South Korea working on "light Aircraft carrier"

[Colin]

Interesting, the new "Jeep Carrier"?

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/10/uk-naval-industry-eyes-technology-transfer-for-south-koreas-lpx-ii-project/

 

[Brian Kennedy]

Jeep Carriers might make sense for a navy like the USN? Not sure it would for any country not interested in power projection outside the range of land based air...

[shep854]

40,000 tons, light? Well, in 2020... 😛

This looks like another stab at the Sea Control Ship concept from the '70s.  When all's said and done, the capability loss that goes with its smaller size and cost makes such a ship a questionable value for blue water, long range ops.  In a smaller theater, such as the South China Sea, where they can enjoy land support, they could well be an attractive option.  A combined ROK/JSDF force would be a credible distraction, at least.

[JasonJ]

9 hours ago, shep854 said:

40,000 tons, light? Well, in 2020... 😛

This looks like another stab at the Sea Control Ship concept from the '70s.  When all's said and done, the capability loss that goes with its smaller size and cost makes such a ship a questionable value for blue water, long range ops.  In a smaller theater, such as the South China Sea, where they can enjoy land support, they could well be an attractive option.  A combined ROK/JSDF force would be a credible distraction, at least.

I would like to see more jointness between the ROK and Japan, I really would. And I do think there is a way, even if very hard, to get there. But realistic from observation, I can't feel optimistic about it. There is a lot to say about it.

 

But briefly listed, obviously the first teething point is the politization of the bad history. ROK has more work to do on this. And not just ROK because it ties into the general US narrative as well. Because of that, ROK has been spoiled with the victmization, if you will. They won't even allow a JMSDF ship to come to Pusan with the rising sun flag flying. Yeah.. what a hornet's nest that is. 

 

The second one is the territorial dispute with Takeshima/Dokdo. My personal view is that I'd be fine if Japan let go of its claim on Takeshima and letting ROK have it. But some trust needs to be established first. And it needs to be done in a way that doesn't hurt Japan's claim on the Senkaku islands and northern territories. But the ROK should stop trying to change the name of the sea. It's the Sea of Japan.

 

Third problem point is regarding DPRK. In order to facilitate the Moon administration's "dialogue" approach as oppose to the "maximum pressure" approach, ROK has been a little shy about showing off US-ROK joint activities. ROK did what it could and still conducted massive joint-training with the US in 2017 and surveys showed majority support for US deployment of the THAAD which includes a radar that can see into the airspace over not just the DPRK but a large chunck of northern China as well. So ROK public support for THAAD was going not just against opinions in favor of the "dialogue" approach but also going against mounting PRC pressure that was against the THAAD deployment. So the ROK managed that even though China has tremendous influence over any international policies taken towards DPRK. Because of that, I'd imagine ROK's political capital gets all spent towards DPRK. I don't think they have any to spare to add South China Sea activities. Vietnam has already tried to illicit ROKN activity in the SCS but still nothing from the ROKN, or at least nothing on the surface. Naturally once in a while, an ROKN frigate heads over to the ME for pirate patrol or training naval warships go on global tours. So in doing so, once in a while, an ROKN frigate surely passes through the SCS and may make a stop at Malaysia or whereever. But there has literally been zero with the message of something like "Free Indo-Pacific". I think if the ROKN did, they would probably lose any meager progress with DPRK and their ADIZ might be visited more frequently. ROK is also very export dependent advance country, more so than Japan. So the PRC market has sway here. So they been playing a little of middle way sometimes between the US and China like how the Philippines does in some cases, or Singapore, or Thailand. So all that making ROK shy about joint US-ROK joint training and shy with the SCS, even if the first two points were none issue, they probably still want to be shy about ROK-JPN jointness for those same reasons in the third point.

Edited October 28, 2020 by JasonJ

[Rick]

Interesting and worthwhile information Jason on the Japan-S. Korea relationship. Thank you.

[shep854]

I knew there was long-standing bad blood, but hoped that reconciliation was proceeding a bit faster.  

Regarding the Norks, having your largest city actually under their guns makes for discretion. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

It makes sense to have a platform you can have at sea as a second strike capability. Because assume the Norks hit the South Korean airbases with nuclear weapons, they dont have that much of an airforce left. OTOH, having a carrier off the coast somewhere, does give something of an assurance you have something you can hit back with.  Would be even better with a dual key atomic system on board, but I dont see that happening of course.

