PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Korean Aircraft Carrier? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/613290-korean-aircraft-carrier.html)

ORAC 13th Sep 2018 07:49

Korean Aircraft Carrier?
 
Don’t you love euphemisms?

Now that China has aircraft carriers and Japan wants to turn its “destroyers” into “mother ships*” - Korea wants aircraft carrying “transport ships”. Still, it’s different to a “through deck cruiser”.......

* https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...r#post10157904

Marine Corps mulls new transport ship, UAVs to reinforce amphibious capabilities

Marine Corps mulls new transport ship, UAVs to reinforce amphibious capabilities

SEOUL, Sept. 12 (Yonhap) -- The Marine Corps is considering introducing a large transport ship capable of carrying warplanes, and mobilizing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to enhance its amphibious operations and surveillance capabilities, its chief said Wednesday.

During his keynote speech at a security seminar, Lt. Gen. Jun Jin-goo also expressed his desire to capitalize on robotics and other cutting-edge technologies to enhance the marines' maritime power projection capabilities. "We are considering building the LPX (large platform experimental)-type ship capable of carrying aircraft in close cooperation with the Navy," Jun said.

He did not specify what aircraft will be carried by the envisioned ship. But observers say that the commander might have in mind the F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the U.S.-made radar-evading fighter........




Obi Wan Russell 13th Sep 2018 08:38

So they want a bigger version of this?https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1a6f760933.jpg

ORAC 13th Sep 2018 10:28


dook 13th Sep 2018 10:38

I wonder what Little Fat Rocket Man will want.

orca 13th Sep 2018 13:13

Someone stop them! Can they not see? The road is marked ‘Aircraft Carriers’ but that way only lies financial ruin and doom at the hand of easily bought and operated weapon systems.

orca 13th Sep 2018 13:17

Of course, the USN, USMC, Russians, Chinese, Italians, Indians, Spanish, French and UK all made the same mistake.

Perhaps worthy of wider debate.😉

friartuck 13th Sep 2018 15:05

Seems an odd buy for S Korea.... the NK forces are right outside Seoul - not half way across the Pacific. They have no colonies or even ex-Colonies ..... what benefit do they bring?

Japan I can see has a case but the RSK is closely surrounded by three much larger powers and 1 nutcase - it's like the Belgians or the Danes deciding they need one .......

MPN11 13th Sep 2018 16:27


Originally Posted by ORAC (Post 10248172)
Or like this..

What? No Ski Jump? How do they cope?

friartuck 13th Sep 2018 16:45

If Korean Matelots are anything like the Korean businessmen I deal with they won't need any training from the RN for their first visit to Jacksonville Beach.......

sandiego89 13th Sep 2018 16:45


Originally Posted by friartuck (Post 10248406)
Seems an odd buy for S Korea.... the NK forces are right outside Seoul - not half way across the Pacific. They have no colonies or even ex-Colonies ..... what benefit do they bring?

.......

Perhaps the obvious? Ships can move around, unlike air bases and ports. Even in a defensive or close fought war (or humanitarian relief) there can be advantages in being mobile....

KenV 13th Sep 2018 17:10


Originally Posted by friartuck (Post 10248406)
Seems an odd buy for S Korea.... the NK forces are right outside Seoul - not half way across the Pacific. They have no colonies or even ex-Colonies ..... what benefit do they bring?

Consider who is being quoted. This is the head of the S Korean Marine Corps, which is primarily responsible for amphibious operations. Consider the Inchon landings during the last war. Being able to strike deeply in your enemy's rear can be very very powerful militarily. He thinks such a ship will help him do that.

Fareastdriver 13th Sep 2018 19:37

It's their money. They can do what they like with it.

Navaleye 14th Sep 2018 04:37

I doubt if Dokdo could operate the. Short deck, no ski jump. A bit like trying to operate Harriers off HMS Ocean, but worse.

tartare 14th Sep 2018 05:11

Don't do it.
Why?
Two letters - two numbers.
DF-21.

friartuck 14th Sep 2018 07:27


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 10248488)
Consider who is being quoted. This is the head of the S Korean Marine Corps, which is primarily responsible for amphibious operations. Consider the Inchon landings during the last war. Being able to strike deeply in your enemy's rear can be very very powerful militarily. He thinks such a ship will help him do that.

Good point Ken - I guess "don't ask a barber if you need a haircut" applies...

glad rag 14th Sep 2018 12:11

Wonder if the airframes cost more than the tub?

glad rag 14th Sep 2018 12:12


Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell (Post 10248092)
So they want a bigger version of this?https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1a6f760933.jpg


So what gives with half the bow railings up and half down?

friartuck 14th Sep 2018 13:02

blowing up the picture you can see the two items to the right of the Goalkeeper (or whatever) look like TV camera's - so the Great God PR probably wanted a nice railing-less shot of the ship cleaving the deep blue seas...................

NutLoose 14th Sep 2018 14:55


Lt. Gen. Jun Jin-goo
Would that be old Sticky? :E

Perhaps they need to dust off the old skyhook concept tested on the Harrier

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....26696fc3be.jpg

NutLoose 14th Sep 2018 15:03

Or the decidedly ropey system they utilized during the war.... It worked, but the terms stuff that for a game of soldiers comes to mind.

see

https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.ph...he-War!-Forums


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.