Military Review

Why do they all need aircraft carriers? South Korea

62
We all know Kyle Mizokami from The National Interest has a very funny saying with which he begins many of his articles.


“Do you like cool ships? And so do we. Let's make fun of them together! "

This is the case when you just want to make fun of and ask: why do you need all this? Why do you need aircraft carriers?

Okay, USA. Everything is clear and understandable. India, China, Great Britain, France, even Russia in this regard look logical with their aircraft carrier ambitions.

Why do they all need aircraft carriers? South Korea

But I really want to ask South Korea: where are you going?

But nevertheless, earlier this year, the South Korean Navy published images of the project of its aircraft carrier.


It will be a ship that was clearly created with an eye to similar British ships. It is assumed that it will house a wing of the F-35B, that is, aircraft with a short take-off and the possibility of vertical landing.

And the South Koreans are planning all this by 2030.

The most interesting thing is that sensations arise here in two ways. There is no doubt that if the South Koreans decide to actually build an aircraft carrier, there is no doubt. They will build it for sure. And because today South Korea is a leader in shipbuilding, and because projects do not have to go far.

If you look at the South Korean UDC of the "Dokdo" type, placing next to them, for example, the UDC of the "America" ​​type, a lot will become clear. Yes, "Dokdo" is small, only about 20 tons of displacement, but UDC "America" ​​looks, you see, as an older brother, who was well fed in childhood.


UDC "Tokto"

And the displacement of "America" ​​is at the level of the Russian "Admiral Kuznetsov", which in fact is almost an aircraft carrier. 45 tons.


If we put the British "Queen Elizabeth" next to it, then the chain of analogies can be traced with the naked eye.


In general, UDC "Tokto" have decks from which aircraft of different classes can easily take off and, possibly, sit down just as calmly.

Will the South Korean design bureaus and shipyards cope with the task of building an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 50 to 70 thousand tons? Of course they can.

The dimensions of the aircraft carrier and the total displacement in tons are not indicated, but it can be compared in this regard with the "America". About the same length, about the same width. We can say that the approximate displacement is about 45 tons. In a class with "Admiral Kuznetsov".


The deck of the aircraft carrier features ten F-35s and helicopters. The drawing, of course, is only a drawing, but it can be used for analogies with British ships. The same two islands, two lifts to the deck.

The two islands are modeled after the British. In the foreground, everything that is needed to control the ship itself is located, in the stern there are structures for controlling flights.

Two small islands instead of one big one make space on the flight deck. By the way, American aircraft carriers have one small island because they are nuclear and their reactors do not produce exhaust gases. The two islands are an attempt to solve the problem of exhaust gases from the propulsion system of the ship itself and from aircraft flights.

Since the Korean ship will be armed with short-take off planes with vertical take-off and landing functions, it saves the ship from both the catapult and the springboard. That is, such a variation on the UDC theme in fact.

Of course, lifting an aircraft, which is thoroughly loaded with fuel and ammunition, into the air using a springboard or a catapult is understandable. Time will tell how much the F-35B will allow to carry it out on a simple deck. But this is not the point, by the time that the F-35B can, we will be back very soon.

In addition, it was announced that the ship will be equipped with the latest radar capable of tracking missiles and a short-range anti-aircraft missile system to protect against enemy anti-ship missiles.

The thought immediately comes to mind that a small deck without catapults - here it is, our / Chinese aircraft carrier. That is, in fact, a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. Which is missing something.

And what are these ships missing? That's right, AWACS aircraft. The admirals of the South Korean Navy believe that the aircraft carrier will rely on the radars of accompanying destroyers and frigates to solve all problems.

It is quite logical, of course, because South Korea does not have AWACS aircraft. There are Orions, but they are completely unsuitable for this kind of work. The Land Air Force has 737 Boeing 4 AEW & Cs, but there is a question of interaction.

Yes, the newest South Korean destroyers of the King Sejong class equipped with the Aegis system with American-made AN / SPY-1 radars are strong ships, but “eyes in the sky” are many. In this regard, the E-2D Hawkeye is more than a useful aircraft.

But alas, in terms of security, the new Korean aircraft carrier will be completely dependent on escort ships.

In principle, this is not so scary. South Korea has more than enough modern and new destroyers and frigates to organize a normal escort for a pair of aircraft carriers.

