SK aircraft carrier will be 50,000+ tons

CVX 50,000+ tons with multiple squadrons of KF-21Ns

ROK MOD determined light aircraft carriers are essentially useless in the modern battlefield

Commissioned on or before 2033

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >slope
    fricking why

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Has to fly UP into the sky.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To trigger the /k/ids, as you can see.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >slope

      You're supposed to say Asian-American.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >a fricking ramp

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >cope slope
    how will south korea spammed EVER recover!?

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    is this the one they’re doing with the help of Italy?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Probably the UK, supposed to be a modern QE class

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    kek that subline is great
    > Seoul upsizes its CVX carrier program in a flex more about techno-nationalism than sound military strategy.
    frickin' scathing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Lmfao moron, its Asia Times, a CCP China shill magazine that used to be British/HK until the commie takeover, the fact that the title reads that way means the chinks are nervous and the koreans are doing something right

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yup, same as how the chinese are b***hing that Australia has no use for 5+ nuclear submarines, AUKUS should increase the Australian nuclear submarine fleet to 10+ given the response from china

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I mean everyone knows it's true, why the frick does SK even need carriers? Their only real enemy is north Korea right on their northern border. I guess with some carriers they could move up along the coast and attack north Korea from the north, but outside of that, what the frick is the point?

        It's just postering bullshit, I highly doubt they even get built at all, waste of fricking money.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Why do the UK, France, US have carriers? Its the same precise reason why ROK is building the CVX, you can't fit your agenda and narrative to what the realities of the ROK strategic GLOBAL objectives, if you know anything about SK military-industrial-complex this is an fete accompli

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            and yet they still can't figure out steam catapults.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              catobar is useless unless you plan for long range force projection. for regional powers that don't need jets packed to the brim with fuel and bombs a ramp is more than enough, while spending a fraction of what americans spend, since they have to literally design the carrier around the catapult. But what do you know, you're just a stupid mutt good for nothing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                its okay soukie, its fine that you can't progress past 1950's carrier technology.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                to launch a plane, do the helicopter pilots take off, hover, and land again?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This is why SK is going with catobar, regional "powers" are countries like north korea, japan and thailand

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/ePFc7yt.jpg

              its okay soukie, its fine that you can't progress past 1950's carrier technology.

              I never understand why slopes are popular as it is. Conventional carriers with catapults are possible given that Forrestal-class and Kitty Hawk-class existed. Are slopes just as good for a fraction of the price?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Simply a matter of cost. To add on to your point, the US first outfitted steam catapults even before the Forrestal; starting with the Essex class carriers and their SCB-27 refit starting in 1947.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The US has them because they are the dominant military force.
            UK and France have them to pretend they are still geopolitically relevant.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Pretend
              >Still some of the largest arms producers and high GDPs in the world
              This isn't Russia, they actually provide valuable things to the world per capita.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                UK is essentially a parts supplier, France only sells to third world nations that can't get real western weapons

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >France only sells to third world nations
                Cope and rent free Nigel

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            UK and France because they're former imperial navy super powers.

            US because they are the current world super power.

            China because they want to be a super power

            ROK.... no fricking clue why they'd waste their money when they're already struggling to find the money for their airforce.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              ROK to some extent have global superpower ambitions, obviously not trying to be the US or the China infestation approach, but SK economy is highly dependent on trade and the current rules based world order, and SK is increasingly arming up to enforce this upon any bad actors that seeks to upset this balance

              Keep in mind that SK is more than willing to engage in combat warfare, ROK sent 350,000+ combat troops to Vietnam to support the US but stayed for years after the US exited

              There is no possibility that ROK would engage in a war of aggression, but ROK will probably be the first nation to deploy real combat assets if anything breaks out in east asia or compromises their trade lines globally

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If you want to be real, they're a decade or two early, at the EARLIEST to really "afford" carriers.

                They're already spending a large percent of their GDP on their military. Adding a few carriers that require constant miantance and air wings that have similar funding needs, it's just a recipe for budget shortfalls elsewhere. Seems dumb when they're simply not needed, and would provide minimal actual strategic advantage.

                They just don't have an economy anywhere close to France or the UK.

                South Korea has sub $2T GDP, both the UK and France are at or near $3T.

                That's a pretty big economic gap for SK to bridge just to show off some carriers that they don't need.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A few factors in SK advantage relative to France or UK

                SK has much less of their budget allocated to social welfare and related wasted capital, this is part of why SK can allocate a greater percentage of their budget to the military

                The next equally important factor is that SK is the largest shipbuilder in the world, going back and forth depending on the month with China, with shipyards larger than some small countries, SK always gets the biggest most complex orders and China gets the discount purchases when SK capacity is too full, so while an aircraft carrier is different from shipping vessels, the infrastructure is in place and the aircraft carrier is going to be a lot smaller than the large shipping vessels that SK pumps out on the reg, this combined with UK technical support, etc. is going to drive down the cost

                Also, the UK and France really only have Russia to worry about near their homelands, SK has China that is building a navy on paper larger than the US and SK and China butt heads in the waters almost everyday, there's almost no way for SK not to build the CVX as well as the submarines with slbms, every nation in asia thinks that if they can control Korea they can rule the world, but this will never happen because SK and even NK would nuke China if full scale hostilities break out

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Even so, they'd be better off spending the entire KF-21N and CVX budget on the KDDX/KDX-IV program instead.

