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
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
>slope
fucking why
Has to fly UP into the sky.
To trigger the PrepHoleids, as you can see.
>slope
You're supposed to say Asian-American.
>a fucking ramp
>cope slope
how will south korea spammed EVER recover!?
is this the one they’re doing with the help of Italy?
Probably the UK, supposed to be a modern QE class
kek that subline is great
> Seoul upsizes its CVX carrier program in a flex more about techno-nationalism than sound military strategy.
fuckin' scathing
Lmfao retard, 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
Yup, same as how the chinese are bitching that Australia has no use for 5+ nuclear submarines, AUKUS should increase the Australian nuclear submarine fleet to 10+ given the response from china
I mean everyone knows it's true, why the fuck 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 fuck is the point?
It's just postering bullshit, I highly doubt they even get built at all, waste of fucking money.
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
and yet they still can't figure out steam catapults.
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.
its okay soukie, its fine that you can't progress past 1950's carrier technology.
to launch a plane, do the helicopter pilots take off, hover, and land again?
This is why SK is going with catobar, regional "powers" are countries like north korea, japan and thailand
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?
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.
The US has them because they are the dominant military force.
UK and France have them to pretend they are still geopolitically relevant.
>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.
UK is essentially a parts supplier, France only sells to third world nations that can't get real western weapons
>France only sells to third world nations
Cope and rent free Nigel
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 fucking clue why they'd waste their money when they're already struggling to find the money for their airforce.
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
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.
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
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.
>every nation in asia thinks that if they can control Korea they can rule the world
I have to admit, you might be a fucking moron, but your posts are god damn hilarious
>every nation in asia thinks that if they can control Korea they can rule the world
>it's just a recipe for budget shortfalls elsewhere
They don't need to spend billions on morons, and they're clamping down on feminism so they can save money on subsidizing women's jobs with "equal opportunity" bullshit.
What a shock, you're the moronshill from the other thread
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.
Fait accompli.
That's a good kmfdm song
>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'm still hoping they will one day add some new kind of structures: loops, box jumps, wave ramps, quarter pipes, vert ramps, bowls...
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
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)
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 fuck 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
>Their only real enemy is north Korea
what is behind best korea chang?
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 moronshill/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.
Why does South Korea need an Aircraft Carrier?
To carry aircraft Avi.
soon
Norkland is also a peninsula and attacking from the sea forces considerable expenditure not previously required.
>"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
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
Also SK shipbuilding is huge and the more naval vessel experience they get the better.
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
A