So, what do we have in general?

We have a 45 ton light aircraft carrier with a 000-10 F-15B wing. Considering that South Korea has contracted 35 F-20B aircraft, there will still be a reserve for pilot training and compensation for failed machines.

In general, it is comparable to the capabilities of Liaoning, Admiral Kuznetsov, Vikramaditya and America-type UDC.
The Korean military says the ship will be ready by 2033.

Will we believe? Why not? South Korea's shipbuilding and industrial capabilities generally make it all easy.

But another question arises: why?

In what conflict and with whom can an aircraft carrier with a dozen aircraft be useful?

Here we must look at possible conflicts between South Korea and neighboring countries. For some reason, there is a persistent conviction that we will not see this aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf or off the coast of Syria. Although everything, of course, can be.

Claims, including territorial ones. True, South Korea has claims to all its neighbors, without exception. The Independence Museum in Seoul has a hall dedicated to the territorial claims of South Koreans. They are proud of them.

Japan. The most publicized controversy is over the small islands of Takeshima / Dokdo. In general, this is just a set of rocks in the Sea of ​​Japan, nothing more. It is difficult to say why countries need these rocks, but neither Japan nor Korea clearly formulated their claims. Simply - it is necessary.

But it is doubtful that Japan and South Korea will be able to meet in a duel. They have one owner, and I am sure that a formidable shout from Washington will follow immediately.

China. There are also disputes with China regarding islands in the Yellow Sea. Plus the constant circling around Manchuria, where Koreans also have interests.

However, China already has two aircraft carriers of the same class. And a dashing battle will not work, if only because the Korean navy is a serious entity, but the Chinese navy will sweep it away, and very quickly. Because the PLA fleet of the PRC is more than four Korean fleet.

Russia. Not everything is simple with Russia either. South Korea claims the Deer Island, with an area of ​​as much as 32 sq. km. In general, the island itself does not exist, it was at the mouth of the Tumannaya River, but a load of sand poured it off the shore. But for the Koreans to do this ... But is there any point in meddling under the coastal complexes and strikes aviation shore-based is the question. With an aircraft carrier, without it ...

The overall situation is strange. They won't be allowed to fight with Japan; the aircraft carrier is simply useless with China and Russia. These 10 aircraft will not solve any problems in battles with such opponents.

Local showdowns between rocks in the Sea of ​​Japan? Funny, it just isn't worth it.

Here, only one conclusion suggests itself: in our age, an aircraft carrier is turning into a certain standard or element of prestige.

South Korea, which has a rather aggressive policy towards ALL neighbors without exception, just wants to add weight to itself on the world stage in this way.

I must say, it all looks pretty funny. The Republic of Korea has a fairly new and balanced fleet, capable of solving problems of protecting interests and protecting water areas.


10 destroyers, 9 frigates, 28 corvettes. Submarines. Landing ships. Add to this an aircraft carrier with 10 aircraft, there is no increase in strength. At the coastal airfields of the armed forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan, there are almost two hundred fully sane F-15 and F-16. And they are precisely the main striking force to be reckoned with. And 20 even the newest F-35 ...

In general, the aircraft carrier virus turns out to be contagious. But since the Republic of Korea is so eager to join the ranks of the owners of aircraft-carrying ships, no one will forbid it. But how effectively time and money will be spent is another matter.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Why do they all need aircraft carriers? India
Why do they all need aircraft carriers? USA
Why do they all need aircraft carriers? China
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 21 January 2021 18: 21
    +14
    10 destroyers, 9 frigates, 28 corvettes. Submarines. Landing ships. Add to this an aircraft carrier with 10 aircraft, there is no increase in strength.

    A good author, he does not even know the composition of the fleet and begins to judge its capabilities. Stupidly cut off a third of the fleet, did not even count the submarines. And some aircraft carrier with at least 20-25 aircraft, well, well ...
    In America, the aircraft carrier is 20-22 F-35B, and this is UDC.



    1. donavi49
      donavi49 21 January 2021 18: 57
      +19
      By the way, the Sijons the Great are still the heavily armed destroyers in the world. wink .
      A total of 80 cells in 2 MK41.
      48 cells of a separate TLU for their Caliber / Ax - Hyunmoo-3В / С for 500 kg of heat per 1000 + km.
      16 C-Star anti-ship missiles at 0,95 m, ultra low profile and 180 km range. Also progredi on the possibility of strikes on ground targets.

