Now South Korea’s Getting An Aircraft Carrier, Too

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by HurricaneDitka, Jul 28, 2020.

  1. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2020
  2. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Given their shipyards and expertise, you can bet it will be better than anything the Red Chinese and Soviets can produce, and probably ours, too. If anybody ever gets a chance to, a visit to a modern shipyard should be on your list, even for a brief visit.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    18,165
    Likes Received:
    4,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The OP and thread title are misleading. There are no indications whatsoever that the South Koreans are interest in acquiring or building an aircraft carrier of any kind.

    and remember the Inchon landings only worked because the North Koreans had thoroughly defeated the South Korean and American forces and forced them to retreat to the area around Pusan. this left the victorious North Koreans with hideously exposed supply lines across the West Coast of Korea.

    Needless to say in any future war with North Korea, the South Koreans would much prefer to stop the North long before that occurs.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    32,937
    Likes Received:
    8,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh, maybe somebody should explain that to their Joint Chiefs then:

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...-short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing-aircraft/
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,912
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In this I fully agree.

    Especially when you look at who the F-35B is made for originally. First clue, it is not the US Navy.

    Anybody who knows the ROK military, will know that the ROKMC is based almost entirely from the USMC. Structure, doctrine, equipment, even their symbols are almost all taken from the US (in much the same way the early USMC was lifted from the British Royal Marines).

    And the article then compounds this in many ways. First, it never even says that South Korea is trying to build a ship for these fighters (which can operate from almost any ship that can support helicopters). Then it tries to compare it to a "Japanese light carrier". Uhhh, the Izumo is not a carrier, it is a "Helicopter Destroyer", which has limited amphibious capability.

    This is the kind of moronic writing that always drives me crazy. "It has flat deck, it must be carrier!" Whoever wrote it either must be a complete moron and not know a single thing about how and why ships are classified other then by looking at the outline in a coloring book, or they are purposefully trying to mislead to create a narrative to fit an agenda.

    I will let people make up their own minds there. But I am becoming more and more concerned with the lack of ethics among journalists in the modern era. It seems like they do not even try anymore to be neutral and pass along information and facts. It is now 95% nonsense and opinion,

    This one, even more so. It then went at the end of the article into the Dokdo class LPH amphibious ship, for some bizarre reason calling it the "LPH II". When that was never the designation of that ship, it was originally called the "LPX" during development. Then it goes to try and compare the "LPH II" with the Isumo class and saying it shows they want to build carriers.

    This article is incredibly sloppy, the research is a complete joke, of course it is also written by David Axe. Himself somewhat of a joke.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  7. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    31,589
    Likes Received:
    11,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HurricaneDitka likes this.
  8. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "LPH-II" is a larger ship that the South Koreans intend to acquire in the next few years, separate from their current Dokdo-class ships.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...-short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing-aircraft/
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,912
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is still not a "carrier". It is just another LPH.

    Ships are more than just slapping a name on and stating it is something else. No matter what China does, their current "carriers" will never be carriers, they are and always will be exactly what they have always been. "Aircraft Carrying Guided Missile Cruisers". With their main offensive capability their missiles, with barely enough aircraft to protect themselves and not intended to be part of an offensive capability.

    You can slap a large trailer onto a 450 class truck, that still will never make it a "big rig". That "LPH II" will still be exactly what the name states, and "Amphibious Warfare Ship", not a carrier. And specifically a "Landing Platform Helicopter".
     
  10. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a CVN, but the original claim was "There are no indications whatsoever that the South Koreans are interest in acquiring or building an aircraft carrier of any kind." The LPH II is designed and intended to operate fixed-wing aircraft at sea. It's certainly a kind of "aircraft carrier", even though it's official designation may be different. For example, once LPH II is commissioned, it will almost certainly be included in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers
     
  11. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,912
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, that is not what an LPH is intended to do. And of course it would not be a CVN, it is not nuclear powered. It is not even a CV. The very description has an H in it for a reason.

    An "aircraft carrier" has that name because it's sole purpose is to house aircraft for it's strike capability. It is an offensive ship, like a Destroyer or Cruiser but uses fixed wing aircraft instead of guns or missiles. An LPH is an amphibious warfare ship, which uses a combination of landing craft or helicopters to place boots on the ground. And for decades they have had a limited number of fixed wing aircraft, but as either part of it's self defense capability, or to support those boots when they hit the ground.

    And look at your own list, where it claims such ships will be found. Out of all the nations who have or had LPH class ships, not a single one appears on that very list you claim supports your stance. In fact, at the very start of the article it very clearly states the following are not "Aircraft Carriers".

    I suggest you check your own sources more carefully, to ensure they do not contradict your claims.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020 at 5:14 PM
  12. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The list includes Japan's Izumo and Kaga. They both started life as "helicopter destroyers", and South Korea's LPH-II is going to be larger and include a ski jump:

    The idea that you'd load up a ship with 16 stealth fighters which were purpose-built for penetrating strike missions and a ski jump to help them launch with heavier loads (read: air-to-ground ordnance) and then pretend the thing isn't some kind of aircraft carrier is just plain asinine.

    Let me ask you a question: Italy's Cavour - "aircraft carrier" or not?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020 at 5:53 PM
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,912
    Likes Received:
    958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because their role is being changed. Hence, they are not listed as a carrier at this time ("0" in service), but will be once that conversion is complete ("2" under construction).

    What about the role of the ship are you still not getting? The first generation of "Helicopter Carriers" started life as "Aircraft Carriers". Then as their role and mission changed, and they got a new designation to reflect that.

    Just as many of the Ohio class submarines are no longer SSBN but SSGN. The role of the ship changed, and it's designation followed.

    The number of aircraft does not matter, it is the role of the ship and the intent of the aircraft.

    On the Italian ships, they were always built with the purpose of using fixed wing fighters for use in an offensive role. That is why it is considered a carrier, even though it also can operate like an LPH.

    However, this is not the case in say the USS Iwo Jima. Which can carrier such fighters, but generally does not. I myself have operated off of the old USS Iwo, and we had no fighters aboard when I was on her. She could and had operated AV8B harriers, but only occasionally for providing CAP and close air support for the Marines on board.

    If the Navy for some reason was to decide to pull the USS Nimitz into dock then remove all of her launching and recovery equipment and put her back to sea as a helicopter platform, it would not be an "aircraft carrier" anymore. Yes, it could still operate fixed wing aircraft (including a hell of a lot of F-35Bs), but that would not be her role. Such a ship would likely be called an LHAN, because that would be the role of the ship. Just like the USS America (LHA-6) is not a carrier, no matter what the outline of the ship looks like.

    And no, the F-35B was not created for " penetrating strike missions", you are confusing it with the F-35A and F-35C. Those are the aircraft designed and built for strike missions. The F-35B was designed to perform close air support, and provide a minimal CAP for surface groups that do not normally have any aviation capability. You have to remember that when you talk about the F-35, you really are talking about 3 very different aircraft. With very different missions.

    Tell me, is a large Class A Motor Home a motor home, or a bus? Because most of them are actually converted from busses. Yet, they are not busses. They require no special license or training to operate, even if they are converted after 20 years of operation as a bus into a motor home. This is what you keep missing over and over again. You seem obsessed with what it looks like, and not what it actually operates as.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020 at 6:22 PM

Share This Page