South Korean Navy

[Redlands18]

MADEX 2023: Hanwha Ocean Unveils KDDX-S Destroyer Design - Naval News

At MADEX 2023 Hanwha Ocean showcased several new ship designs. One of them was the KDDX-S "Smart Destroyer".

www.navalnews.com

Suppose to put this as further information on KDDXS concept.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0VwHqj8WzV6FSenLumyM9JSvGQDY9EZ9G9zHwsp4CUjkPeepJmCz2YPT5dH7eRnNpl&id=100064091161390&mibextid=Nif5oz

In their FB Naval news just add this KDDXS suppose to replace current KDX II ( if not mistaken 6 in inventory). This is shown evolving concepts as KDDXS aim also as mother ships for sea drones.

Interesting new 5in/127mm gun design, probably still firing standard Ammo, using the Mk 45 Magazine.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

|"The key focus of the research is to explore the feasibility and associated costs of equipping the aircraft carrier with the KF-21N, a naval variant of the indigenous KF-21 fighter developed and undergoing final tests at the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). Since the KF-21 has not yet completed its test flights, and recent feasibility study suggesting cut in initial production volume, it is reasonable to assume that developing the KF-21N will involve more time and costs than previously expected."|

So the biggest obstacle facing the CVX project is its cost. The estimated cost of building the carrier alone stands at least at $1,9 billion, at least. This figure significantly increases when adding the costs of fighter jets and helicopters, frigates, destroyers and submarines to escort the carrier, early warning aircraft, and military logistics support ships, with the total easily surpassing $7,7 billion.

And as we all know, such huge and technological challenging projects will always have a double to triple sized price tag in the end. Besides this all, we also have to think about inflation during the whole traject of research, design, development, construction and tests.

So it is understandable if the South-Koreans will cancel or put on hold this aircraft carrier program.

South Korean CVX Aircraft Carrier Program in the Mist - Naval News

A detailed plan for the CVX aircraft carrier program is nowhere to be found in the Mid-term Defense Blueprint released by South Korea's MoD.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Redlands18]

|"The key focus of the research is to explore the feasibility and associated costs of equipping the aircraft carrier with the KF-21N, a naval variant of the indigenous KF-21 fighter developed and undergoing final tests at the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). Since the KF-21 has not yet completed its test flights, and recent feasibility study suggesting cut in initial production volume, it is reasonable to assume that developing the KF-21N will involve more time and costs than previously expected."|

So the biggest obstacle facing the CVX project is its cost. The estimated cost of building the carrier alone stands at least at $1,9 billion, at least. This figure significantly increases when adding the costs of fighter jets and helicopters, frigates, destroyers and submarines to escort the carrier, early warning aircraft, and military logistics support ships, with the total easily surpassing $7,7 billion.

And as we all know, such huge and technological challenging projects will always have a double to triple sized price tag in the end. Besides this all, we also have to think about inflation during the whole traject of research, design, development, construction and tests.

So it is understandable if the South-Koreans will cancel or put on hold this aircraft carrier program.

South Korean CVX Aircraft Carrier Program in the Mist - Naval News

A detailed plan for the CVX aircraft carrier program is nowhere to be found in the Mid-term Defense Blueprint released by South Korea's MoD.

www.navalnews.com

And the Submarines have to be SSNs, SSKs can't keep up with surface vessels. So will have to design them as well, although ROK has been talking about building SSNs.
So, the ROKN with zero experience has to.
1/Design and build a 270m 70,000t CATOBAR Carrier.
2/Design and build SSNs.
3/Re-design a land-based fighter to operate off a Carrier.
4/Develop a corps of air and ground crew from scratch to operate fast jets, and the ROKN has never operated fast jets.
5/Train and qualify the ground crews required to support an air group.
6/Operate AEW aircraft off a Carrier.

That should be easy, no worries

 

[Meriv90]

They have the second R&D only after the US.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200128_R45441_ebe7c206609fb366d49b3c5f5d918e25151c77ff.html

Plus they are followers not pathfinders in technology making it way easier.

 

[Redlands18]

They have the second R&D only after the US.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200128_R45441_ebe7c206609fb366d49b3c5f5d918e25151c77ff.html

Plus they are followers not pathfinders in technology making it way easier.

Everything on my list is doable in isolation but ROK has to do all of it at the same time to create an effective Carrier Battle Group, irrespective of who develops the technology it will be a long way from being easy, it will take a lot of hard work, money and time.
I would be suspect about that list of OECD countries and R&D spending, Australia and Canada spend more money on Defence R&D than Italy does?

 

[John Fedup]

And the Submarines have to be SSNs, SSKs can't keep up with surface vessels. So will have to design them as well, although ROK has been talking about building SSNs.
So, the ROKN with zero experience has to.
1/Design and build a 270m 70,000t CATOBAR Carrier.
2/Design and build SSNs.
3/Re-design a land-based fighter to operate off a Carrier.
4/Develop a corps of air and ground crew from scratch to operate fast jets, and the ROKN has never operated fast jets.
5/Train and qualify the ground crews required to support an air group.
6/Operate AEW aircraft off a Carrier.

That should be easy, no worries

I would think missile defence, more fast jets (domestic and foreign), submarines, and ammo inventories would be the priority for the next 4 years at least. When a KF-21N is a reality then perhaps a carrier is a possibility but the support vessels will be a significant cost. Is a CBG the best solution to counter NK, their most immediate threat?

