Help support TMP


"South Korea's Planned New Aircraft Carrier May Have A" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Cheap Buys: 1/300 Scale Hot Wheels Blimp

You can pick up a toy blimp in the local toy department for less than a dollar.


Featured Workbench Article

Eve of Destruction

Lonewolf dcc Fezian paints another of Hasslefree's adventurers.


Featured Profile Article

Military Playsets at Dollar Tree

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian locates some hard-to-find military toys at the dollar store.


Current Poll


802 hits since 4 Sep 2021
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0104 Sep 2021 9:12 p.m. PST

…Distinctly British Flavor

"Seoul (CNN)South Korea's planned aircraft carrier could have a distinctly British flavor. In fact, it could be a mini version of the Queen Elizabeth.

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) this week signed a memorandum of understanding with top British defense contractor, Babcock International, to work together to design and build the new CVX, South Korea's light aircraft carrier.

"This partnership is to collate the core technologies of the two companies to win an order for the basic design of a light aircraft carrier and to build a ship. Hyundai Heavy Industries and Babcock had successfully completed the conceptual design, the first stage of ship design, last year," a statement from Hyundai said…"

picture


Main page

link

Hyundai says the 30,000-ton level ship would be 260 meters (850 feet) long and 57 meters (187 feet) wide. By comparison, the UK's Queen Elizabeth class is 65,000 tons, 920 feet long and has a beam of 240 feet…


Armand

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian04 Sep 2021 9:21 p.m. PST

Having a hard time seeing the necessity for this. Can anyone explain?

HMS Exeter04 Sep 2021 9:33 p.m. PST

There is a great line from a pretty mediocre movie, "Other People's Money."

"Having lawyers is like having nuclear weapons. If you have them, people respect you, but if you actually use them, they ruin everything."

Aircraft Carriers are the non nuclear nukes.

Midlander6504 Sep 2021 11:25 p.m. PST

The Korean Peninsula has a lot of coast and I seem to remember carriers playing a disproportionately large role the last time the North invaded. Also the South's air bases are all going to be on the target list for the North's missiles – those that aren't actually within range for tube artillery.

jurgenation Supporting Member of TMP05 Sep 2021 4:54 a.m. PST

So basically a Amphib assault ship.

Wackmole905 Sep 2021 5:30 a.m. PST

Because they no longer have a relievable ally.

OSCS7405 Sep 2021 6:09 a.m. PST

Nice looking ship! Naval forces in the Far East are growing to counter the Chinese threat.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse05 Sep 2021 10:31 a.m. PST

Yes, don't see the ROK would really need this. Unless they plan on defending Japan or Taiwan vs. the PRC/CCP ?

The Korean Peninsula has a lot of coast and I seem to remember carriers playing a disproportionately large role the last time the North invaded. Also the South's air bases are all going to be on the target list for the North's missiles – those that aren't actually within range for tube artillery.

Very true it may also be useful if there is an invasion of the North ? But that seems unlikely at this time or in the near future ?

Shutting down the North's massive missiles and long ranged FA could give them the "first shot" advantage. But after that they will certainly get large/massive return fires. Then whatever advantage they have may be over.

However, that fire shot could do a lot of damage. Primarily to Seoul at this time. But could also damage some ROK forces as well …

Spent 22 months in a forward deployed Mech Bn/2ID in the ROK, '84-'85. We would get reports on "commandos" from the North attacking along the large coast of Korea. Always ended up with all of them being dead. We saw the photos from the ROKs. The North denied everything of course ..

Thresher0106 Sep 2021 4:52 a.m. PST

Everyone wants a carrier.

It's the new status symbol for nations and their leaders, to show they ARE truly a force to be reckoned with, regardless of their actual utility for the countries in question, whether they can even operate jet aircraft successfully on their own from them (yes, I'm looking at China and the UK here), and whether they can actually defend them from attack (as previously mentioned).

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse06 Sep 2021 9:59 a.m. PST

Everyone wants a carrier.
Yes, like Battleships of old they certainly are a status symbol, etc. However, the $/
"won"[ROK money] may be better spent else where on their military ?

Thresher0109 Sep 2021 10:21 a.m. PST

Apparently the SKs also have a new sub-launched, ballistic missile, but no nuke-tip for it, making it the only ballistic missile without such a warhead.

Of course, the Iranians are developing ballistic missiles too, and possibly they don't have nuke tips for them yet either, but no SLBMs that I'm aware of.

Of course, they could already hove some nuke warheads for them too, since for the last 30 years we've been warned by "the experts" that they are only 6 months away from developing one. My guess is they've probably already got 12 – 20+ now. Perhaps not Iranian made, but I suspect North Korea, the Chinese, and/or the Pakistanis might have sold them some. Perhaps even the Russians too.

Tango0109 Sep 2021 9:59 p.m. PST

Republic of Korea Navy launches new Daegu-class frigate Pohang


picture

link

Armand

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.