 

I think they should do it, not only does it keep the Norks on their toes, its one more flattop that conceivably could be used to keep China in its box.

[JasonJ]

28 minutes ago, shep854 said:

I knew there was long-standing bad blood, but hoped that reconciliation was proceeding a bit faster.  

Regarding the Norks, having your largest city actually under their guns makes for discretion. 

For you second point, yeah that too.

 

First point, yeah for real. Well, I could be just Japanese biased on here but I think the Koreans need to give it a rest. Despite this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Basic_Relations_between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_Korea

 

There was this recently:

https://www.genron-npo.net/en/7th-Japan-South KoreaJointOpinionPoll.pdf

 

What I am fully confident in is that the basic level common democratic functions of both countries, as well as the materialism/music/drama/game software/shopping of both countries would wash away the "old blood" that westerners assume to be impossible to erase. That doesn't mean that old bad history has to be erased from the books or museums. Far from it. It needs to remain in the books and the museums. Not in the form of new political policies. Mitsubishi assets in ROK were seized as a result of that court decision. This politicization of history is literally having an impact on today. It's one thing to disagree on the history but its another to use it as a basis of a condition to make an issue.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/08/1fbdcc7464dd-update1-s-korea-court-moves-closer-to-sale-of-japanese-steelmaker-assets.html

[JasonJ]

3 hours ago, Rick said:

Interesting and worthwhile information Jason on the Japan-S. Korea relationship. Thank you.

I hope so, thank you.

[JasonJ]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It makes sense to have a platform you can have at sea as a second strike capability. Because assume the Norks hit the South Korean airbases with nuclear weapons, they dont have that much of an airforce left. OTOH, having a carrier off the coast somewhere, does give something of an assurance you have something you can hit back with.  Would be even better with a dual key atomic system on board, but I dont see that happening of course.

 

I think they should do it, not only does it keep the Norks on their toes, its one more flattop that conceivably could be used to keep China in its box.

I also think that even if not for deep blue purposes, it could still be used as you describe. It adds flexibility. Even if they don't want to go as far as being joint with Japan, they'll still need whatever they can do to keep open their little bubble of influence around the peninsula.

[shep854]

It sounds very similar to US race relations.  How much has the issue been politicized?  Exploitation is what keeps the race issue simmering here in the States.

[CaptLuke]

14 hours ago, shep854 said:

40,000 tons, light? Well, in 2020... 😛

This looks like another stab at the Sea Control Ship concept from the '70s. . . .

Sea Control Ship was very small and really just a convoy escort; I think they may be going for something more like the USS America (LHA-6).  We've seen a few designs like this, flexible ships that can provide  sea control or support amphibious ops; the Juan Carlos I also comes to mind.

51 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It makes sense to have a platform you can have at sea as a second strike capability.

Seems like submarines with nuclear cruise missiles would be the second strike weapon of choice.  Off the top of my head, I'm thinking that every navy that has access to both nuclear weapons and at least one aircraft carrier relies on submarines as the second strike threat.

[JasonJ]

52 minutes ago, shep854 said:

It sounds very similar to US race relations.  How much has the issue been politicized?  Exploitation is what keeps the race issue simmering here in the States.

For a long time, it has been the comfort women issue. But a basic run down on the history of the comfort women issue... it came to surface in the 1980s/early 1990s. That was a result of ROK transitioning from dictatorship to democracy. The country became more open. So with the population first hearing about it (or in the open at least) yeah the reaction was natural. The Japanese side attempted to accommodate it too but maybe too slowly. But then comes the famed "Kono-statement" apologizing for more than what was really done, that was in 1994/95, but whatever, overstating is also a sort of natural reaction to a problem. Well the history and back and fourth go for a few more years. The Japan side set up the Asian-comfort women fund to address not only Korean but others as well such as Dutch women which goes from 1997 to something like 2003. Of course comfort women have a choice to receive the compensation aid or not. Some accept, some do not and press for higher level of apology. The issue lingers around some more, comfort women history is a mixed bag.. the whole prostitution of Japanese and Korean women started since the 1910s as prostitution was not an illegal thing in Asia. They were paid, still prostitute, some joined the job knowingly, some were tricked into the human trafficking thinking they were applying for factory job, some were literally sold to it by their parents, some made a lot of money and left better off, some hooked up with client later, recruiters and brothel owners were not straight up IJA soldiers but just recruiters, nearly half of whom were Korean. It was a mixed bag. Anyway back to the modern day history of the issue, the issue lingers on, comfort women activists try building comfort women station around the globe on private and public land. Once every week (Wednesday IIRC) there is a comfort women demo at the comfort women statue that sits in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul. Taking a ride on the buses, etc etc. So all that going on.. by December 2015 when ROK gov demands for higher level of apology and compensation is received by some lower level apology and more compensation fund from the Japanese government.. ROK gov accepts it. Speculation is that the US behind the scenes really pushed ROK to settle with it already. Another round of some of the remaining activist comfort women accept the compensation but still a few that do not accept. But ROK gov put their demand to rest. With that the comfort women issue finally started to peter out but still lingers.