                More destroyers is far more valuable for the ROKN than carriers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >every nation in asia thinks that if they can control Korea they can rule the world
                I have to admit, you might be a fricking moron, but your posts are god damn hilarious

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >every nation in asia thinks that if they can control Korea they can rule the world

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it's just a recipe for budget shortfalls elsewhere
                They don't need to spend billions on Black folk, and they're clamping down on feminism so they can save money on subsidizing women's jobs with "equal opportunity" bullshit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What a shock, you're the asiaticshill from the other thread

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's almost like the UK, France and the US have overseas territories (and bases) and that aircraft carriers and airpower are an important part of protecting said territories.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Fait accompli.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              That's a good kmfdm song

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do the UK, France, US have carriers?
            >France
            Two reasons:
            Firstly France has overseas territories contrarily to SK. No the Liancourt rocks do not count.
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks
            Secondly because the flat deck aircraft carrier was first conceptualized by the french aviation pionner Clément Ader in his 1909 book titled l'aviation militaire, among many other concepts related directly, or not, to the use of aviation during war.
            Read:
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrier#Genesis_of_the_flat-deck_carrier
            Direct source:
            >https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Ader_-_L’Aviation_militaire._1911.pdf
            Pages 58 to 60. Pic related because I love to educate brainlets.
            in b4
            >WhY dO yOu UsE sOmEtHiNg YoU hAvE iNvEnTeD?
            kek
            About the UK and US there are enough rosbifs and burgers ITT to give you all the historically relevant answers you may need.

            [...]
            I never understand why slopes are popular as it is. Conventional carriers with catapults are possible given that Forrestal-class and Kitty Hawk-class existed. Are slopes just as good for a fraction of the price?

            >I never understand why slopes are popular as it is. Conventional carriers with catapults are possible given that Forrestal-class and Kitty Hawk-class existed. Are slopes just as good for a fraction of the price?
            I'm still hoping they will one day add some new kind of structures: loops, box jumps, wave ramps, quarter pipes, vert ramps, bowls...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          A few reasons come to mind really quickly
          -Mobile airfield that can be kept safe from NK missile strikes
          -Can be used to support Taiwan and thus prevent Chinese naval dominance in the region
          -To show off that they can for potential foreign buyers

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Their enemy is China. In the event of war between US and China, both Korea and Japan will join in the war. In fact, just last week, the Korean president went to Japan for the first time in two decades to settle some issues regarding compensation for the supposed "forced labor" during the Empire days (the Korean side backed down)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lmfao, South Korea yes, Japan not so much, and just last week? The SK president is in Japan now being treated as a Japanese emperor, he literally said who gives a frick about the past where nobody alive even lived through it, and told the entire region that SK with Japan's support can dominate asia and maintain the rules based (anglosphere) world order

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Their only real enemy is north Korea
          what is behind best korea chang?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's a well known fact though, pointed out by many western watchers and even Korean experts themselves. Behind every SK military program/procurement is the massive inferiority complex against China and Japan, especially Japan, and asiaticshill/VANK drones like you peddle the state propaganda on the internet as intended. A totally pointless program from a military standpoint, because both of the countries you are seething at can easily take out the precious carrier any time if wanted.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why does South Korea need an Aircraft Carrier?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To carry aircraft Avi.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      soon

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Norkland is also a peninsula and attacking from the sea forces considerable expenditure not previously required.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >"Guys we're really going to make a carrier this time! Please ignore the dozens announcements prior saying we were going to, then not going to, then changing the specs, then changing them back!
    sad

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ROK is active in anti-piracy and takes care of business quick with no questions or sustained negotiations

    This particular example was in the Arabian Sea, somali pirates hijack a Norwegian vessel, ROK deploys anti-piracy assets, end result: all somalis killed, no crew injured, no ROK soldier casualties

    Your welcome Norway

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Also SK shipbuilding is huge and the more naval vessel experience they get the better.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Lol SK shipbuilding is next level tier and has around half of the global market share, the only thing holding back SK from getting 100% marketshare is capacity, just like their k-chad bulls, they get worn out from all of the attention, building a 50000+ ton aircraft carrier for SK is like building a raft for most countries, SK pumps out vessels many multiple times larger constantly without breaking a sweat

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *