Here's Why N Korea Navy Fear the Sejong Destroyer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2022
- Today, we are going to take a look at South Korean’s Sejong the Great-class, the best destroyer in Asia. Don’t miss out and stay tuned!
Countries are more likely to rely on destroyer as the front line of their naval fleet. This is mostly because destroyers are capable of defending itself against hostile planes, ships, and submarines. Hence, it's easy to see why modern destroyers are extremely critical weapons for navies. The world has witnessed ranges of advanced and dangerous destroyers like the Arleigh Burke-class or the Atago-class. And among these famous destroyers, South Korean’s Sejong the Great-class is worth to be mentioned. One of the top destroyers sailing through continent, Sejong also known as particularly the best among its peers in Asia. • Here's Why N Korea Nav... A supreme three-guided missile destroyers of the Republic of Korea Navy, another name for Sejong the Great-class is KDX-III. The name ‘Sejong’ itself is derived from the fourth king of Joseon Dynasty of Korea, and the ship was officially referred as Sejong the Great through the announcement of South Korean Chief of Naval Operations on 20 April 2007.
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/ - Наука та технологія
Respect to South Korea 🇰🇷 from the USA! Nice ship too.
A few months ago, king Jeongjo Aegis destroyer, which was bigger and stronger than King Sejong, was launched.
The best destroyer in the world not in asia
6 ships vs arleigh burkes 72
Keep it up South Korea.
🇰🇷 SEA OF KOREA 🇰🇷
Beauty is fighting power！
Nic video
The Sejong class MK-41+K-VLS hybrid drogue system, although slightly more than the 055, in terms of the number of units. However, the 635mm diameter and 7.7m depth of the system is simply small compared to the 850mm and 9m deep drogue unit wells of the 055TDD, which are obviously inferior to the 055 destroyer in terms of multi-bomb capability and compatibility with large munitions. And, Sejong class has two kinds of drogue system, a variety of the same purpose but different types of anti-ship anti-aircraft ground ammunition, in actual combat for the ship's Aegis system, is undoubtedly a burden that will lead to reduced operational efficiency.
Wumao professional thank you for the information and stop trolling wumao 🙂
This is technically wrong, Chinese missiles are larger and this need bigger vls’s.
Western missiles are narrower in order to fit more cells onto smaller ships.
This ship can carry the newest sm-2’s and sm-6’s which gives it 275+ miles in range for anti air combat as well as having more out of cell canister missiles and dedicated k-vls systems for cruise missiles.
It’s illogical to suggest western ships are poorly armed because of smaller vls’s when our missiles are being tested against hypersonic targets starting this year.
I could go on for ages, the Korean ship has so many more weapons and features that really put it ahead.
It’s batch 3 coming in 2024 are expected to have spy-6 radars which let it attack satellites with sm-3, air start with sm-2 and am-6, hypersonics with sm-6 block 4 which will be hypersonic it’s self and fight ballistic missiles with all blocks of its current weapons.
It even has ballistic missiles capable of carrying nukes as far as India.
This ship is undoubtably the best destroyer in Asia.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 A larger missile will increase its operational effectiveness (e.g. greater range, larger missile warhead, etc.)
The larger VLS of the 055 would also allow it to carry missiles such as the YJ-21.
South Korea's weapons are more like a consolidation of Western countries. Relying on imports from other countries will have many drawbacks such as 300km limit, compatibility issues etc.
While the Sejong Daewang is a very powerful destroyer, as a senior US military official said, the key to modern warfare is not the difference between a single platform like the F-22 and the J-20, but the difference between the entire military system and integrated national power. This is where the fundamental gap lies.
Type 055's VLS being bigger just means its weapons have to be bigger and heavier, or twice the materials/energy to do the same thing as western missiles do. Still effective, but It has its drawbacks too. Take for example PL-15. PL-15 is a bigger and heavier missile compared to Meteor to achieve the same range. It won't be able to do the same Gs for tight turns like western missile do, ergo less maneuverable and may only be useful for taking out larger aircraft.
does it have the capability to shoot incoming enemy missile?
Yes no doubt, but it depends on what kind of missle that's coming towards them
It can intercept late stage hypersonic missiles with the essm and am-6
If you look at the specifications, it is a cruiser.
regarding Sejong, Long story short, something about the design's specifications have always seemed off to me, and finding the original Flight III Burke study cemented those doubts.