 

There was this not long ago:

 

A South Korean shelter for surviving victims of Japan's wartime sexual slavery is set to be closed as the last resident has recently left the place, the operator of the shelter said Saturday.

Surviving victim Gil Won-ok, 92, left the shelter on June 11 to stay at a church operated by her 61-year-old step son and priest Hwang Sun-hee, according to the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance (KCJR), a nongovernmental organization working for South Korea's "comfort women."

The KCJR said it has yet to decide when to suspend the shelter in Mapo, western Seoul, and return it to Myungsung Church, which owns the building.

The planned shutdown comes as the head of the shelter was found dead at her apartment in Paju, north of Seoul, early last month.

The death comes amid an on-going controversy at the KCJR, sparked by a prominent victim's allegation in May that Rep. Yoon Mee-hyang, former leader of the group, misused donations and exploited the victims for her political ambitions.

...

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200704000053

 

 

Yet an example of how it still lingers around. But whatever.

...

The new statue is the third such image erected in Germany. While the first two statues were installed on private land, the third and latest one was placed along a street in the capital with permission.

...

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200929/p2g/00m/0in/028000c#:~:text=SEOUL%2FBERLIN (Kyodo) --,that supports former comfort women.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by JasonJ

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ill not knock submarines, but a Submarine with cruise missiles is not going to be as flexible as an Aircraft carrier. For one thing it cant do air denial operations. It cant drop mines. It cant do CAS. And I think any submarine, particularly a diesel electric, that is full of cruise missiles, is not going to be able to undertake the traditional operations of submarines, sinking things, because its used up most of its bomb room carrying cruise missiles instead of Torpedo's. Of course, you can then go and build an SSG, which is some way around those problems. But still the inherent inflexibility remains.

And you are right about second strike capability, the submarine is usually used more, usually by specially built SSBN's. But I think we know that South Korea is simply not going to go that way, and I dont think it could get very complicated having a dual key SSG with nuclear cruise missiles on board.  And what kind of survivability would an SSG have in cruise missile range of North Korea? An aircraft carrier always has the options of using air tankers from other nations to stand off its air wing.

 

 

 

[Leo Niehorster]

Can't modern submarines lay mines?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sure, but once again you run into payload. If you are carrying mines, you can't carry torpedos or cruise missiles. Or you build a much bigger submarine, which is more expensive and so on.

 

[shep854]

Subs are pretty poor at flag-showing, too.  If they show themselves, they become helpless; surface ships are still in their element, able to deploy weapons and absorb damage.

[Stuart Galbraith]

With a bit of luck it will precipitate North Korea into building the 'Kim Il Sung', a 120000 ton supercarrier carrying Mig21 Fleet Defence fighters and An2 Torpedo bombers. Just what we need to finish they economy off.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Now the Secretary of the US navy wants lighter carriers too.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/why-guy-charge-navy-wants-123700656.html

[CaptLuke]

I think the light carrier concept, meaning "like a Nimitz/Ford, just smaller" is a bad concept: small carriers are just not as efficient as large carriers at the classic strike role, especially when nuclear power comes into the picture.  About the only reason to build them is because you either don't know how to build a big carrier (Soviets) or you can't afford the carriers you really want (UK/France).

OTOH, I do think there's a good niche for a "through deck cruiser", i.e., a more modern take on the Invincible Class.  It's role would be to provide a flag ship for surface fleets that don't rate a Ford class carrier along with improved aerial support for over the horizon targeting and airborne early warning in particular, and probably longer ranged ASW/Maritime-Patrol (vs. the MH-60) as well.

It won't happen, both because it would make the USN think differently and because it would require a different approach to aircraft/UAV development (emphasizing smaller aircraft and VTOL/STOL/ski-ramp ops) but such an approach would also greatly improve the flexibility and self-protection capabilities of the USMC LHA and, for that matter, the USMC ashore.