      3 are in service and 3 more are being built according to a slightly improved design (5 meters longer - the first will be lowered in 22 - unless, of course, it’s ahead of schedule already under the tree in this, they can, and at 24 in the fleet).
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 24 January 2021 23: 30
        +2
        The most rocket ship in the world.
    2. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 23 January 2021 12: 35
      +4
      The Carrier Ownership Virus is contagious, but we don't face it! The virus of owning top yachts and the virus of owning aircraft carriers cannot coexist in one body!
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 24 January 2021 22: 58
      0
      In America, the aircraft carrier 20-22 F-35B


      Not even close.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 24 January 2021 23: 01
        0
        There are 5 aircraft wing configurations, depending on the mission.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 24 January 2021 23: 05
          +1
          Paper will endure everything. In reality, there, with 20 aircraft and a minimum number of helicopters, even the rotation of an aircraft from the deck to the hangar and back will be impossible.

          The stone flower did not come out from the Americans.
          Based on the results of real deployments - Wasp-class - 10 SCVVPs, 4 small prizes for tactical evacuation and two MSS helicopters, America has the same thing, plus 3-4 aircraft at best.

          There is no place on board, so many planes do not fit there.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 24 January 2021 23: 22
            0
            Well ok, even if there are 10-14 planes, what difference does that make? They are UDC, not aircraft carriers.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 24 January 2021 23: 29
              0
              In reality, it will be 10, the Marine has already decided on this. So that does not change anything, the UDC as an aircraft carrier is bad, to put it mildly.
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 24 January 2021 23: 33
                0
                Therefore, there is talk in the United States about a light aircraft carrier. It is clear that the UDC with increased aviation capabilities will remain the UDC. Yes, and this concerns the first block of the Americas, on the next there is already a dock chamber.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 25 January 2021 10: 58
                  0
                  These conversations have been going on there for a long time, but nothing has ended. And, apparently, will not end. McCain died, and he was the only truly influential fanatic of light aircraft carriers.
  2. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 21 January 2021 18: 29
    -5
    I think this is a kind of inferiority complex regarding neighbors - China / Japan, rather than some kind of real military necessity.
    All of South Korea's problems are now on land and partly in the air over this land.
    Of course, if you ponder over the Chinese problem in the spirit of the US talks on the topic of European NATO "in which the Europeans should invest more," then you can derive the Asian formula - they say, China is building up its forces, and you too (Asian allies of the US) kopecks in a general hypothetical heap, which will conditionally be against the PRC fleet in some purely hypothetical conflict. But this whole situation now would look insanely strained, so most likely the first is prestige.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 21 January 2021 18: 42
      +14
      For a country that has a world connection only by sea and air, the presence of a strong fleet is a vital necessity. The aircraft carrier increases overall stability and increases the capabilities of the fleet.
      The author of this article was misled by the composition of the fleet and air force. Current and planned. Therefore, you have such an opinion.
    2. Alex777
      Alex777 21 January 2021 20: 18
      +11
      Koreans, of course, do not like China, but what feelings they have for the Japanese is a separate issue.
      And after the construction of 2 aircraft carriers by Japan, it was at least strange not to wait for a Korean response. hi
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 21 January 2021 21: 10
        -1
        Both of them understand that without the American umbrella they will become pawns in the Chinese game. In the meantime, they are under the American umbrella, any conflicts between them (major conflicts requiring aircraft carriers) are unlikely.
        This is not to say that they are slowly crawling out from under this umbrella, so I could not consider this argument unambiguously by you. Too expensive turns out a ceremonial baton.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 21 January 2021 21: 34
          0
          Overestimate China. Japan and Korea are separately technically superior to China. The Japanese navy is at least equivalent to the Chinese, and then only because of the number of pennants in the PRC Navy. A US withdrawal would lead to a sharp militarization to maintain parity. There would be no dancing to the tune of Beijing.
        2. Alex777
          Alex777 21 January 2021 23: 35
          +1
          In the meantime, they are under the American umbrella, any conflicts between them (major conflicts requiring aircraft carriers) are unlikely.

