Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/megaprojects2023 Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more!
You have a bad habit of frequently trailing off into mumbling. It makes listening very difficult either on a modest volume or with fluctuating background noise.(Real world problems most sound editors seem to have forgotten about.)
This makes alot of sense for S. Korea as they are already the number 1 builder of tankers and other large ship via Hyundai. Consequently they have some of the largest dock works in the world, and have the means to build a strong Navy with Aircraft Carriers.
Their destroyers are the best overall in the world. They can pump them out too. Honestly outside of size? South Korea has equipment that rivals or even surpasses the US. Their most modern tank is slept on. Their SPG is the best. The lady boys, world class👌. Wait that is Tailand. JP Anyway SK has the best ship building capacity pound to pound, and is not know for cheaping out like China. SK needs to come over, and teach USN how to build ships again to be honest. Their Stealth fighter though... I don't think it has internal weapon bays last time I heard. Sort of curious as to why. Surely they wouldn't make a 4.5 gen stealth craft.
I am so glad that yo/your script writer did acknowledge the fact IF you want One aircraft carrier, you need Three, so even if two are in the body and fender shop, one is still kicking around.
Survival mentality: One is none, two is one, and three is a good start. 11 is a catastrophe for an opponent. Average American doesn't hate anyone outside their country. Inside they are lead like mules to a carrot. Can't convince them to grow their own.
I see what you mean, but if you're using that kind of logic, how many carriers does Russia need? The Admiral Kuznetsov spends like three months at sea and then anywhere from 3-5 years between deployments broken, undergoing upgrades, or just on fire. Three surely won't be enough at that rate!
@@R.J._Lewis If Russia wants enough carriers to be what they still think they are, then they need at least 15. That way they can have around one out on either coast any given year. Seriously, though, they really can't afford a Blue Water navy right now. But yes, given that they need to have around 8 with real world maintainance cycles, not their current abilities. 2 baltic/north sea, 2 black sea, and 4 pacific, to do what they want.
@@kieranwalsh2058 Those they have, but not as many as in the late 90's-early 00's. Only have a few of the old big ones going, but more than enough, I imagine. Also have a new boomer out, I believe, Boreiy class, I think?
South Korea's helicopter carriers ARE capable of carrying fixed wing aircraft (F-35B vertical landing aircraft), they just need the upgrades like the two Japanese helicopter carriers got, that is a thermal (heat) protection deck coating, upgraded lighting and landing lines painted, upgrades that would literally only take weeks if you worked OT.
@@doubledekercouch Not needed, taking the QE class and the CdG as examples, the method of launching/recovering doesn't change the fact that both are deploying fixed wing aircraft.
You forgot about refueling, rearming, and maintenance. Sure a helicopter carrier could CARRY an F35B, but it could not operate it without huge modifications unless designed for the purpose of operating them.
To convert a LHD to a fixed wing carrier requires more than spraying a thermal coat on the deck. You also need upgraded (enlarged?) elevators, hanger bays, fuel and munitions stores and crew accommodation etc. It's a big job.
Yh, pretty glaringly bad stock footage slip. Considering he was talking about how they partnered with Babcock and took a lot of inspiration from the QE class to not realise the stock footage didn't then show a ship that looked like the South Korean renders is a bit of a blunder.....
1:35 - Chapter 1 - Into blue waters 4:00 - Mid roll ads 5:40 - Back to the video 8:05 - Chapter 2 - Design & development 13:55 - Chapter 3 - The newest update
The growing interest in various nations having a carrier is somewhat reminiscent of the desire to have a dreadnought-type battleship in the early 20th century. Larger nations had several, even smaller nations wanted at least one or two, partly for military reasons, but part of it was also the prestige of being in that club.
Carrier is a base of operations, it can support ground forces with logistics, very accurate fire support, and it is a safe place to evacuate wounded to. A battleship/dreadnought can only provide fire support. Also a carrier can cause more damage to an enemy fleet than a battleship bc aircraft can cause more damage than cannon shells fired from a battleship, and a carrier can launch more aircraft than a battleship has cannons.
This is early 20th century geopolitics all over again. Weapons races and growing concerns about shifting alliances. Here's hoping those attitudes that led to WW1 don't reoccur this time.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts we thought we had learned a lesson from WWI about how arms races cause wars. Hitler showed us that ignoring another enemy rearming is an even worse idea. WWII might never have happened had Britain and France been better prepared and it certainly would have been over a lot quicker.
@@TheThundertakerand just like WW2 Britain and many other countries around the world will be poorly prepared to counter aggression from China as most missiles and Long range artillery and ATGM's are being sent to Ukraine even the USA have said they are very low on a lot of smart missiles, artillery etc all the while China and Iran are continuously producing weapons but not using them.
@@triggertroy8266 yes, but the production lines are being geared up to be able to produce vast quantities of armaments, this gearing up is what really takes a lot of time, and now that we have had an excuse to gear it up, we should not be gearing down again.
When Russia says they have a new toy, nobody can believe it. When South Korea says it, i kinda believe them. Theyve had a really good arms industry in the last couple decades between tank/mobile artillery. I cant wait to see what they make.
Which other countries do you think would like at least 3 or 4 of these bad boys? I think England would like 2, to give them true rotational options, but currently I doubt the ability to afford it with all the economy expanding migration they are definitely not have problems with...
Considering how long China is taking developing their first fully domestic aircraft carrier design, and the amount of huge container ships made by Korea, I’d say that if they go all they way with this, other nations might consider ordering the Korean carrier for their own navies.
Totally correct, and agree but by the year 2050. Korean population will have declined to the point where there would be a shortage of personnel. Unless, they train civilians.
Minute 10:26, topic is queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier but the carrier shown in video is not a queen elizabeth carrier. They have two islands, that carrier only has one. I believe the carrier shown in video is the USS Essex, (LHD-2).
I am generally a proponent for aircraft carriers but for South Korea it makes sense. It put some of it's airpower that could be out of reach of North Korea. This could give the South a retaliatory strike as long as they were not in port at the time. I would hope that South Korea would have some ASW and picket ships to support this carrier. True, they would need 2 or 3 of these. Rotating one in port in maintenance, one for training and one at sea.
The South Koreans don't really consider the North specifically as a threat. Being able to project power, in alliance with the US, makes them a harder target for China. It's not so much about actually engaging in battle, but about becoming a force not worth the trouble. If China denies support to North Korea for an action, they're less likely to act.
Interesting video. That said, Simon, over the different channels, I noted two constants: 1. the background music is actually too loud and distracting, can it be toned down? 2. every channel seems to have another volume setting, so the quieter channels require raising volume to understand you, and the louder channels are screaming afterwards. Can you equalize the volume over the channels?
He probably has different teams editing different channels. I'm just glad they listened when we all complained about the damn wavy affect over images. It was awful 😅
Important point regarding naval strength. The Royal Navy a few years ago claimed a strength of (IIRC) a hundred or so. However a closer examination showed the vast majority were patrol boats, and actual combat ships able to defend themselves numbered about half a dozen. It would be interesting to see of the world's navies how many /actual/ ships they had.
The RN is small, but not quite that small. They have six destroyers that do air defense, and about ten or so frigates for mainly anti-submarine defense, all of which carry _some_ anti-ship missiles.
if you watch the World ranking, they still us only the numbers, i mean N. Korea is under the 10 strongest Navy?!?!? only bcs they have a lot of ships, numbers alone means nothing! you need to watch the Industrial power, for producing or repairing ships, Money, technology, education of the Sailor and so much more. We see it now in the Russo-Ukraine war, according to the numbers alone Ukraine should long have capitulated. btw, Chinese carrier was only 2 times at sea, since than he is in the dock, on satellite images we could see huge cracks on the deck and now they have placed the deck under a cover so we cant see what happens!
But no experience with carriers nor a working carrier doctrine. It feels like they're playing the "me too" game. But motivated more by the Japanese than the Chinese. Power projection for SK is out of the question. The Yellow Sea is too small to hide a carrier and the Japanese controls the sea between them to the east, and the Chinese to the west.
A carrier is more like an iceberg. 90% is dependent on the crew and training and supporting ships. You can weld together some steel and it will look like a carrier but the most important elements are not steel.
Well done show on a ‘tough to cover’ topic with more than a few variables still unknown. The South Korean economy does premium business in exports. Having their own clout on the spot in and around their crucial shipping lanes against the aggressively expanding Chinese navy makes a ton of sense.
Hey Simon and gang. What about doing a video on the PBR ( patrol Boat River) developed for the Vietnam war. Built by a pleasure craft maker with Jaccuzzi jets and not one is left today.
3:05 except South Korea always spend more than 2% of their gdp for military. 2% is what NATO members are required to do but consistently fails. So in a way, although South Korea did rely on US, it didn’t rely as much as most European countries all while rebuilding their economy from ruins. Remarkable
i feel like thats part of another carrier video already 🤔 like nimitz or something?! to give historical background! but sure, i wouldnt mind a deep dive either🙃
10:25 Uhh… that’s the ESSEX, LHD-2, a US WASP-class. I had the privilege of being aboard QE when she visited Yokosuka, Japan on her Asia-Pacific deployment and can attest there are more than a few differences between the two.
@@HuntingCatIsBack no worries. Will say the crew of the QE that I met were cool af. Trading coins and ball caps with them was quite something, and the carrier itself was pretty impressive.
@@CdrMcNeil I myself am British but have lived in the US for 20 years. Betw 2014 and 2019 I visited San Diego three times and on each occasion saw USS Essex birthed in her home port. A most impressive ship.
The US should invest in and become partners in R&D for Japanese and Korean aircraft carriers. As it was with WW1 and 2 the antagonists built up their militaries at a rapid pace before hostilities began. There were new developments in weapons that appeared to garner one party a advantage in the killing field. Though the aircraft carrier has been around for nearly one hundred years its potency has not diminished as a weapon of power projection, a floating air field.
Having a bunch of smaller air craft carriers is probably the future of navy. Cant wait for a megaprojects episode on the inevitable flying drone carrier. lol
@@zaco-km3su 1. Too lazy to apostrophe. Counted on autocorrect, but it failed me 2. Obviously, I did not implied there was. The term is not correct, but I used it to differentiate from conventional aircraft carriers. The correct term is airborne aircraft carriers, and mark my words there will be because it is already being worked on.
@@StephenJohnson-jb7xe Right? If anyone has played AC7, is a good indication of the future. Once we have a breakthrough in battery tech to power larger drones, they are going to have real pilots train AI, which will then fly the drones autonomously. Airborne refueling means the carriers can remain deployed for long periods, and with data link, you can deploy, coordinate, and recapture the drones from multiple launch vectors. The tech is all there already. Just waiting for the batteries.
If South Korea wants more leverage in the Defense of Free Nations everywhere, more support from me and more power to them. Enemies are infinite in number, but friends are in short supply.
It's not just because of China and North Korea that South Korea wants its own aircraft carrier, South Korea surrounded by the seas - thus maintaining and securing open waters is their aim to secure the trade routes, maritime trade and marine/ocean resource and once off the S.Korea's shores it's very difficult to protect their interests thus S.Korea wants to operate aircraft carrier - perhaps two carriers.
I could see this carrier being ideal for Brazil, Korea and Italy It's not as small as it seems, 20+ fighter jets + automated drones and helicopters a fair amount of force projection. It's the size of the Vikrant carrier or the Charles De Gaullle carrier🤷
20 fighter jets is poor force projection. That's more a coastal defense air station. Can it raid? Sure, Can it duke it out with a country with more than a single defensive air station? Maybe not... On the size of carriers, by making it just 200 feet longer and 50 feet wider, with a little redesign of the layout, they can more than double the number of fighters it can handle...if they had that many to put there.
@@namyun2743 Yeah you make good points. I still think the CVX is an interesting niche option. Like you said it's mostly going to be ideal for small scale conflicts or as a supplementary force for coalition fleets. Can raid, can protect shipping lanes, can contest the French, Russians and Indians anywhere globally, can transport aircraft to fixed locations, can deal with humanitarian issues, respond to natural disasters, support special forces activities etc. At the very least it would be useful for gaining naval expertise and as a technology demonstrator for a larger more capable ship in 30 years.
@@Waywind420 Yes, that is perhaps the most important thing the South Koreans can gain from building the CVX; the experience in operating a carrier. However that is assuming their economy holds up and they are willing to afford this. Their GDP and defense spending is right around where 2, maybe 3 carriers begins to be viable.
South Korea could save a ton of money and buy USS America class LHA's and use them as the US Marines intend to as Lightning Carriers with F-35B's. Both the ships and planes are off the shelf, so no development time required
No. The purpose of a carrier is its wings. THe F-35B is terrible in weapons payloads and capabilities. Stealth is now a dead-end technology as adversaries take into account stealth in their radars and IR seekers. The next frontier is electronic warfare, namely radar jamming, and distraction. Not only is the F-35B terrible as a fighter, but it also costs too much to maintain and operate. But more importantly, the ability to service, maintain and replace parts all rests on permission from the US and Lockheed before any South Korean engineers and crew can do ANY service on it. Parts can take anywhere from weeks, months, and sometimes years before they are shipped to the country. This puts significant and sometimes critical wartime capabilities at risk. Therefore, even though the development costs and time will be a whole lot more, in the long run, a self-developed naval airwing like the KF-21 navy version is a much cheaper and more effective means of an aircraft carrier to go with.
@@michaellim4165 If South Korea develops the Boramae into a carrier fighter, it would be like adopting for mass-production the US Navy's proposed F-22 carrier version or HAL of India copying the Rafale instead of buying the F-18I Super Hornet
Yes, three would be much better in spite of the fact that the Southern Korean Peninsula is, like the UK, a giant carrier in and of itself but I'm sure they have that part thoroughly sussed out given that their mortal enemy is literally on the other side of a line in the dirt.
The Essex Class design was modified from WW2 until the last one retired in 1991 still flying A-4, A-6, T-2. Easily handle F-35B, maybe the C. Just build a new one with all the cool new stuff on it like better propulsion and electronic tech. One heck of a proven ship design. The new Japanese carrier resembles it a lot. They chose what works.
Let's be honest, Lexington served as an aviation training carrier for the last 20 years of her service. We REALLY wrung the last drop of life out of her. To build a new nuclear-powered CATOBAR carrier that can handle even 30 aircraft might shave $2B, maybe 3B of their $13B price tag. If you make it conventionally powered, you could save another $1B to $2B, but you'll pay for that in increased operational costs well before her first decade of service. The new Japanese and SK carrier don't look anything like the Essex carriers after their 1950's refits. They don't have catapults and arresting wires either. Both those countries did the math and figured out they couldn't afford CATOBAR, much less nuclear catobar carriers on their navy budgets.
@@namyun2743 Re-fit is easy on an Essex. Angled deck and all. I served two years on Lady Lex, the last two. What a badass crew. She's a museum on Corpus Christy by now. Iconic and not gone yet.
@@TheFlutecart Then get the people, funding and facilities to do it yourself. This isn't 1958. Just like it doesn't make sense to attempt to refit our battleships, it makes even less sense to try to refit any of our 80 year old museum carriers like Lexington, Intrepid, Midway or Yorktown.
The floating's not actually that hard. They're incredibly heavy, but also massive. Because they're so wide and long, they displace so much water that they could actually hold a great deal more weight with no trouble.
In fact, what South Korea wants is not an aircraft carrier, but a nuclear submarine. The U.S. never allows NPT, and the U.S. recommends an aircraft carrier instead of a nuclear submarine (knowhow technology transfer = Bobcock) Because, the United States needs as many battleships as possible for the new cold war with China, so it has proposed aircraft carriers to South Korea and Japan, in case of emergency, to form a large fleet that even the fleet of its allies. The aircraft carrier fleet without nuclear submarines cannot sail in blue water, South Korea and Japan have no nuclear submarines, and the United States never allows nuclear submarines to the two countries, and as a result, the future Korean and Japanese aircraft fleets are lame.
The strategic argument for a South Korean carrier reminds me of the SLBM component of a nuclear triad, even if the north were to penetrate deep into the south’s land and/or devastate their bases on land, they would always have sea based forces to fall back on.
The big thing for South Korea, Japan, UK and Italy, is the lack of a really good carrier borne, AEW / AWACS platform. The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, is the obvious choice for all 4 nations, (6, if Spain ever get their economy spun round so they can buy Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightnings, to operate off the Juan Carlos I. As well as, Australia, if they decide to convert the HMAS Adelaide & Canberra, or build a dedicated Carrier). The Aviazione Navale & Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, operate the Leonardo AW101 Merlin's in the AEW role, but Helicopters are limited to an altitude of 15,000 feet. (The Higher you go the more, you can see). While the Grumman E-2C Hawkeye, operated by US Navy & French Aéronavale, has a limit of 34,700 feet. The Osprey's official limit is 25,000 feet. But that is for the commando assault version.
Conversion of the Adelaide and Canberra would be such an expensive and time consuming exercise, that it would probably be easier just to buy a dedicated aircraft carrier. The decks on them aren't built to the standard of STOVL and lack the proper heat protection that entails. The ski ramp is just there because the Spanish design it is based off is a STOVL aircraft carrier and is needed for structural integrity of the design. They are marine assault and helicopter carriers. Australian naval doctrine ATM is support and recon, with a side of submarine warfare. Plus Australia has a proud history of being terrible with aircraft carriers - see HMAS Melbourne and its jinx.
Why is USS Essex (LHD-2) shown when you talk about the Queen Elizabeth class and Babcock (UK firm)? The japanese baby carriers have recently had their bows redone and are receiving modifications to carry F-35Bs. You should look into the new turkish amphibious assault ship Anadolu, which is being finished as a drone/UAV carrier for VTOL and CTOL drones and UAV/UCAVs.
Carrier technology has predictably followed aircraft development. Early aircraft didn't fly fast enough to need long runways to take off or land. Later they needed arrester hooks and wires for faster aircraft landing and catapults to launch them. Then ski ramps to assist the STO part of V/STOL. Technically a VTOL aircraft /should/ be able to land and take off vertically negating the need for arrestor hooks, and wires on the carrier, but of course if the vertical ability is stuffed for any reason it's essential as a backup system.
I think the AUKUS agreement would be an interesting megaproject. While the submarine design is still a few years away, the amount of other projects it's going to need is huge
@@Emilechen You are COMPLETELY wrong. I think a carrier is important for such a small battle zone like the Korean peninsula because it is 100% guaranteed that North Korea will strike South Korean airfields, hampering their ability to launch fighters at the start of an invasion. If you have a mobile platform, like an aircraft carrier, you will have surviving air assets to deny North Korean air strikes or mass airborne troop drops since North Korea would not be able to gain air superiority. Additionally, ground attack aircraft can harass a land invasion, slowing North Korea's advance and giving time for mobilization.
@@ianchen8582 Air bases are stationary (i.e. they don't move). Aircraft carriers are mobile and harder to target and hit. North Korea doesn't have the capability to target and hit a moving ship at 30 knots hundreds of miles away with any accuracy from land-based missile sites. North Korea's navy is a joke with ships that are 50 years old and can't sail too far from the coast.
War Thunder is great fun. Can be a bit tough at times. The customization is great, however the ability to put bushes on your tank works a bit too well as camouflage. It's not so fun when it is close to impossible to spot a tank that is shooting you. Bushes can also make it difficult to aim for a tank's weak points, which can be crucial for some tanks when faced with heavier armour. For all its flaws War Thunder is a pretty stand alone game. It allows for aerial, naval and vehicular combat in one neatly wrapped package.
ROKN is seriously looking into KF21N (Navy version of KF21) as aircraft. As KF21N is not a vertical takeoff aircraft and require a catapult, the size of the carrier is expected to increase up to 70.000t. This will be a very long-term program as they are still discussing if the carrier will be nuclear powered or conventional+hybrid. Also without nuclear submarines to clear the path, carriers are very much likely to be the sitting target for enemy subs. It seems the nuclear subs are a priority and not the carriers. Even if ROKN decides to proceed with carriers, they would need minimum 3 carriers for obvious reasons.
@@Statueshop297 The original plan was for UK to have two carriers and France to have one. There was some minor design options for VTOL with a straight and Fixed Wing with an angled deck. For a while the UK even considered changing from F35B to F35C with an angled deck with France going with the Rafale. Some falling out over workshare, probably France wanted 50% but only purchasing 33% of the output but maybe other issues also, saw the two countries go their separate ways.
Personally i think S. Korea would be better off putting more reources into building a large submarine fleet or mine layers or sweepers or a combination. 1 single aircraft carrier is not going to make a big difference and wouldn't be operational year round. Whereas a dozen subs would be more operationally useful.
South Korea already has submarines, though. And sure, more couldn't hurt, but their capabilities are limited to a certain set of roles. An aircraft carrier opens up options South Korea otherwise wouldn't have.
It's more because S.Korea relies about 40~60% of its economy in imports/exports. If there ever was a naval blockade on its trade routes, then it'll suffer incredible damage regardless of how many mines it has on its waters.
@@albert9772 Indeed ! + are not most cities and ports in S. Korea within artillery range of the North ? So safely locating a carrier when it does need a port becomes even more of a problem.
@@PaulJohn01 the Port of Busan is South Korea's largest port, it's well outside of North Korea's artillery, and being at the southern end of the peninsula it provides more egress options when leaving port. It would make far more sense to park an aircraft carrier there than in Seoul.
@@QuantumAscension1 Agreed as to making more sense and being out of artillery range but what about the numerous missiles even N. Korea has ? N. Korea already mined Korean waters and i believe caused the sinking of a Korean ship before. Korea doesn't have that many options for protecting such a visible, powerful and expensive asset.
The South Koreans don't need three or even one carrier. They have plenty of islands away from the southern coast where they can base a large air force. The only things that the Korean Navy needs is lots of larger "Batch III" submarines. What Korea really needs is to move its capital away from the NK border and its gazillion artillery tubes. Just freeze construction in Seoul and start building at Busan. It would save millions of lives in a future conflict.
How far south should be the new South Korean capital be ? Regardless of where it is located, it will be in range of various North Korean long range weapon systems.
@@crusher8017 But not tube artillery, of which thousands are within range Seoul. Or Katyushas, or all but the longest range artillery rockets. And, of course, there is always the matter of a million underfed and starving North Korean minions who won't have to march more than ten miles.
Hope S Korea doesn't go the carrier route. It's a lot of money for a vanity project. If they really want to go toe to toe with China; I suggest something like a Virginia class submarine. This will require a massive technology transfer from the US or the UK. Essentially a deal Australia just got.
What South Korea should do is get the plans for the Modified Midway Class Aircraft Carriers that lasted so long in the US Navy and build their modified, updated version, themselves. They could even travel to San Diago, CA to take closer looks at the actual USS Midway CV-41 that is open for display there. This way, they would have a great basis for their aircraft carriers, save them millions of dollars in planning fees, and give them a proven design to put their own designed aircraft aboard. Being new is sometimes not really being the best and the Midways were pretty good, once all of the problems in the original design had been corrected.
Interesting segment. A South Korean aircraft carrier(s) is just the centerpiece of a 10+ vessel fleet to support/maintain the protection/operation of the carrier. Can the South Korean economy support such a fleet and maintain the existing duties of the navy? From a certain point of view, that is a lot of eggs in a single basket for a small though wealthy country.
North Korean artilleries which they already deployed is enough to destroy almost the entire ROK economic centre, I'm not favouring NK but it's the reality and I don't think they need new AC to project power, they need more powerful defence system to protect their citizens but not a an AC to show South korea is the greatest country.
i think future aircraft carrier is more like helicopter-carrier with drones submarines (drones) and some vtol jets or one with very short take-off and landing capabilities
S Korea has been a country who doesn't really care about combat overseas. We have never waged war, only defended our own. I don't really see the need for a carrier considering we don't really go outside the sea around us and are only surrounded by China and Japan across the seas and NK just few meters from us. The sea between China and Korea is so small that modern jet missiles such as aim 260, meteor, etc make it somewhat useless to have the carrier since we can just land on land rather than on a carrier a few miles off the coast of Korea
@@michaellim4165 that was not S Korea vs Vietnam. That was S Korea helping out US forces along with other countries. Im talking about full on S Korea declaring war on other countries themselves like US did with Japan or Pakistan and India and such and such
Against NK, there is no need for a fleet carrier because NK does not have a fleet that can operate beyond its coast.. A couple of helicopter carriers is all they need for anti-sub missions, a potential threat from NK. However, a carrier would be helpful in securing sea lanes should the US become more isolationist and stop protecting the international sea lanes. For this mission, a light carrier with helicopters and a small flight of fighters is all SK needs. The fighters are mainly for fleet defense with limited force projection. Helicopters can provide anti-sub and anti-piracy capabilities.