The 128-cell Burke study ballparked the design's standard displacement at 8957 tons. That concept was 550ft long overall, which is 5.5ft more than KDX-III, and the flush deck definitely adds to its volume (and thus displacement), but it's also 10.25ft narrower than KDX-III. Given the ship should be larger than the 128-cell Burke (the wider hull will mean more deck area and hull volume), Sejong the Great should not be some 1307 tons lighter than the former if all else about the designs were the same.
Which, of course, leads to the conclusion that all else between KDX-III and the 128-cell Burke is not the same. KDX-III uses the same radar, propulsion plant, most of the same weapons (Sejong has more), and has the same aviation facilities as the 128-cell Burke, so those are mostly out. Technological advances from 1989 to the late 2000s would cause savings in weight for these systems, yes, but with these key items all being the same or better on Sejong that the Burke study, it’s likely this was leveraged to make the former more capable rather than lighter.
The displacement gap is not likely down to consumables (fuel, food, ammo, etc.) capacity either, as comparing the loaded displacements yields a fairly similar 1293 ton difference. The Korean ship does have a much lower complement of 300 vs. 363 (the study says 393, but that includes a growth margin), but I've never known accommodations 63 people to cost that much additional weight. If anything, trends of automation tend to show the opposite: a higher level of automation adds weight but saves space, while more crew requires greater space but reduces weight (at least until the larger crew necessitates additional shared facilities like bathrooms and mess halls).
All that process of elimination really leaves only one candidate the Koreans are possibly cutting corners on: survivability. Redundant systems, watertight bulkheads, systems separation, shock isolation measures, and deliberately-inefficient system design to minimize single points of failure (among other measures) all add weight. Applied across the length of a 510ft ship, that becomes a lot of extra weight compared to civilian construction standards. Still, quantifying how much worse 1300 tons’ less of subdivision is for Sejong the Great's survivability is can't be done without a detailed set of blueprints.
TL;DR The Koreans are likely skimping on survivability, which is why they can shove so many weapons on KDX-III for relatively low displacement. Building a Sejong the Great equivalent ship to USN standards would result in a large, 4-figure displacement increase over Arleigh Burke, likely to about 12000-13000 tons loaded.
Former ROKN LT and current USN PO2 here.
I like your assessment but you are missing few points here.
1. When ROKN ships announce their ship's tonnage to public they always reduce it.
2. Crew living space in STG is one of most tightest in ROKN.
From my understanding, the newest of the STG destroyers, the Batch II Jeongjo the Great, has a loaded displacement of 13,000 tons or slightly over.
Dear Sir and Madame. I am a german ret navy officer. I know many poor men from Thailand, that would love to work in your lovly country ! If anybody knows an employer or a job in Korea please please let me know. I can garanty their integrity. Thank you very much. Salut.
Make a video on Vishakapatnam class destroyers.
Pretty sure the 055 in the thumbnail shrank XD
Nope the Burke is a flight 3 which is not 10ft shorter and actually carries more missiles with essm quad packing
@@anguswaterhouse9255 how does that relate at all to my comment
Uhhhh i think they scare of the AEGIS and the Tomahawk Missile
An enlarged Arleigh Burke more or less.
Why doesn't the US just buy the design for its next gen destroyer programme, plus it will be getting the design from a loyal ally?
@@nostramashego4226 because they already are developing a new DDG
@@gn0me420 what is America's success rate in developing a new programme? The chances are high that the new design will be much more expensive and less lethal than the Sejong, I think they should go the same way they did for the Constellation class - go for an existing desifn from an ally and pimp it up US - style
@@nostramashego4226 well the new one is supposed to be better, so let's hope so.
@@nostramashego4226 Umm... didn't isn't the Sejong based on the Arleigh Burke meaning the American's already have the design as they were the one's to build it?
At 3:42/4:07🇺🇸and🇰🇷 there ships almoat the same the colors are close the same, so we are giving stuff products items and💰💰💰💰💰to South Korea Soul to back them up to be ready for red alert.
Can you a video kolkatta class destroyers of Indian Navy
Ambas Coreas son impresionantes por todos sus avances, y no solo sus armamentos.
Both Koreas are impressive for all their improvements, and not only their armaments.