          Hope for Allah, and tie a camel

          Potential matters. hi
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 21 January 2021 22: 00
      +5
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      All of South Korea's problems are now on land and partly in the air over this land.

      This is a correct thought, for some reason unnoticed by members of the forum ... And here's why:
      They won't be allowed to fight with Japan, the aircraft carrier is simply useless with China and Russia.
      - the author writes. And he is modestly silent about the DPRK ... belay
      And Kim's grandson, Toa Eun, does not hide his intentions to unite his homeland under his "solar" principle. Here, to cover the forces of the amphibious assault on the flank of the advancing northerners, the avik may well fit.
      Its other application is also possible. yes
      1. Graz
        Graz 22 January 2021 04: 41
        -2
        Boa kaa
        you are sure that the landing party will enjoy at least the neutrality of the DPRK civilian population during the landing, I personally strongly doubt it, and without this any landing of the South Koreans on the coast of the village is more likely a suicide, this landing will never be able to advance a little further than several coastal kilometers, and then they just throw hats on him

        so really, if South Koreans need an aircraft carrier, it’s for parity with Japan, against other neighbors, he does not channel from the word at all
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 22 January 2021 07: 30
          -1
          the landing will enjoy at least the neutrality of the DPRK civilian population when landing

          Well, I think the Marine Corps brigade, with one of the most modern equipment, and high training, and equipment will cope with the militia without problems, again, and if the helicopters from the UDC fly, only the cartridges will have time to lower on land.
          "Gaaaans, tape!"
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 22 January 2021 15: 18
          +1
          Quote: Graz
          are you sure that the landing will be ...
          Well, why not? After all, the amas in 1953 tried to do this until they ran into the MZM ... Therefore, the landing of the MD in the rear of the advancing troops of the northerners is quite likely and tactically justified ...
          Quote: Graz
          any landing of South Koreans on the coast of S. is more likely a suicide,
          In my opinion, the northerners are eager to "settle accounts" with the renegades and apostates from the bright "CHUCHKHE"! and not the southerners, who so far intended to "defend". And when the fans of the CHUCHI come to their territory, then we can remember the idea of ​​the AMs of the middle of the last century. bully
    4. paul3390
      paul3390 21 January 2021 23: 49
      +7
      I think this is a kind of inferiority complex regarding neighbors - China / Japan, rather than some kind of real military necessity

      Eh, we would have such an inferiority complex .. A dozen modern destroyers and a couple of UDCs in the Pacific Ocean of the Russian Federation would not hurt at all .. But the yachts and palaces of our nobility are certainly more important ..
    5. English tarantas
      English tarantas 22 January 2021 07: 26
      0
      I think this is a kind of inferiority complex regarding neighbors - China / Japan, rather than some kind of real military necessity.

      Ask the North Koreans what kind of complex the southerners have, and why they are arming themselves, and what the northerners are doing to keep up. And also look at the map, and be horrified, Korea is surrounded by water on 3 of 4 sides (!)
      the PRC fleet in some purely hypothetical conflict

      Well, the Americans have officially declared their enemy, so do not drive a pitchfork on the water.
  3. Doccor18
    Doccor18 21 January 2021 18: 46
    -4
    In general, the aircraft carrier virus turns out to be contagious.

    The "aircraft carrier virus" is a terrible disease, because 106 years ago, as we "picked up" it, we walk with it ... winked
    But since the Republic of Korea so desires

    Yes, not only Korea, but rather - not so much Korea wants as the owner orders ..
    The Navy is an expensive contraption and does not want to get cheaper, but on the contrary ... The United States realizes that not only to be globally present in the world, but also to really dominate the South China Sea will soon become problematic. An explosive mixture of problems, from the lack of combat-ready pennants to the stunning naval fever of the eastern dragon ... Either farewell to domination, or completely blow up the budget and goodbye to the American lifestyle, or ... harness all the vassals into the sea arms race.
    What? Korea and Japan have two aircraft carriers each, Britain has a couple, France needs to be stirred up in order to lay a couple of new ones, Australia can be thrown a couple of America-type UDCs for "modest" yards ... And in the end: by 30-35 against 6 Chinese aircraft carriers 4-6 Asian countries will operate in the region, but 4 European ones can be pulled up. And, the hegemon will not lose a cent on this, but will earn billions on the F35 and again the Chinese Navy is in the minority ...
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 21 January 2021 19: 03
      +11
      Australia already has two Lightning carriers - HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra. It remains to purchase the F-35 of the desired model.