There are 100,000 ton super carriers that the US builds and 40,000-50,000 ton light carriers every one else builds. The US has those as well in their LHA and LHD.
Five billion? Not a chance it's that cheap. The USS Wasp, a very similar and only slightly heavier ship to what they're describing here cost roughly 2 billion for the ship but that doesn't include the design and development or the air wing. If they really have their heart set on a carrier they'd save a lot of money by building two licensed copies of the Wasp. They could avoid having to pay for development or R&D and instead use that money to buy the air wings. Or... They could license the America class, which is the follow on class to the Wasp. It would still be MUCH cheaper than building a unique one-off ship like this. And they might save enough money to buy TWO.
You forgot to mention the best thing about War Thunder: the occasional leaks of classified documents to the game's forums to settle arguments about 'who would actually win'.
At 0:30 we pan over an angled deck carrier with a centerline elevator. What ship is that? It doesnt have a USN hull number, and i cant think of any carrier built in the last 50 years with that configuration.
@@isaacfairburne9981 French built 1957-1960. So, angled deck, conventional power, centerline elevator. Sold to Brazil in 2000, instead of being scrapped, and really should have been scrapped. Brazil threw what money they had at it for a couple of decades, then finally scuttled it in 2017.
I recently came back from a 2 week trip to South Korea the scale of the U.S involvement is absolutely nuts. I was lucky to be visiting my bro who was already stationed there so we lived with him on on of the largest bases. I had the impression that with at least 100,000 service men in a country of 51.74 million the visual U.S presence would be subtle or limited but no South Korea models it’s military culture closely to the U.S and it was everywhere we went. Wandering on the streets of Seoul- Pyongtek it was a frequent sight to see at least one U.S servicemen per 10 ROKA solders wandering around. Living on a active military base being around sensitive hardware and active facilities there’s few details I can divulge in good conscious but let’s just say the military presence is extensive and active every day as it is technically a war zone.
You are basing off of a single US base that is the biggest US base in Pacific. ROK Army alone has 500K active personnel with 1-2mil Reserves. Korea is capable of its own defense without the 20K US force. US force is a symbol of US-ROK alliance and also an insurance; it's for mutual benefits to contain NK and China.
Now just imagine this carrier launching a plane that in turn launches 100 drones. Carriers still can project air power just in different way than intended. I wonder how many drones can fit in the weapons bay of a F35?
In the tail end of the 20th Century NAVSEA was busy designing its own CVX, using that very designation; a smaller, cheaper and non-nuclear carrier to supplement the big, expensive supercarriers. Eventually, the idea of spending so much money on carriers crippled by the dependence on fuel oil and with smaller air groups killed the idea.
For me an American.. It is just nice to see other countries putting more thought and effort into their own militaries and equipping them with kit that will help them hold their own, instead of just trying to rely on the US as their defensive big daddy.. I mean do not get me wrong - I fully support the US helping defend its allies, but to have other countries have their own responsibility and their own country centric needs being meet by their own militaries is IMO the smartest thing any country can do.. If they have smart military leaders (and I think they do) they need to get their own governments to get them their own kit. Not to mention having things locally built will only make things more stable across al allies - as long as they all coordinate in design specifications that allow synergies with each other.
I can see an argument for South Korea having Aircraft Carriers as a sneak attack would target airfield in the country but if you had the carriers there's a chance you could have some Aircraft to strike back with. Also they could help keep sea ways open till alied nation's could build up support forces.
They need more variants, not less. The base variant staple would still be several tens of doll. As long as Ragavan is above 20 bucks, we don't have enough supply and variants.
considering England has 2 carriers and doesn't really want one of them, and that class is pretty dang close to what the south Koreans designed and want, it makes sense that they might be able to purchase from England. only problem is that it would more than likely be a demilled one, completely gutted with no radar, weapons, arresting gear... they'd be lucky if the brits even left engines onboard, but it would be considerably easier (if not cheaper) than learning to build one from scratch. that is essentially how china began their carrier fleet, bought one gutted useless russian carrier, learned how to make it work, built a second based off the original design and then took all those lessons learned and designed a new carrier.
If anyone can do this it's the Koreans!👍👍 How about this for a future episode? The design & construction of pads 39 A&B at Kennedy Space Center. This seems timely given recent events at Boca Chica.🚀💥
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/megaprojects2023 Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more!
Neat! Does the link also give access to leaked military secrets, or do I need Minecraft for that?
I hope the long drive people contact you to do there adds for the BB
Don't do it guys. It's not worth it
@@jackfeist1193 darn, I was excited to try it
You have a bad habit of frequently trailing off into mumbling. It makes listening very difficult either on a modest volume or with fluctuating background noise.(Real world problems most sound editors seem to have forgotten about.)
This makes alot of sense for S. Korea as they are already the number 1 builder of tankers and other large ship via Hyundai. Consequently they have some of the largest dock works in the world, and have the means to build a strong Navy with Aircraft Carriers.
Their destroyers are the best overall in the world. They can pump them out too.
Honestly outside of size? South Korea has equipment that rivals or even surpasses the US.
Their most modern tank is slept on. Their SPG is the best. The lady boys, world class👌. Wait that is Tailand.
JP
Anyway SK has the best ship building capacity pound to pound, and is not know for cheaping out like China.
SK needs to come over, and teach USN how to build ships again to be honest.
Their Stealth fighter though... I don't think it has internal weapon bays last time I heard. Sort of curious as to why. Surely they wouldn't make a 4.5 gen stealth craft.
I am so glad that yo/your script writer did acknowledge the fact IF you want One aircraft carrier, you need Three, so even if two are in the body and fender shop, one is still kicking around.
Survival mentality: One is none, two is one, and three is a good start. 11 is a catastrophe for an opponent. Average American doesn't hate anyone outside their country. Inside they are lead like mules to a carrot. Can't convince them to grow their own.
I see what you mean, but if you're using that kind of logic, how many carriers does Russia need? The Admiral Kuznetsov spends like three months at sea and then anywhere from 3-5 years between deployments broken, undergoing upgrades, or just on fire. Three surely won't be enough at that rate!
@@R.J._Lewis If Russia wants enough carriers to be what they still think they are, then they need at least 15. That way they can have around one out on either coast any given year. Seriously, though, they really can't afford a Blue Water navy right now. But yes, given that they need to have around 8 with real world maintainance cycles, not their current abilities. 2 baltic/north sea, 2 black sea, and 4 pacific, to do what they want.
Same applies for SSBNs too. Always gotta have one at sea for deterrence
@@kieranwalsh2058 Those they have, but not as many as in the late 90's-early 00's. Only have a few of the old big ones going, but more than enough, I imagine. Also have a new boomer out, I believe, Boreiy class, I think?
10:31 that is not a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier, that is a U.S. Wasp class amphibious assault ship.
South Korea's helicopter carriers ARE capable of carrying fixed wing aircraft (F-35B vertical landing aircraft), they just need the upgrades like the two Japanese helicopter carriers got, that is a thermal (heat) protection deck coating, upgraded lighting and landing lines painted, upgrades that would literally only take weeks if you worked OT.
There should probably be a different designation for ships which can only use vtols and ones which can use catobar/stobar methods
@@doubledekercouch
Not needed, taking the QE class and the CdG as examples, the method of launching/recovering doesn't change the fact that both are deploying fixed wing aircraft.
Weren’t there proposals to do so? Also claims the Dokdos are too small to support F-35Bs
You forgot about refueling, rearming, and maintenance. Sure a helicopter carrier could CARRY an F35B, but it could not operate it without huge modifications unless designed for the purpose of operating them.
To convert a LHD to a fixed wing carrier requires more than spraying a thermal coat on the deck. You also need upgraded (enlarged?) elevators, hanger bays, fuel and munitions stores and crew accommodation etc. It's a big job.
That image of the "Queen Elizabeth Carrier" was actually USS Essex (LHD-2). Edited to remove 2nd.
@Caleb Johnson Good catch, you are correct. I guess I had always assumed it was the 2nd without ever looking it up.
Yh, pretty glaringly bad stock footage slip.
Considering he was talking about how they partnered with Babcock and took a lot of inspiration from the QE class to not realise the stock footage didn't then show a ship that looked like the South Korean renders is a bit of a blunder.....