Dapat destroyers ang inuna. Tangke ang priority........ kalaban nasa dagat. Mura. Na yan. Cheapest. 1 billion dollar
best destroyer in Asia😂😂Type055 is the best
I'm a South Korean
Oh ho!
🇮🇳
@@sourabhgupta4853 🇮🇳🇮🇳
Go to the north I heard it’s much better there
🤏
EL DESTRUCTOR SEJONG EL GRANDE ES MEJOR QUE EL ARLEIGH BURKE Y ESO QUE EL SEJONG ES CASI IDENTICO AL BURKE PERO UN POCO MAS GRANDE.
Not exactly, sejong may carry tons if firepower but it actually equipped 2 different types of vls system. One of them being the American k 41 vls and the conventional vls systems. This severely limits the sejong class destroyers capability as these vls systems can only carry specific missles while south korea have trouble with the k 41 vls system as most of thier missles can't be carried and fired in them. Also, most of it's systems are from the 80s which has veen retired by most navy in the eorld which makes the sejong class destroyer outdated in terms of technology
It’s basically a cruiser not a destroyer
I think the Type 055 VLS is more capable due to greater depth and diameter. It can literally launch ASBMs with 1000km+ range.
Zumwalt with C-HGB in 2025-2030 belike 🙃
There is no such thing as an ASBM, missiles moving at hypersonic speeds can not maneuver, i can post the math and Russian patent below if you would like. This class can use the Hyunmoo-3C, which as the video states is similar to the US tomahawk and has a 1500km+ range.
Since it uses the MK41 VLS it can quad pack missiles and has ballistic missile defense unlike the Type 055.
@上官 竹喧 Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
@@ThatCarGuy plz post your math
@@marshmellow1162 Lets take a slower moving hypersonic missile to prove my point. Lets use the Zircon, it's top speed is mach 9 right? Converted to KM/S that is roughly 3km/s, so we will round down for ease. Say you wanted to maneuver a single degree at 3km/s for 5 seconds, you would be off 15km, almost as much as the Chinese test just missed by. In real life you would be moving more then a single degree to track a ship, and would shoot these numbers up astronomically. This is why for example the Russian patent posted below admits hypersonic missiles can not maneuver, need to shut it's engines off, can lose stability and even self destruct upon coming down to it's target in it's terminal phase. Now imagine faster moving hypersonic missiles moving mach 15+, they are moving to fast to be able to maneuver. It's just physics, like when you drive, is it easier to turn going slower or faster? Slower.
"Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile, allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the combat module with the scramjet.
The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that:
an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine;
characteristics of sustainability and controllability of the combat module with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible;
there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the Combat module from the march height before hitting the target."
Sejong is more like a Tico in USN
It is a document dealing with diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are close in language, culture, and lineage, but due to territorial disputes, the two countries are now enemies, and are still at odds. Once there is a conflict, the United States mediates between the two countries. This is the relationship between North and
South Korea in Northeast Asia
Korea has a strong navy not because of North Korea but because of Japan.
That's right. They aim to complete by 2030 and are working on self-defense projects for the entire army throughout the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet. Along with building a new fleet of aircraft carriers, the development of KF-21 Blocks 1 and 2 and their missile power are already strong, but the development of SLBMs and a tonne of weight ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 3,000 kilometers is all right to comprehensively check Japan and China at the same time. More than 20 years have already passed in that military direction, and the Korean Navy is gradually gaining the ability to secure its waters, away from the same forces as the past coastal navy.
But they are allies in Nato right ?!
China, in fact.
@@TheM7016 Bruh 💀
Neither of them are Nato members.
@@thenovicegamer007 ahh
I may thought that cuz US sold them F-35
One might ask why does such small nation needs so much firepower
beacause our neighbor is DPRK, China, and Russia ffs
East Asia is a living fossil of the Cold War era, and the cold war has never left East Asia.
The only enemy of Korea peninsula is Japan.
Nobody really ask that, and everybody know the North will attack one day
Consider you didn't mention Japan, I can assume you are not a Korean at all. There is much more you have to learn before pretending to be an asian.
@@yf4013 머라카노
The two ships serve very different roles. 055 has much stronger anti-ship missiles and a more well-rounded capability, while the Sejong is more focused on defensives. It's designed to support the American carrier group.