[Burncycle360]

3 hours ago, CaptLuke said:

OTOH, I do think there's a good niche for a "through deck cruiser", i.e., a more modern take on the Invincible Class.  It's role would be to provide a flag ship for surface fleets that don't rate a Ford class carrier along with improved aerial support for over the horizon targeting and airborne early warning in particular, and probably longer ranged ASW/Maritime-Patrol (vs. the MH-60) as well.

It won't happen, both because it would make the USN think differently and because it would require a different approach to aircraft/UAV development (emphasizing smaller aircraft and VTOL/STOL/ski-ramp ops) but such an approach would also greatly improve the flexibility and self-protection capabilities of the USMC LHA and, for that matter, the USMC ashore.

Sounds like the old school Sea control ship concept (ie, basically a Príncipe de Asturias).  It would certainly bring a lot to the table tagging along with something that would otherwise simply be a surface action group, but one big issue with it is congress: they'll wonder why they're paying for supercarriers when you're rolling around with light carriers too, and really push for "well, let's find an optimal mix..." which is the death knell for a 12 CVN fleet.  The Wasps, I think, get away with it because of how slow they are, and they're already quite busy with their primary jobs even though the USMC has experimented with making them JSF carriers.

I have been an advocate for something like a Dedalo for every carrier strike group to house ASW and CSAR assets (notional SV-22 as a spiritual successor to the S-3 as a way to complement existing ASW assets and helicopters) but importantly without a ski jump for this very reason, so it can't be construed as anything other than what it is.

Edited November 1, 2020 by Burncycle360

[CaptLuke]

17 hours ago, Burncycle360 said:

Sounds like the old school Sea control ship concept (ie, basically a Príncipe de Asturias) . . .

. . . notional SV-22 as a spiritual successor to the S-3 as a way to complement existing ASW assets and helicopters. . . 

My understanding of sea control ships is that they were more focused on convoy escort, so similar in some ways, but smaller, slower, and without the flagship or OTH orientation.  

Agree with you ref SV-22: I'd like to see them go further with a variant that can be configured for Maritime Patrol, or AEW, or ELINT (similar to the Israeli  modified business jets for the same roles).  The AEW version would be valuable for amphibious operations and a VTOL ELINT platform would have a variety of interesting uses.  I think that and some sort of STOL/Ski-Jump equivalent of the RQ-170 (the Beast of Khandahar) would be a good mix.

Edited November 2, 2020 by CaptLuke
clarity improvement

[Stuart Galbraith]

I read with some interest some months ago about the new AEW Merlins for the QE, that there isnt much practical difference between the effectiveness of such a radar as compared to say, one mounted on a rotating dome chassis. Technology has moved on apparently. If this is the case, why not hang the radar on a proven high capacity chassis, like a CH53? Still in production after all.

Come to that, go the whole hog and have it as a drone, and do all the important work back on the carrier via datalink.

[CaptLuke]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I read with some interest some months ago about the new AEW Merlins for the QE, that there isnt much practical difference between the effectiveness of such a radar as compared to say, one mounted on a rotating dome chassis. Technology has moved on apparently. If this is the case, why not hang the radar on a proven high capacity chassis, like a CH53? Still in production after all.

Come to that, go the whole hog and have it as a drone, and do all the important work back on the carrier via datalink.

The advantage of the V-22 is mostly it's range and cruise speed vs. a comparable helicopter, not that it can carry a  heavier or better load.  I don't think a rotating dome would be in play in any case (it's used by neither the Isreali biz jet options nor by Saab's Erieye, which are comparable systems to what I'm proposing).  An AEW helo is fine for local sea control, but the more you want OTH capability the more important range and cruise speed become.  If you go back to the origin of the V-22, it was OTH that drove the whole tilt rotor approach.

As for the drone option: I'm not convinced that an AEW drone is ready for prime time and I am suspicious of solutions that depend on continuous, high capacity data link operation, but I agree that it's an increasingly viable option and that we may well get there, or near there, sooner or later.  I think a moderately stealthy drone with an ELINT/SIGINT/Electro-optical package would be a great OTH tool right now.

[Nobu]

Not unexpected, as the Koreans are now financially and economically capable of keeping up militarily with Japan.

Historically, the roots of this focus date back to the Sengoku period.