It’s deliberate mistake to up comments.
1:35 - Chapter 1 - Into blue waters
4:00 - Mid roll ads
5:40 - Back to the video
8:05 - Chapter 2 - Design & development
13:55 - Chapter 3 - The newest update
🙏🏼 arigato
@@MischeifMakerz 大歓迎
Konnichewa
arrivederci senior
0:47 aircraft clarifier club 😂
The growing interest in various nations having a carrier is somewhat reminiscent of the desire to have a dreadnought-type battleship in the early 20th century. Larger nations had several, even smaller nations wanted at least one or two, partly for military reasons, but part of it was also the prestige of being in that club.
Carrier is a base of operations, it can support ground forces with logistics, very accurate fire support, and it is a safe place to evacuate wounded to.
A battleship/dreadnought can only provide fire support.
Also a carrier can cause more damage to an enemy fleet than a battleship bc aircraft can cause more damage than cannon shells fired from a battleship, and a carrier can launch more aircraft than a battleship has cannons.
This is early 20th century geopolitics all over again. Weapons races and growing concerns about shifting alliances. Here's hoping those attitudes that led to WW1 don't reoccur this time.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts we thought we had learned a lesson from WWI about how arms races cause wars. Hitler showed us that ignoring another enemy rearming is an even worse idea. WWII might never have happened had Britain and France been better prepared and it certainly would have been over a lot quicker.
@@TheThundertakerand just like WW2 Britain and many other countries around the world will be poorly prepared to counter aggression from China as most missiles and Long range artillery and ATGM's are being sent to Ukraine even the USA have said they are very low on a lot of smart missiles, artillery etc all the while China and Iran are continuously producing weapons but not using them.
@@triggertroy8266 yes, but the production lines are being geared up to be able to produce vast quantities of armaments, this gearing up is what really takes a lot of time, and now that we have had an excuse to gear it up, we should not be gearing down again.
When Russia says they have a new toy, nobody can believe it. When South Korea says it, i kinda believe them. Theyve had a really good arms industry in the last couple decades between tank/mobile artillery. I cant wait to see what they make.
Which other countries do you think would like at least 3 or 4 of these bad boys?
I think England would like 2, to give them true rotational options, but currently I doubt the ability to afford it with all the economy expanding migration they are definitely not have problems with...
Heh... Clarrier Club...
And my work here is done.
5:45 really ur work is done with a comment about brown water?
Ya beat me to it!
He’s only human.
@@TrainingSagewith a team, but nonetheless it’s still funny
Considering how long China is taking developing their first fully domestic aircraft carrier design, and the amount of huge container ships made by Korea, I’d say that if they go all they way with this, other nations might consider ordering the Korean carrier for their own navies.
Incoming Polish carrier
Totally correct, and agree but by the year 2050. Korean population will have declined to the point where there would be a shortage of personnel. Unless, they train civilians.
@@onapersonalnote7045 polish land vehicle carrier
The RoK is working on being a key arsenal of democracy
Carrier drone squadron incoming.
Minute 10:26, topic is queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier but the carrier shown in video is not a queen elizabeth carrier. They have two islands, that carrier only has one. I believe the carrier shown in video is the USS Essex, (LHD-2).
I am generally a proponent for aircraft carriers but for South Korea it makes sense. It put some of it's airpower that could be out of reach of North Korea. This could give the South a retaliatory strike as long as they were not in port at the time. I would hope that South Korea would have some ASW and picket ships to support this carrier. True, they would need 2 or 3 of these. Rotating one in port in maintenance, one for training and one at sea.
The South Koreans don't really consider the North specifically as a threat. Being able to project power, in alliance with the US, makes them a harder target for China. It's not so much about actually engaging in battle, but about becoming a force not worth the trouble. If China denies support to North Korea for an action, they're less likely to act.
I'm just checking...you are saying you are in favor of aircraft carriers and for SKorea especially they make sense?
Interesting video.
That said, Simon, over the different channels, I noted two constants:
1. the background music is actually too loud and distracting, can it be toned down?
2. every channel seems to have another volume setting, so the quieter channels require raising volume to understand you, and the louder channels are screaming afterwards. Can you equalize the volume over the channels?
I agree with lucy fer
He probably has different teams editing different channels. I'm just glad they listened when we all complained about the damn wavy affect over images. It was awful 😅
Important point regarding naval strength. The Royal Navy a few years ago claimed a strength of (IIRC) a hundred or so. However a closer examination showed the vast majority were patrol boats, and actual combat ships able to defend themselves numbered about half a dozen. It would be interesting to see of the world's navies how many /actual/ ships they had.
The RN is small, but not quite that small. They have six destroyers that do air defense, and about ten or so frigates for mainly anti-submarine defense, all of which carry _some_ anti-ship missiles.
@@srdxxx As I said that was a few years zgo
Nonsense.
4 SSBN. 6 SSN. 2 carriers, 2 amphibious ships, 6 destroyers, 11 frigates.
Thats 31, genius.
@@stackhat8624 which bit of 'years ago' would you like me to explain to you?
if you watch the World ranking, they still us only the numbers, i mean N. Korea is under the 10 strongest Navy?!?!? only bcs they have a lot of ships, numbers alone means nothing! you need to watch the Industrial power, for producing or repairing ships, Money, technology, education of the Sailor and so much more. We see it now in the Russo-Ukraine war, according to the numbers alone Ukraine should long have capitulated. btw, Chinese carrier was only 2 times at sea, since than he is in the dock, on satellite images we could see huge cracks on the deck and now they have placed the deck under a cover so we cant see what happens!
Korea has massive shipbuilding capacity and regional buyers.
But no experience with carriers nor a working carrier doctrine. It feels like they're playing the "me too" game. But motivated more by the Japanese than the Chinese. Power projection for SK is out of the question. The Yellow Sea is too small to hide a carrier and the Japanese controls the sea between them to the east, and the Chinese to the west.
A carrier is more like an iceberg. 90% is dependent on the crew and training and supporting ships. You can weld together some steel and it will look like a carrier but the most important elements are not steel.
Some steel?!! They are literally as big as a small city!
Crew an iceberg?
Someone remembers the failures of the russian tugboat support ship
I take it you're not referring to the crew of the Chinese Casino Class Carriers. 9:57
Project Habakkuk
Well done show on a ‘tough to cover’ topic with more than a few variables still unknown. The South Korean economy does premium business in exports. Having their own clout on the spot in and around their crucial shipping lanes against the aggressively expanding Chinese navy makes a ton of sense.
Hey Simon and gang. What about doing a video on the PBR ( patrol Boat River) developed for the Vietnam war. Built by a pleasure craft maker with Jaccuzzi jets and not one is left today.
at 10:30 thats not the queen Elizabeth class, that is the USS Essex, LHD 2, a Wasp Class Amphibious assault ship
3:05 except South Korea always spend more than 2% of their gdp for military. 2% is what NATO members are required to do but consistently fails. So in a way, although South Korea did rely on US, it didn’t rely as much as most European countries all while rebuilding their economy from ruins. Remarkable
You should make one on the creation of the first aircraft carrier
The first purpose designed and built carrier HMS Hermes
i feel like thats part of another carrier video already 🤔 like nimitz or something?! to give historical background!
but sure, i wouldnt mind a deep dive either🙃
@@melissasmith5109 first commissioned tho was th ijn hōshō
Also, S Korea has the some of the largest drydocks in the world.
Actually the largest dry dock.
You know you're a fun and nice nation when all your neighbours buy weapons specifically to keep you in check
10:25 Uhh… that’s the ESSEX, LHD-2, a US WASP-class. I had the privilege of being aboard QE when she visited Yokosuka, Japan on her Asia-Pacific deployment and can attest there are more than a few differences between the two.
Thank you
Sorry didn't see you beat me to the punch there.
@@HuntingCatIsBack no worries. Will say the crew of the QE that I met were cool af. Trading coins and ball caps with them was quite something, and the carrier itself was pretty impressive.
@@CdrMcNeil I myself am British but have lived in the US for 20 years. Betw 2014 and 2019 I visited San Diego three times and on each occasion saw USS Essex birthed in her home port. A most impressive ship.
The US should invest in and become partners in R&D for Japanese and Korean aircraft carriers.