The 055 is more of a cruiser anyway. It's longer than the US Navy's Ticonderoga class cruiser, and is more in line with cruisers utilized by Russia. It is categorized as a Renhai-class cruiser by NATO/OSD.
sejong may carry tons if firepower but it actually equipped 2 different types of vls system. One of them being the American k 41 vls and the conventional vls systems. This severely limits the sejong class destroyers capability as these vls systems can only carry specific missles while south korea have trouble with the k 41 vls system as most of thier missles can't be carried and fired in them. Also, most of it's systems are from the 80s which has veen retired by most navy in the eorld which makes the sejong class destroyer outdated in terms of technology
Source: trust me bro, ok thank you for the information and stop trolling wumao
most of its systems are from the 80s hahahaha what a funny chinese troll
However, there is a clear reason why the U.S. and the Soviet Union did not abandon ICBMs and strategic nuclear bombers, but SLBMs are the least responsive. The U.S. Navy's Ohio-class SSBN, which has a high utilization rate of only 60 percent, has a low utilization rate of four out of 33 ships, but the actual number of SLBMs can only be reduced unless they are fully prepared to start a nuclear war.
This is a clear drawback compared to ICBMs and strategic nuclear bombers, which can increase the number of missiles that can be launched immediately in a few hours to a few days. Furthermore, SLBM is the most irreversible of the three due to the nature of launching from a submarine in an enclosed and isolated water. In other words, it is difficult to issue an order to start the launch when necessary or to stop the launch in a timely. As a result, the personnel management of the command team, including the captain of the strategic submarine handling SLBM, is especially cautious, and the procedure to confirm whether or not to launch the ship is more complicated than other means.
The world's SLBM operators are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, India, South Korea and North Korea.
Im early
失踪大王👍🏻
I'm curious : when China invades Taiwan, do you think South Korea may help in its defense? Or help the US in logistics?
Perhaps we will be passive because Korea's export dependence on China is 25%. Considering that South Korea has grown through exports and is still a country that is absolutely dependent on exports, China is a fucking bastard, but it's too close and already has too many interests.
NATO is not even willing to defend an independent country like Ukraine, what makes you believe the US will defend Taiwan? The United States neither recognizes Taiwan's statehood nor has a formal alliance with the island. I don't think the US will do more to Taiwan than it did to Ukraine. At the same time, Taiwan is an isolated island much smaller than Ukraine, with no strategic depth to speak of, and not mountainous enough to support guerrilla activities.
For China, there are more important things at the moment than reunification of Taiwan. Taiwan is there. It won't swim away right away. All China has to do is spend five to ten years transforming its economic and technological prowess into a ready military capable of preventing any US intervention within the island chain. The only thing to watch out for is for the US to trigger this crisis prematurely, forcing China to rush into war before it is fully prepared.
5 to 10 years? Even if it takes 50 years, China cannot catch up. Look at the results of the one-party dictatorship & one-man dictatorship since modern times. How can a dictatorial government that blinds the public's eyes and ears, controls information, and never allows opposing forces to succeed?
@@user-dx6yj9fm4n Very good, I hope that the America will believe that. China is so weak that it will collapse immediately, you should not worry about China at all.
Computer narration sucks.
Nah. No need to fear nothing as the ship's sonar has inferior range to cut costs during the development phase. Limited sonar range makes the destroyer vulnerable to submarine torpedoes. I would say about 40% cut to the active sonar range compared to US ships. Every navy in the world has good passive sonars.
By mouth, there are three countries that claim to be the best in the world!China (including Taiwan) Japan, North Korea!All three countries are next to Korea, and there is a sense of inferiority in Korea. What's interesting is that women in all three countries like Korean men.And copy Korean fashion and culture!
Korea does not make nuclear weapons! However, everything is ready!You know that Korea is an exporter of nuclear power plants that need more technology than nuclear weapons, right?Korea is also strong in the chemical war! Come to any country
055 Made in china aegis system copy hahahaha
It’s definitely not the best destroyer in Asia, type 055 is and it’s the best in the world.
Your China is the best ok you happy with that 🙂
Junky dd... made in china.
It has more vls cells with better missiles like the sm-6 and is faster? 055 is better for attacking US super carrier but the Sejong is undeniably better at defence when you count up all it missiles it can carry you get almost 200 with quads packing essms and the SeaRAM defence launcher.
