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The length of the runway plays a part if you want a functional F-35B.

Sure it could take off with no payload in maybe 180-190m, or with almost no fuel in say ~150m. But they are also narrow ships so landing would also be interesting. I do doubt it would be able to do all the harrier tricks as nicely as there is less directional control. I also doubt the F-35b will be able to take off from container ships, helicopter decks etc.

The container ship experiment showed it doesn't work. You need to have the ship specially designed to handle the aircraft.

The F-35B is over 20 Tons. Twice the weight of a Harrier. Its also a bit larger than a harrier.

Lifts, deck, structure, hanger, etc will all have to be designed with this in mind. Also to note every country looking at replacing the harrier with the F-35B is building new ships to take the new aircraft.

What the hell is either country going to do with a carrier anyway? There are so many disputed territories that are stones throw away from large military air bases. None have territorial claims afar, neither participates significantly in UN peace keeping forces where such a force is required, both fall under the US umbrella. The thing would be a magnet for North Korean and Chinese missiles and subs anyway.

This is as nuts as Israel getting a carrier.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

What the hell is either country going to do with a carrier anyway?

Eh? What if a conflict area was not in range of any land-bases, or the countries that hosted them refused to allow their use for the conflict?

Why are you talking about Chinese submarines - why do you assume it would be used against the PLAN? By the time any British or French carrier-group could arrive in East Asia the conflict would probably be over.

 

[European]

The length of the runway plays a part if you want a functional F-35B.

Sure it could take off with no payload in maybe 180-190m, or with almost no fuel in say ~150m. But they are also narrow ships so landing would also be interesting. I do doubt it would be able to do all the harrier tricks as nicely as there is less directional control. I also doubt the F-35b will be able to take off from container ships, helicopter decks etc.


The F-35B is over 20 Tons. Twice the weight of a Harrier. Its also a bit larger than a harrier.

The Harrier AV8b+ needs 120-140 mt and a skyjump to take-off when armed. The available runaway of Garibaldi aircraft carrier is max 140mt and Av8b+ took off armed and with tanks during Afghanistan operations.

Are u sure the F35B needs 180mt when empty?
So, how much runaway needs when armed?

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

The Harrier AV8b+ needs 120-140 mt and a skyjump to take-off when armed. The available runaway of Garibaldi aircraft carrier is max 140mt and Av8b+ took off armed and with tanks during Afghanistan operations.

Are u sure the F35B needs 180mt when empty?
So, how much runaway needs when armed?

Cheers

Very good questions indeed. How many meters of runway are needed for a F35Bs with 4 AIM120s and 2 IRIS-T if there is a 15° ski-jump at the end ?
This is key to understand what will happen to Garibaldi (and also to Spain's Asturias and potential second-hand buyers of former RN Invicibles) once the Harriers are retired.
A final question : a full VTOL (vertical take off) is possible with F35B ? A bit like in Diehard 4

cheers

 

[10ringr]

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.

There is that little issue of the last time the North got into it with the South they had Chinese running across the Ya-Loo river in support of the North. Obviously whatever the case they are no match by themselves but then they're not by themselves. Perhaps they are looking at things a bit more globally. Hutch

 

[swerve]

Very good questions indeed. How many meters of runway are needed for a F35Bs with 4 AIM120s and 2 IRIS-T if there is a 15° ski-jump at the end ?
This is key to understand what will happen to Garibaldi (and also to Spain's Asturias and potential second-hand buyers of former RN Invicibles) once the Harriers are retired.
A final question : a full VTOL (vertical take off) is possible with F35B ? A bit like in Diehard 4

cheers

With 30 knots wind over deck, an F-35B should be able to take off at maximum T/O weight in ca 150 metres with a ski-jump like that planned for the CVFs. I reckon that means that an F-35B could take off well armed & with full internal fuel from Garibaldi. In ideal conditions, using the full flight deck, with a good wind, steaming into it, maybe at full T/O weight.

From Cavour, an F-35B should be able to take off fully loaded in all conditions where weather & sea state permits flight operations.

AFAIK a full VTOL take-off will not be possible for F-35B with any useful load. Maybe as an airshow trick.

 

[swerve]

There is that little issue of the last time the North got into it with the South they had Chinese running across the Ya-Loo river in support of the North. Obviously whatever the case they are no match by themselves but then they're not by themselves. Perhaps they are looking at things a bit more globally. Hutch

Circumstances have changed. The relative strengths of the North & South, in economic, technological & military terms, the attitudes of their neighbours - everything. 1950 is not relevant to the current situation, except for how it affects feelings.

 

[10ringr]

Circumstances have changed. The relative strengths of the North & South, in economic, technological & military terms, the attitudes of their neighbours - everything. 1950 is not relevant to the current situation, except for how it affects feelings.

Really, not relevant. What a complete lack of understanding of the situation. The north and south are still officially at war and you come up with that. Not trying to be rude here, but I wonder if you guys actually read and understand history. It is one thing to have an honest disagreement and debate it but it's an entirely different matter when people make statements that clearly have no understanding of either what has happened, what is happening or what is likely to happen in the future. No, it isn't about feelings my friend, that's a song by Tom Jones. Hutch:unknown

 

[Izzy1]

Well instead of giving us the usual rant, why don't you enlighten us all with some facts to actually back up your opinion?