As it was with WW1 and 2 the antagonists built up their militaries at a rapid pace before hostilities began. There were new developments in weapons that appeared to garner one party a advantage in the killing field. Though the aircraft carrier has been around for nearly one hundred years its potency has not diminished as a weapon of power projection, a floating air field.
Having a bunch of smaller air craft carriers is probably the future of navy. Cant wait for a megaprojects episode on the inevitable flying drone carrier. lol
You mean can't? There's no such thing as a "flying drone carrier" and there won't be. It will be an aircraft carrier.
@@zaco-km3su 1. Too lazy to apostrophe. Counted on autocorrect, but it failed me
2. Obviously, I did not implied there was. The term is not correct, but I used it to differentiate from conventional aircraft carriers. The correct term is airborne aircraft carriers, and mark my words there will be because it is already being worked on.
I can picture a fast and relatively stealthy vessel capable of launching a swarm of small drones being pretty effective.
Any carrier can use them, and have flown off Nimitz-class carriers for years now.
@@StephenJohnson-jb7xe Right? If anyone has played AC7, is a good indication of the future. Once we have a breakthrough in battery tech to power larger drones, they are going to have real pilots train AI, which will then fly the drones autonomously. Airborne refueling means the carriers can remain deployed for long periods, and with data link, you can deploy, coordinate, and recapture the drones from multiple launch vectors. The tech is all there already. Just waiting for the batteries.
I remember taking part in military war games in South Korea called Team Spirit.
Camp devil dog. 2002
My sleep deprived brain made that sound like teen spirit
been there done that myself in the 80's
1977 and 1979 Team Spirit 8th Army
If South Korea wants more leverage in the Defense of Free Nations everywhere, more support from me and more power to them.
Enemies are infinite in number, but friends are in short supply.
It's not just because of China and North Korea that South Korea wants its own aircraft carrier, South Korea surrounded by the seas - thus maintaining and securing open waters is their aim to secure the trade routes, maritime trade and marine/ocean resource and once off the S.Korea's shores it's very difficult to protect their interests thus S.Korea wants to operate aircraft carrier - perhaps two carriers.
It's obvious that you need at least 2 carriers. 1 always at sea, if you have 3 then you're in comfort zone.
I could see this carrier being ideal for Brazil, Korea and Italy
It's not as small as it seems, 20+ fighter jets + automated drones and helicopters a fair amount of force projection.
It's the size of the Vikrant carrier or the Charles De Gaullle carrier🤷
20 fighter jets is poor force projection. That's more a coastal defense air station. Can it raid? Sure, Can it duke it out with a country with more than a single defensive air station? Maybe not...
On the size of carriers, by making it just 200 feet longer and 50 feet wider, with a little redesign of the layout, they can more than double the number of fighters it can handle...if they had that many to put there.
@@namyun2743 Yeah you make good points.
I still think the CVX is an interesting niche option.
Like you said it's mostly going to be ideal for small scale conflicts or as a supplementary force for coalition fleets.
Can raid, can protect shipping lanes, can contest the French, Russians and Indians anywhere globally, can transport aircraft to fixed locations, can deal with humanitarian issues, respond to natural disasters, support special forces activities etc.
At the very least it would be useful for gaining naval expertise and as a technology demonstrator for a larger more capable ship in 30 years.
@@Waywind420 Yes, that is perhaps the most important thing the South Koreans can gain from building the CVX; the experience in operating a carrier. However that is assuming their economy holds up and they are willing to afford this. Their GDP and defense spending is right around where 2, maybe 3 carriers begins to be viable.
@10:33.... thats not a video of the Queen Elizabeth CV....
That ship at 10:27, titled as HMS Queen Elizabeth, isn't. I think it's actually the USS Essex (LHD-2)
It will be a co-developnent with Fincantieri of Italy. A few months back they already got together to draw a preliminary design.
South Korea could save a ton of money and buy USS America class LHA's and use them as the US Marines intend to as Lightning Carriers with F-35B's. Both the ships and planes are off the shelf, so no development time required
No. The purpose of a carrier is its wings. THe F-35B is terrible in weapons payloads and capabilities. Stealth is now a dead-end technology as adversaries take into account stealth in their radars and IR seekers. The next frontier is electronic warfare, namely radar jamming, and distraction. Not only is the F-35B terrible as a fighter, but it also costs too much to maintain and operate. But more importantly, the ability to service, maintain and replace parts all rests on permission from the US and Lockheed before any South Korean engineers and crew can do ANY service on it. Parts can take anywhere from weeks, months, and sometimes years before they are shipped to the country. This puts significant and sometimes critical wartime capabilities at risk. Therefore, even though the development costs and time will be a whole lot more, in the long run, a self-developed naval airwing like the KF-21 navy version is a much cheaper and more effective means of an aircraft carrier to go with.
@@michaellim4165 the F-35B is so terrible, I guess that's why nearly every one of our allies is standardizing on it
@@michaellim4165 If South Korea develops the Boramae into a carrier fighter, it would be like adopting for mass-production the US Navy's proposed F-22 carrier version or HAL of India copying the Rafale instead of buying the F-18I Super Hornet
Yes, three would be much better in spite of the fact that the Southern Korean Peninsula is, like the UK, a giant carrier in and of itself but I'm sure they have that part thoroughly sussed out given that their mortal enemy is literally on the other side of a line in the dirt.
The Essex Class design was modified from WW2 until the last one retired in 1991 still flying A-4, A-6, T-2. Easily handle F-35B, maybe the C. Just build a new one with all the cool new stuff on it like better propulsion and electronic tech. One heck of a proven ship design. The new Japanese carrier resembles it a lot. They chose what works.
Let's be honest, Lexington served as an aviation training carrier for the last 20 years of her service. We REALLY wrung the last drop of life out of her. To build a new nuclear-powered CATOBAR carrier that can handle even 30 aircraft might shave $2B, maybe 3B of their $13B price tag. If you make it conventionally powered, you could save another $1B to $2B, but you'll pay for that in increased operational costs well before her first decade of service. The new Japanese and SK carrier don't look anything like the Essex carriers after their 1950's refits. They don't have catapults and arresting wires either. Both those countries did the math and figured out they couldn't afford CATOBAR, much less nuclear catobar carriers on their navy budgets.
@@namyun2743 Re-fit is easy on an Essex. Angled deck and all. I served two years on Lady Lex, the last two. What a badass crew. She's a museum on Corpus Christy by now. Iconic and not gone yet.
@@TheFlutecart Then get the people, funding and facilities to do it yourself. This isn't 1958. Just like it doesn't make sense to attempt to refit our battleships, it makes even less sense to try to refit any of our 80 year old museum carriers like Lexington, Intrepid, Midway or Yorktown.
it seriously blows my mind humans figured out how to make such giant machines float
The floating's not actually that hard. They're incredibly heavy, but also massive. Because they're so wide and long, they displace so much water that they could actually hold a great deal more weight with no trouble.
In fact, what South Korea wants is not an aircraft carrier, but a nuclear submarine. The U.S. never allows NPT, and the U.S. recommends an aircraft carrier instead of a nuclear submarine (knowhow technology transfer = Bobcock)
Because, the United States needs as many battleships as possible for the new cold war with China, so it has proposed aircraft carriers to South Korea and Japan, in case of emergency, to form a large fleet that even the fleet of its allies.
The aircraft carrier fleet without nuclear submarines cannot sail in blue water, South Korea and Japan have no nuclear submarines, and the United States never allows nuclear submarines to the two countries, and as a result, the future Korean and Japanese aircraft fleets are lame.
Great video!
Brown, green, blue water
I learned a lot.
Future request. Spacex super heavy booster with the launch pad and crane lift
The strategic argument for a South Korean carrier reminds me of the SLBM component of a nuclear triad, even if the north were to penetrate deep into the south’s land and/or devastate their bases on land, they would always have sea based forces to fall back on.
The big thing for South Korea, Japan, UK and Italy, is the lack of a really good carrier borne, AEW / AWACS platform.
The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, is the obvious choice for all 4 nations, (6, if Spain ever get their economy spun round so they can buy Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightnings, to operate off the Juan Carlos I. As well as, Australia, if they decide to convert the HMAS Adelaide & Canberra, or build a dedicated Carrier).
The Aviazione Navale & Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, operate the Leonardo AW101 Merlin's in the AEW role, but Helicopters are limited to an altitude of 15,000 feet. (The Higher you go the more, you can see).