Different roles, each better at 1.
And the arleigj Burke flight 3 is probably better than the Sejong at defence due to its spy 6 over the horizon radar and the newest sm-6 variant which uses the sm-3s rocket to reach Mach 7
@@anguswaterhouse9255 more VLS, yes, because 055's VLS are much bigger. better missiles? please provide source that proves SM-6 is better than HHQ-9B, when HHQ-9B is faster, has higher ceiling, carries a warhead twice the size of the SM-6 and has significantly larger blast radius. 055's VLS can also quadpack, so not sure why you think that's a point for the Sejong. there are also 8 active 055s and a second batch of 8 improved 055s being built. there are 3 Sejongs and 1 being built. it supersedes the Sejong in all areas but most importantly its subsystems are not bought from 15 different countries. i know it's hard to admit 055 is good because it's chinese, but it is better, so learn to cope
@@jm3565Okay first of all, the 055 has larger VLS cells because those cells are meant to carry large supersonic anti-ship missiles, these are obviously better than the sejong the great's harpoon derivatives, I'm not going to argue that point it would be wrong and dumb.
But thats almost entirely irrelevant, when comparing these two ships we must first look at the larger strategy they fall into. Sejong is meant to fit into an allied task force, the main punch of which is air power, thus it focuses more on air defence, though it does retain more offensive capabilities than similar ships like Arleigh Burke and the japanese destroyers, due to south korea not actually having a carrier of its own (for now).
055 on the other hand is its self arguably the main source of firepower at sea for China, as while China has carriers they are not capable of launching large enough sorties with the right kind of missiles and planes to be a potent enough threat. Even their newest carrier which COULD do that appears as though it will fit into this doctorine rather than imitate the west, as the photographs of newer J-35 or whatever its called now show it has a flat belly like the F-22, suggesting it is an air superiority fighter rather than a multi-role fighter like F-35.
What those last two paragraphs explain, in short, is how comparing these two ships is difficult, as China uses its carriers to provide air cover while the ships fire missiles, while the west (which sejong fits into) does the opposite with fighters doing the attacking and ships mostly defending.
I honestly don't remember what I said in the comment you replied to, but what I'll say now is doubtlessly better informed than what I said then. I agree that if a sejong the great class and a 055 started shooting at each other, the Sejong would never kill the 055, as it isn't meant to kill a ship like that on its own. On the other hand, it would probably soak up most of the incoming missiles and then escape, baring chance failures in its defences, war is never an exact science after all.
I do genuinely believe that the AEGIS defence suite is better however, primarily because of 3 things, ESSM, SM-6 and datalink. ESSM allows MK-41 VLS cells to carry 4 missiles in a quadpack, I'm yet to see anything claiming China has a quadpacked missile system, and it honestly wouldn't really fit with their tactics, why waste a large VLS cell on 4 small missiles when you need as many of those cells to carry AA missiles for enemy fighters that the small missiles can't reach, or antiship missiles as those VLS is where your killpower is held. Quadpacking an 055 is pointless, China has more than enough frigates to do point defence, this is another issue with comparing ships on pros and con's that make sense in their fleets larger strategy.
Next is SM-6, this missile is meant to do everything, long range air defence, against fighters and missiles, and terminal defence against ballistic missiles and hypersonic gliders (which it can hypothetically kill in their terminal stage, I'll explain more if you ask this comment is getting really long), and while I don't have classified specifications to share I can explain how it being narrower and more aerodynamic, while also being lighter, inherently makes it more accurate than HHQ-9, which is meant to shoot at fighter jets, not do everything, as well as SM-6, again, these changes fit the doctorine, as 055 is more like long range artillery and AA, to compare ships to a ground war.
Finally, datalink. the SM-6 and AEGIS can link to all allied systems, meaning that an orbiting E-4 AWACS or F-35 with its incredible sensors can tell a allied ship of a low flying target that its own sensors can't see, allowing an over the horizon kill, which 055 cannot achieve due to China's current lack of advanced naval airborne sensors, which they will gain with 003, but I personally can't see them building missiles with the neccessary systems for over the horizon kills, years before they can actually do it, no country has that kind of budget.
TLDR: Both ships are good in their specific roles, Sejong is better air defence, 055 is better as a hunter-killer ship that needs other vessles support to stay alive.