      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 21 January 2021 19: 36
        -2
        Quote: donavi49
        Australia already has two Lightning carriers - HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra.

        Well, this is ... not quite an aircraft carrier. It is possible that in the coming years there will be an order for something larger and more serious ...
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 21 January 2021 19: 53
          +6
          Combat: 25 AV-8B / F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots
          Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots

          That is, the same 10 planes as the theme hero.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 24 January 2021 23: 01
        0
        They cannot carry planes. They were built according to a simplified design, without equipment for flight control of aviation necessary for fighters, without a deck covering, etc.
        The springboard is there only because it was expensive to remove - serious changes were required in the project, the Ozzy decided not to pay.
  4. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 21 January 2021 18: 56
    -7
    My version, they don't need an aircraft carrier.
    But they were ordered to build it for "work" as part of an allied squadron against a common enemy.
    Why should the United States maintain 20 aircraft carriers when the financial burden from their construction and maintenance can be distributed among the vassals? And at the same time you can sell 25 F-35Bs.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 21 January 2021 19: 19
      +17
      Korea has an advanced fleet, with 3 of the most heavily armed destroyers in the world (144 missiles of the main types in MK41 + their TLU under the KR 500kg / 1000km + 16 anti-ship missiles - this is more than any Burk and even Tiki).
      And they ordered 3 more of the same destroyers.

      They are actively innovating. For example, the Daegu series of 8 pieces in the process, they have a new type of power plant - CODLOG, they can move with muffled diesel engines and a turbine at a speed of 12 knots, due to the battery and Leonardo engines, that is, to conduct an effective search for low-noise submarines. Moreover, in this size (slightly heavier than 20380-2700t), it was the Koreans who implemented such a scheme for the first time. For example, there are no ships with such capabilities in Russia yet.


      Or a new boat KSS-3 which has a VPU for 6 of their calibers + VNEU + ultra-high-capacity batteries are on the way, like the Japanese have.


      Their second UDC will soon be accepted into the fleet in the first half of the year, and another one is being built under the LPH-II program.

  5. Bradley
    Bradley 21 January 2021 19: 11
    +11
    One pocket aircraft carrier will not do the weather for the Republic of Kazakhstan, but, for example, four? Everything is relative.
    And yet, the ROK needs a strong fleet, and even a pocket aircraft carrier strengthens it.
    Now, if Belarus would build such a ship for itself, then the question would be appropriate - "why?".
    And so - the Republic of Kazakhstan is a sea power, a peninsula, it is more a necessity than a show-off.
  6. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 21 January 2021 19: 15
    +3
    Excuse me, but Korea needs it for the sale and further development of technologies of the national industry and here they are great (if you have a Samsung smartphone and not a fly, feel the difference)
  7. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 January 2021 19: 16
    -18%
    empty show-offs, that's what an aircraft carrier in a small country is
  8. A1845
    A1845 21 January 2021 19: 16
    +6
    Landing ships. Add to this an aircraft carrier with 10 aircraft, there is no increase in strength.

    having said A, I must say B, since there are landing ships, it means that air cover is also needed
  9. Avior
    Avior 21 January 2021 19: 23
    +9
    The appearance of the f-35v made it possible to obtain an inexpensive UDC or a light aircraft carrier with aircraft at a price comparable to a modern destroyer. And the capabilities of the fleet, even with one or two squadrons on board, it increases many times over. With the prospect, with the massive use of uavs even more.
    It is not surprising that everyone who the opportunity allows wants to acquire.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 3 February 2021 00: 07
      -1
      Again, there was talk about a light aircraft carrier.
      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39040/navy-looking-at-america-and-ford-class-derivatives-in-new-light-aircraft-carrier-studies
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 February 2021 00: 37
        0
        he has links to several similar articles on fleet development there
  10. antivirus
    antivirus 21 January 2021 19: 24
    -7
    Before Shevardnadze, it was customary to summarize the strengths of all partners ... and Yap and South Korea with the Philippines


    There are also disputes with China regarding islands in the Yellow Sea. Plus the constant circling around Manchuria, where Koreans also have interests.