While the Grumman E-2C Hawkeye, operated by US Navy & French Aéronavale, has a limit of 34,700 feet.
The Osprey's official limit is 25,000 feet. But that is for the commando assault version.
Conversion of the Adelaide and Canberra would be such an expensive and time consuming exercise, that it would probably be easier just to buy a dedicated aircraft carrier. The decks on them aren't built to the standard of STOVL and lack the proper heat protection that entails. The ski ramp is just there because the Spanish design it is based off is a STOVL aircraft carrier and is needed for structural integrity of the design.
They are marine assault and helicopter carriers. Australian naval doctrine ATM is support and recon, with a side of submarine warfare. Plus Australia has a proud history of being terrible with aircraft carriers - see HMAS Melbourne and its jinx.
would it be possible to convert an AW609?
Having a carrier would be important against just North Korea, too. Forcing them to have air defenses along their entire coast alone would be enough.
Or also having a mobile airbase that's difficult to target. Carriers are more about projection of influence than defense.
North Korea is tiny, you can just fly around it
@@matsv201 ok but who around NK would allow SK to use their air space for war.
@@hochibamabinladenhusainefe8191 They are literally a peninsula........
@@hochibamabinladenhusainefe8191 I don't think they are much worried about NK air resources. Its there artilery that is kind of dangerous
Why is USS Essex (LHD-2) shown when you talk about the Queen Elizabeth class and Babcock (UK firm)?
The japanese baby carriers have recently had their bows redone and are receiving modifications to carry F-35Bs.
You should look into the new turkish amphibious assault ship Anadolu, which is being finished as a drone/UAV carrier for VTOL and CTOL drones and UAV/UCAVs.
Carrier technology has predictably followed aircraft development. Early aircraft didn't fly fast enough to need long runways to take off or land. Later they needed arrester hooks and wires for faster aircraft landing and catapults to launch them. Then ski ramps to assist the STO part of V/STOL. Technically a VTOL aircraft /should/ be able to land and take off vertically negating the need for arrestor hooks, and wires on the carrier, but of course if the vertical ability is stuffed for any reason it's essential as a backup system.
AirCLOFT CARRIER CLUB...SIMON?!?! you do so well not getting tongue tied haha, it was just funny, cheers!
I think the AUKUS agreement would be an interesting megaproject. While the submarine design is still a few years away, the amount of other projects it's going to need is huge
10:32 that's not a Queen Elizabeth class.
Beat me to it. That is the USN's Wasp class amphibious assault ship the USS Essex LHD-2
They have the shipyards and know how to do it, SHI, DSME and HHI
@10:29 that is not a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier...
Love the ad, Simon, with a big billowing iron cross flag waving triumphantly behind the tanks... ... ... .. .. .. . . . .
I really hope South Korea procures some carriers. Long live South Korea & South Korean - American friendship. 🇰🇷 🇺🇸
the main adversary of South Korea is North Korea, carrier is not really the main priority of SK,
@@Emilechen You are COMPLETELY wrong. I think a carrier is important for such a small battle zone like the Korean peninsula because it is 100% guaranteed that North Korea will strike South Korean airfields, hampering their ability to launch fighters at the start of an invasion. If you have a mobile platform, like an aircraft carrier, you will have surviving air assets to deny North Korean air strikes or mass airborne troop drops since North Korea would not be able to gain air superiority. Additionally, ground attack aircraft can harass a land invasion, slowing North Korea's advance and giving time for mobilization.
@@alexjeon2180 and what’s stopping North Korea from hitting that carrier as well? Are they going to base it in Guam or Hawaii?
@@ianchen8582 Air bases are stationary (i.e. they don't move). Aircraft carriers are mobile and harder to target and hit. North Korea doesn't have the capability to target and hit a moving ship at 30 knots hundreds of miles away with any accuracy from land-based missile sites. North Korea's navy is a joke with ships that are 50 years old and can't sail too far from the coast.
War Thunder is great fun. Can be a bit tough at times. The customization is great, however the ability to put bushes on your tank works a bit too well as camouflage. It's not so fun when it is close to impossible to spot a tank that is shooting you. Bushes can also make it difficult to aim for a tank's weak points, which can be crucial for some tanks when faced with heavier armour.
For all its flaws War Thunder is a pretty stand alone game. It allows for aerial, naval and vehicular combat in one neatly wrapped package.
ROKN is seriously looking into KF21N (Navy version of KF21) as aircraft. As KF21N is not a vertical takeoff aircraft and require a catapult, the size of the carrier is expected to increase up to 70.000t. This will be a very long-term program as they are still discussing if the carrier will be nuclear powered or conventional+hybrid. Also without nuclear submarines to clear the path, carriers are very much likely to be the sitting target for enemy subs. It seems the nuclear subs are a priority and not the carriers. Even if ROKN decides to proceed with carriers, they would need minimum 3 carriers for obvious reasons.
The carrier's profile looks quite similar to Britain's Queen Elizabeth class. Which make sense since the UK seems to be quite involved with it.
The French played a pretty big role in the QE class carriers too, not that the government like to mention it lol.
Please explain the french involvement?
Is it more than ThalesUK involvement?
@@Statueshop297 The original plan was for UK to have two carriers and France to have one. There was some minor design options for VTOL with a straight and Fixed Wing with an angled deck. For a while the UK even considered changing from F35B to F35C with an angled deck with France going with the Rafale.
Some falling out over workshare, probably France wanted 50% but only purchasing 33% of the output but maybe other issues also, saw the two countries go their separate ways.
@@TalesOfWar there’s a massive difference from concept to detailed design and construction.
@@Statueshop297 Don't about any French involvement.
Personally i think S. Korea would be better off putting more reources into building a large submarine fleet or mine layers or sweepers or a combination. 1 single aircraft carrier is not going to make a big difference and wouldn't be operational year round.
Whereas a dozen subs would be more operationally useful.
South Korea already has submarines, though. And sure, more couldn't hurt, but their capabilities are limited to a certain set of roles. An aircraft carrier opens up options South Korea otherwise wouldn't have.
It's more because S.Korea relies about 40~60% of its economy in imports/exports. If there ever was a naval blockade on its trade routes, then it'll suffer incredible damage regardless of how many mines it has on its waters.
@@albert9772 Indeed ! + are not most cities and ports in S. Korea within artillery range of the North ?
So safely locating a carrier when it does need a port becomes even more of a problem.
@@PaulJohn01 the Port of Busan is South Korea's largest port, it's well outside of North Korea's artillery, and being at the southern end of the peninsula it provides more egress options when leaving port. It would make far more sense to park an aircraft carrier there than in Seoul.
@@QuantumAscension1 Agreed as to making more sense and being out of artillery range but what about the numerous missiles even N. Korea has ?
N. Korea already mined Korean waters and i believe caused the sinking of a Korean ship before.
Korea doesn't have that many options for protecting such a visible, powerful and expensive asset.
The South Koreans don't need three or even one carrier. They have plenty of islands away from the southern coast where they can base a large air force. The only things that the Korean Navy needs is lots of larger "Batch III" submarines. What Korea really needs is to move its capital away from the NK border and its gazillion artillery tubes. Just freeze construction in Seoul and start building at Busan. It would save millions of lives in a future conflict.
How far south should be the new South Korean capital be ? Regardless of where it is located, it will be in range of various North Korean long range weapon systems.
@@crusher8017 But not tube artillery, of which thousands are within range Seoul. Or Katyushas, or all but the longest range artillery rockets. And, of course, there is always the matter of a million underfed and starving North Korean minions who won't have to march more than ten miles.
You also posted one for a Russian carrier. South Korea actually has the time, money, factories, and technology to make it work.
Hope S Korea doesn't go the carrier route. It's a lot of money for a vanity project. If they really want to go toe to toe with China; I suggest something like a Virginia class submarine. This will require a massive technology transfer from the US or the UK. Essentially a deal Australia just got.
What South Korea should do is get the plans for the Modified Midway Class Aircraft Carriers that lasted so long in the US Navy and build their modified, updated version, themselves. They could even travel to San Diago, CA to take closer looks at the actual USS Midway CV-41 that is open for display there. This way, they would have a great basis for their aircraft carriers, save them millions of dollars in planning fees, and give them a proven design to put their own designed aircraft aboard. Being new is sometimes not really being the best and the Midways were pretty good, once all of the problems in the original design had been corrected.