 

[10ringr]

Well instead of giving us the usual rant, why don't you enlighten us all with some facts to actually back up your opinion?

Read about the Korean War. It's actually pretty simple. You don't after all have to be a soldier to understand about power projection, why I'll bet even a chair bound paper pusher would understand these things. Hutch

 

[Izzy1]

why I'll bet even a chair bound paper pusher would understand these things.

Would you care to maybe elaborate on that?

What is it with your constant aggressive manner anyway?

 

[10ringr]

Would you care to maybe elaborate on that?

What is it with your constant aggressive manner anyway?

I didn't decide to inject my snippy comment into this thread, you did that. What elaboration do you require? Hutch

 

[Izzy1]

I'm sorry if you viewed my comment as snippy. However, Swerve's thread did make a valid point.

Given your strong view against what he said, I was interested to hear further factual points to back up your opinion.

 

[10ringr]

I'm sorry if you viewed my comment as snippy. However, Swerve's thread did make a valid point.

Given your strong view against what he said, I was interested to hear further factual points to back up your opinion.

Deterring aggression. How duz one do that. Well, if your N. and S. Korea you make it to expensive for either side to wage war against the other they don't dare do it. The U.S. and Soviets.Russians were/are prime examples of this with M.A.D. All that was being said is that by building and deploying major surface vessels, in this case a carrier it is likely because they understand this principle (obviously). We also withdrew some of our troops and moved others south of the 38th Para. It isn't any wonder why they want to send a strong message and this basic fact hasn't changed. Hutch

 

[Izzy1]

Valid points.

But I still have to agree with Swerve's view that things today - especially geopolitically, are very different from that of the 1950s. In my opinion, North Korea and the Kim Jong Il regime in particular can no longer relly on the wholehearted support of Beijing or Moscow.

Given this thread is not about the DPRK-ROK stand-off as such, I will try and keep this brief. However...

Economically for instance, South Korea today is far more important to Russia and China than it ever has. South Korea is for instance China's second largest import partner and Seoul has become a key foreign investor in Russian infrastructure. North Korea on the other hand is an economic burden - especially for the Chinese who for instance are having to deal with the ever growing exodus of starving refugees from the DPRK. Jasper Becker's "Rogue Regime:" gives some graphic yet insightful views on this particular problem.

I would also argue, that any Chinese or Russian assistance to North Korean aspirations would be counter-productive to one of their key foreign policy tenets - keeping Japan militarily out of Asia. Keeping Tokyo out is linked directly to maintaining a stable Korean peninsular.

In conclusion, if North Korea ever did threaten to "go South" I honestly forsee regime-change formulated not in Washington - but from Beijing and Moscow.

 

[swerve]

Really, not relevant. What a complete lack of understanding of the situation. The north and south are still officially at war and you come up with that. Not trying to be rude here, but I wonder if you guys actually read and understand history. It is one thing to have an honest disagreement and debate it but it's an entirely different matter when people make statements that clearly have no understanding of either what has happened, what is happening or what is likely to happen in the future. No, it isn't about feelings my friend, that's a song by Tom Jones. Hutch:unknown

Izzy's replied more or less as I would have done.

Putting a different hat on for a moment, might I suggest that you support statements such as the one I've underlined above by some kind of analysis of the situation as you see it, & explanation of why you consider what others have said lacks validity.

 

[10ringr]

Izzy's replied more or less as I would have done.

Putting a different hat on for a moment, might I suggest that you support statements such as the one I've underlined above by some kind of analysis of the situation as you see it, & explanation of why you consider what others have said lacks validity.

This is what he said " Originally Posted by swerve
Circumstances have changed. The relative strengths of the North & South, in economic, technological & military terms, the attitudes of their neighbours - everything. 1950 is not relevant to the current situation, except for how it affects feelings."

Ok, I see where you are going and I understand it. If you boil down what we originally were talking about it was about why the S. Koreans would want an Aircraft Carrier which led into the debate about power projection which is after all the point of having a carrier then it went into interdependent economics and eventually into "feelings". Interesting facts put out here. If I'm reading you right then your point is there is so much economic interdependency that conflict has been ruled out and time has made it no longer potentially explosive and I think this is where our opinions differ. I see North Korea continuing to export Ballistic missile technology, lighting off underground low yield nukes. Enough artillery pieces aimed at the south to destroy Seoul in minutes, (literally) and an eccentric madman in Kim Jung Il who wants to black mail everyone in order for him to keep an iron grip on the people. I also see the US understanding clearly that the North million man army + would walk over the US's 37,000 troops and 600K+ or at least make the damage unacceptable in losses so they've moved some of the troops far enough south to keep them out of low yield tactical nukes in case they really do decide to make war. These people have been officially at war and it's currently an armistice that's not peace. It's war without shooting. I hope we never have to fight them again but since the last time we did we ended up fighting the Chinese and the fact that the Chinese already are bristling at Taiwan I don't think we'd better take chances. The sure way of doing that is peace through strength like President Reagan used to say. Which brings us all the way around again, back to the original point why they need/want an aircraft carrier. Why indeed....... Hutch