    - Is there a chance to talk about Zheltorussia? China will be taken away by the "world community" oi .... iiiii .... ii. will give it to the temporary management of the Russian Federation?
  11. exo
    exo 21 January 2021 19: 46
    -5
    At the beginning of the 20th century, every small country considered it necessary to have its own battleship. It was not very good for them to maintain it normally. But it was a matter of prestige. Apparently, the complex is "no worse than others."
    1. Torukmakto
      Torukmakto 21 January 2021 20: 54
      +15
      For 2018, the GDP of the Republic of Korea was almost equal to that of the erefia.
      And who is our "small country" according to the results?
    2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 21 January 2021 23: 43
      +5
      I am glad that Russia, a great maritime power, can afford to "normally" maintain an aircraft carrier.
  12. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 21 January 2021 22: 09
    +9
    All the military wants, And a bunch of authors everywhere are surprised - why should they? And something only in the last 5 years.
    Russia, China, India, Japan and all the rest are nudzhna, but the authors do not?

    There were also articles that the aircraft carrier, with its helicopter planes, placed where it should be, blocks a radius of 500 km from foreign submarines, protects and listens to the sky and the sea for 1000 km from noticeable targets.

    Something no one in their right mind would refuse a mobile warehouse / airfield / radar / airbase / reconnaissance / command center / landing in one person.

    There is only one minus - the price.
    1. Avior
      Avior 21 January 2021 22: 51
      +7
      They are not very expensive compared to modern destroyers.
      1-1,5 billion per ship, this is not so much, despite the fact that a modern destroyer costs about a billion.
      Americans are more expensive, but theirs are more expensive
      Of course, there is also the cost of an air wing, but in general, it is still much incomparably cheaper than the American ejection carriers.
      But the capabilities of the fleet are growing many times over.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 22 January 2021 12: 44
      -3
      A radius of 500 km is a circle with an area of ​​785 square meters. km. If one helicopter by some unimaginable miracle covers 000 thousand sq. km, then you need 1 helicopters. Please do not carry such nonsense. As for the range of 785 km, then the radio horizon from a height of 1000 km will be only 10 km, only further from the atmosphere by reflections.

      Currently, an aircraft carrier is just a target for full-fledged ground fighters.
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 January 2021 13: 22
        +3
        Add the radius of the airplane.
        And about helicopters, no one says that they will cover all 500 km of the area. But any area within this radius will be quickly accessible - that's another matter.
      2. Aleks2000
        Aleks2000 23 January 2021 20: 11
        +1
        The article here was, using the example of Kuznetsov, that he overlaps the circle for a submarine of 500 km. (if equipped, etc., of course)
        And I saw 2 interviews, our high officers, that A. Amerovsky detects a missile takeoff from a submarine at 1000 km.
        Well, the square, it always seems big ...
  13. Runway
    Runway 22 January 2021 03: 27
    +1
    The author considers units to be in his favor according to the one-to-one conflict standard.
    If it comes to shaking out the dust from the PRC, then the coalition will be at least Yankees, Japs, Yuzhkors, Viets and other Filipinos.
    UDC linkage + aircraft carrier + escort (4-6 esm / corvettes) is quite a DESO.
  14. Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 22 January 2021 06: 15
    +3
    Forgot about the possible export potential for Koreans - Australia, India, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt may well be among the buyers hi
  15. English tarantas
    English tarantas 22 January 2021 07: 21
    +4
    we will not see this aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area or off the coast of Syria. Although everything, of course, can be.