Simon: "Faced with the specter of a rise in global hegemon, *_China_* ...
North Korea: "Are we a joke to y'all?"
Interesting segment. A South Korean aircraft carrier(s) is just the centerpiece of a 10+ vessel fleet to support/maintain the protection/operation of the carrier. Can the South Korean economy support such a fleet and maintain the existing duties of the navy? From a certain point of view, that is a lot of eggs in a single basket for a small though wealthy country.
Plus their birth rate and demographics is horrendous, not to mention that right now their economy is not in great shape.
North Korean artilleries which they already deployed is enough to destroy almost the entire ROK economic centre, I'm not favouring NK but it's the reality and I don't think they need new AC to project power, they need more powerful defence system to protect their citizens but not a an AC to show South korea is the greatest country.
Birthrate isn't an issue lol there's plenty of unemployed ppl to fill the gap 😅
Doubt it not, the ROK military is no joke.
11:54 thats wrong , ins vikrant is india's 4th aircraft carrier , its 1st indigious built not its 1st ever carrier
Just imagine what the human race could do if we weren't obsessed with fighting each other......
Humans have been fighting each other since day one. It's what we do. Nothing has changed, except the weapons.
At 10:24 that's not a queen Elizabeth class carrier, its a US amphibious assault ship
Call me petty, but I wish nations engaging in 21st arms races spent more on their CGI
6:06
Ever played TigerHeli on NES?
i think future aircraft carrier is more like helicopter-carrier with drones submarines (drones) and some vtol jets or one with very short take-off and landing capabilities
S Korea has been a country who doesn't really care about combat overseas. We have never waged war, only defended our own. I don't really see the need for a carrier considering we don't really go outside the sea around us and are only surrounded by China and Japan across the seas and NK just few meters from us. The sea between China and Korea is so small that modern jet missiles such as aim 260, meteor, etc make it somewhat useless to have the carrier since we can just land on land rather than on a carrier a few miles off the coast of Korea
Never waged war? You don't consider 300,000 South Korean Army and Marines who went to Vietnam as not waging war? You must be a youngin.
@@michaellim4165 that was not S Korea vs Vietnam. That was S Korea helping out US forces along with other countries. Im talking about full on S Korea declaring war on other countries themselves like US did with Japan or Pakistan and India and such and such
Against NK, there is no need for a fleet carrier because NK does not have a fleet that can operate beyond its coast.. A couple of helicopter carriers is all they need for anti-sub missions, a potential threat from NK.
However, a carrier would be helpful in securing sea lanes should the US become more isolationist and stop protecting the international sea lanes. For this mission, a light carrier with helicopters and a small flight of fighters is all SK needs. The fighters are mainly for fleet defense with limited force projection. Helicopters can provide anti-sub and anti-piracy capabilities.
My friend works at Babcock here in Scotland!❤
A combined "Supertanker - Supercarrier" ! Why must I do all the thinking around here ! !
The ultimate vehicle combat experience?
nah
the ultimate classified documents leaking experience
Slight mistake, you didn't show the correct video for the Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
There are 100,000 ton super carriers that the US builds and 40,000-50,000 ton light carriers every one else builds. The US has those as well in their LHA and LHD.
Im a bit sad he didn't mention the other design by HHI, which is also being considered.
Five billion? Not a chance it's that cheap. The USS Wasp, a very similar and only slightly heavier ship to what they're describing here cost roughly 2 billion for the ship but that doesn't include the design and development or the air wing. If they really have their heart set on a carrier they'd save a lot of money by building two licensed copies of the Wasp. They could avoid having to pay for development or R&D and instead use that money to buy the air wings. Or... They could license the America class, which is the follow on class to the Wasp. It would still be MUCH cheaper than building a unique one-off ship like this. And they might save enough money to buy TWO.
Hey Simon, you may want to flip War Thunder the birdie. It's owned by a Russian Oligarch.
You forgot to mention the best thing about War Thunder: the occasional leaks of classified documents to the game's forums to settle arguments about 'who would actually win'.
10:25 Yeah, uh, that's not the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier. It's a US Navy Wasp-Class Amphibious Assault ship. lol
At 0:30 we pan over an angled deck carrier with a centerline elevator. What ship is that? It doesnt have a USN hull number, and i cant think of any carrier built in the last 50 years with that configuration.
It's a Brazilian Aircraft Carrier Sao Paulo.
@@isaacfairburne9981 French built 1957-1960. So, angled deck, conventional power, centerline elevator. Sold to Brazil in 2000, instead of being scrapped, and really should have been scrapped. Brazil threw what money they had at it for a couple of decades, then finally scuttled it in 2017.
I recently came back from a 2 week trip to South Korea the scale of the U.S involvement is absolutely nuts.
I was lucky to be visiting my bro who was already stationed there so we lived with him on on of the largest bases.
I had the impression that with at least 100,000 service men in a country of 51.74 million the visual U.S presence would be subtle or limited but no South Korea models it’s military culture closely to the U.S and it was everywhere we went. Wandering on the streets of Seoul- Pyongtek it was a frequent sight to see at least one U.S servicemen per 10 ROKA solders wandering around.
Living on a active military base being around sensitive hardware and active facilities there’s few details I can divulge in good conscious but let’s just say the military presence is extensive and active every day as it is technically a war zone.
You are basing off of a single US base that is the biggest US base in Pacific. ROK Army alone has 500K active personnel with 1-2mil Reserves. Korea is capable of its own defense without the 20K US force. US force is a symbol of US-ROK alliance and also an insurance; it's for mutual benefits to contain NK and China.
It is..land the DMZ actually flares hot sometimes. Not as often as 80s or before, but still with shots fired on occasion.
This video’s script was extremely well written. The background geopolitics were very well presented.
The Snail never lets my soul rest. I must grind moreeeee
Great video. Legends guys. Well done.
Now just imagine this carrier launching a plane that in turn launches 100 drones. Carriers still can project air power just in different way than intended. I wonder how many drones can fit in the weapons bay of a F35?
Tell me more about the Mongolian Navy 🍿
WarThunder, where classified documents goes to get recognized to settle arguments.
bro! your beard is epic. Dig the content, keep up the good work.
In the tail end of the 20th Century NAVSEA was busy designing its own CVX, using that very designation; a smaller, cheaper and non-nuclear carrier to supplement the big, expensive supercarriers. Eventually, the idea of spending so much money on carriers crippled by the dependence on fuel oil and with smaller air groups killed the idea.
For me an American.. It is just nice to see other countries putting more thought and effort into their own militaries and equipping them with kit that will help them hold their own, instead of just trying to rely on the US as their defensive big daddy.. I mean do not get me wrong - I fully support the US helping defend its allies, but to have other countries have their own responsibility and their own country centric needs being meet by their own militaries is IMO the smartest thing any country can do.. If they have smart military leaders (and I think they do) they need to get their own governments to get them their own kit. Not to mention having things locally built will only make things more stable across al allies - as long as they all coordinate in design specifications that allow synergies with each other.
If the ROK will not produce a CV in the end, then their other option would be to suck it up and cooperate with Japan on carrier operations.
now I want a megaprojects video about the Mongolian navy
Lol
I can see an argument for South Korea having Aircraft Carriers as a sneak attack would target airfield in the country but if you had the carriers there's a chance you could have some Aircraft to strike back with. Also they could help keep sea ways open till alied nation's could build up support forces.
They need more variants, not less. The base variant staple would still be several tens of doll. As long as Ragavan is above 20 bucks, we don't have enough supply and variants.
considering England has 2 carriers and doesn't really want one of them, and that class is pretty dang close to what the south Koreans designed and want, it makes sense that they might be able to purchase from England. only problem is that it would more than likely be a demilled one, completely gutted with no radar, weapons, arresting gear... they'd be lucky if the brits even left engines onboard, but it would be considerably easier (if not cheaper) than learning to build one from scratch. that is essentially how china began their carrier fleet, bought one gutted useless russian carrier, learned how to make it work, built a second based off the original design and then took all those lessons learned and designed a new carrier.
If anyone can do this it's the Koreans!👍👍
How about this for a future episode? The design & construction of pads 39 A&B at Kennedy Space Center. This seems timely given recent events at Boca Chica.🚀💥
Those white slides really blast when watching in the dark, aya