    Well, I immediately remembered that the Koreans fought in Vietnam ... If the Americans stir up a new adventure, then the Koreans will even be able to support their planes from the water.
    And as for the smiles like "yes, the Chinese will smash them," I will say sho the Koreans will not fight with the Chinese once at a time, they will be together with the United States, and most likely with the Japanese, and if there is a boat, there is a boat, then a good one will get overweight.
    And if they build for prestige, why is it funny? If they can, then let them build, they need to prove that they are a force to be reckoned with, otherwise in the future China will feed them to the northerners, or the Americans will feed them as a colony to the Japanese, and it's just nice for themselves.
    The saddest thing is that YuK wanted an aircraft carrier, and will do it, because maybe there is money, but we are dancing with a tambourine, because there is no money, no opportunity, and therefore we cannot even articulate clearly what and what kind of aircraft carrier we need, and why and what kind of fleet do we need in general?
    But if someone in our country wants to solve their interests around the world, in Syria, the same, in South America, Africa, then such a sailing trip for 15 aircraft would be useful.
  16. faiver
    faiver 22 January 2021 08: 10
    +4
    In general, the aircraft carrier virus turns out to be contagious
    - no need to consider ourselves smarter than others and try to mock the Koreans, we de facto now have no aircraft carrier, and we will be able to build something similar to the baal question, taking into account the fact that we even build frigates and corvettes with a big creak, and only about destroyers remains dream, poor Gren was built for 16 years ...
  17. EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 January 2021 10: 27
    0
    Unlike Russia, Korea has at least all the ocean trade.
  18. vindigo
    vindigo 22 January 2021 12: 28
    -1
    They have a bigger demographic hole than in Russia. Who will they be recruiting for the crew in 2030? Muslim guest workers and Chinese Koreans? These would rather open fire on the hanguk themselves.
    1. Alex013
      Alex013 22 January 2021 22: 33
      +2
      What a demography. They have 100 people per 210 km² (2,5 of the Ryazan region). What are you talking about!) Moreover, the GDP, like ours, is almost aggregate ... or rather, "In both countries, the size of GDP in 51 is approximately the same: South Korea has $ 732 trillion, Russia has $ 586 trillion. .. . "
      1. vindigo
        vindigo 23 January 2021 20: 53
        0
        Why are you writing to me VVP? What does he have to do with it? South Korea is the country with the lowest birth rate. The fertility rate is already below 1 (0,9). Soon they will have no one to put in tanks and recruit into the fleet. Gaster won't fight for elderly hanguk.
  19. shkiper83
    shkiper83 23 January 2021 00: 46
    +2
    Sorry, but where is South Korea, and where is the Tumannaya River. What claims can there be?
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 23 January 2021 04: 28
      +1
      Republic of Korea - considers itself entitled to speak and act on behalf of the whole of Korea. hi
  20. Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 23 January 2021 04: 21
    +1
    We have a 45 ton light aircraft carrier

    This is the average an aircraft carrier, however. hi
  21. Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 23 January 2021 04: 24
    +1
    But I really want to ask South Korea: where are you going?

    It is quite obvious - the actions of the coalition fleet and amphibious forces against mainland China.
  22. Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 23 January 2021 04: 27
    +2
    The most publicized controversy is over the small islands of Takeshima / Dokdo. In general, this is just a set of rocks in the Sea of ​​Japan, nothing more. It is difficult to say why countries need these rocks, but neither Japan nor Korea clearly formulated their claims. Simply - it is necessary.


    And the box, meanwhile, is extremely easy to open. wink Exclusive economic and offshore zone.
  23. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 23 January 2021 11: 54
    +1
    It seems the author did not take into account one more opponent. North Korea. He mentioned it of course. But if we consider the development of the Navy of the Republic of Korea (Republic of Korea) only within the framework of their territorial input. Then we will see that, first of all, many anti-submarine defense systems are developing. Only recent, very recent ships, began to be created with an emphasis on air defense. So Korea's primary adversary at sea is the DPRK. And the appearance of such an aircraft carrier is due primarily to the strengthening of anti-aircraft capabilities.
  24. SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 25 January 2021 20: 53
    +2
    All writers "about the worthlessness of small aircraft carriers" - believe that a possible war will be "1 on 1" ...
    But they are all wrong.
    The war will be "a bloc of countries against one country" ...
    Block against China.
    Bloc against Russia.
    Bloc against North Korea.

    And if a block has 4-5 light aircraft carriers, then this is already strength.
    Serious power.
    Being dispersed throughout the theater of operations, it is capable of delivering air strikes from different directions and stretching the enemy's forces, disassembling his single striking fist into several separate fingers ...
    If you understand this analogy.
  25. Basarev
    Basarev 27 March 2021 11: 08
    0
    The aircraft carrier could be very useful against North Korea. It seems to be obvious.