 

[Meriv90]

Everything on my list is doable in isolation but ROK has to do all of it at the same time to create an effective Carrier Battle Group, irrespective of who develops the technology it will be a long way from being easy, it will take a lot of hard work, money and time.
I would be suspect about that list of OECD countries and R&D spending, Australia and Canada spend more money on Defence R&D than Italy does?

That document comes from the US Congress.

And being Italian? Yes I totally believe that is possible that a commonwealth country spend more than Italy.

How efficient is that spending probably is another topic.

It is like healthcare spending. 30years of economy stagnation taught some areas to squeeze the budgets as much as they can. So for example during my Masters for a competition I did a business plan because cancer treatment in Italy is the second cheapest only after Portugal and one with the best outcomes. Same with public R&D I remember the data showing that we had an high efficiency budget/publication ratio but that was because university professor used cheap labor from the student/research body.

I wish we spent more in R&D, Fincantieri has a 30bln backlog meaning any cost saving in production can have huge direct benefits directly. With that amount of money any % becomes significant.

 

[Atomic Warrior]

Everything on my list is doable in isolation but ROK has to do all of it at the same time to create an effective Carrier Battle Group, irrespective of who develops the technology it will be a long way from being easy, it will take a lot of hard work, money and time.
I would be suspect about that list of OECD countries and R&D spending, Australia and Canada spend more money on Defence R&D than Italy does?

I've been thinking about ROK development as well. Some thoughts came to mind regarding the deal or pack Australia signed with US & UK in aiding in the development of advanced naval assets to counter the growing threat in Asia. Maybe ROK could strike somthing similar?

Here are my thoughts on this...

The chances of South Korea securing a deal for advanced naval assets akin to Australia's would hinge on diplomatic relations particularly with the UK, regional security dynamics which are fluid in Asia, and shared strategic interests with the US and UK.

If South Korea can effectively communicate its strategic needs and align them with the priorities of the US & UK, there may be room for negotiations. Maybe ROK doesn't have to do this alone.

Thoughts on the possibility of such a deal with ROK with US & perhaps other allies or would it be to provoking & escalatory for their northern neighbors to be viable?

 

[koxinga]

I've been thinking about ROK development as well. Some thoughts came to mind regarding the deal or pack Australia signed with US & UK in aiding in the development of advanced naval assets to counter the growing threat in Asia. Maybe ROK could strike somthing similar?

What would ROK want that it does not have today? AUKUS was largely about providing Aus with strategic nuclear submarine technology. ROKN's current mission set and priorities are being met by the KSS-III platforms.

If they want to go nuclear (SSN), the direction will be different, probably going for a evolved KSS-III design much like how the Brazilians are approaching it.

This is because of their domestic industrial capacity, which is almost incomparable to Australia. Korean Shipbuilders Retake Top Spot Overtaking China with LNG Orders

 

[John Fedup]

What would ROK want that it does not have today? AUKUS was largely about providing Aus with strategic nuclear submarine technology. ROKN's current mission set and priorities are being met by the KSS-III platforms.

If they want to go nuclear (SSN), the direction will be different, probably going for a evolved KSS-III design much like how the Brazilians are approaching it.

This is because of their domestic industrial capacity, which is almost incomparable to Australia. Korean Shipbuilders Retake Top Spot Overtaking China with LNG Orders

WRT to SSNs, if SK wanted this capability they would pretty much have to go the same route as Brazil, French LEU technology. The US won’t share their nuclear technology outside of AUKUS.

 

[Armchair]

|"The key focus of the research is to explore the feasibility and associated costs of equipping the aircraft carrier with the KF-21N, a naval variant of the indigenous KF-21 fighter developed and undergoing final tests at the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). Since the KF-21 has not yet completed its test flights, and recent feasibility study suggesting cut in initial production volume, it is reasonable to assume that developing the KF-21N will involve more time and costs than previously expected."|

So the biggest obstacle facing the CVX project is its cost. The estimated cost of building the carrier alone stands at least at $1,9 billion, at least. This figure significantly increases when adding the costs of fighter jets and helicopters, frigates, destroyers and submarines to escort the carrier, early warning aircraft, and military logistics support ships, with the total easily surpassing $7,7 billion.

And as we all know, such huge and technological challenging projects will always have a double to triple sized price tag in the end. Besides this all, we also have to think about inflation during the whole traject of research, design, development, construction and tests.

So it is understandable if the South-Koreans will cancel or put on hold this aircraft carrier program.

South Korean CVX Aircraft Carrier Program in the Mist - Naval News

A detailed plan for the CVX aircraft carrier program is nowhere to be found in the Mid-term Defense Blueprint released by South Korea's MoD.

www.navalnews.com

Is there much info on the doctrine behind a ROKN carrier?

i found this which is speculative.

Sizing Up South Korea’s Coming Aircraft Carriers

The development will undoubtedly have an effect on naval planning in Northeast Asia.

thediplomat.com

If it is intended to support force projection outside the Korean peninsula or to provide second strike against North Korea then it might not need all those things on the list quite so desperately. Expensive and difficult to produce but possibly easier to protect from the range of North Korean threats than an airbase.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Is there much info on the doctrine behind a ROKN carrier?

i found this which is speculative.

Sizing Up South Korea’s Coming Aircraft Carriers

The development will undoubtedly have an effect on naval planning in Northeast Asia.

thediplomat.com

If it is intended to support force projection outside the Korean peninsula or to provide second strike against North Korea then it might not need all those things on the list quite so desperately. Expensive and difficult to produce but possibly easier to protect from the range of North Korean threats than an airbase.

The weak spot of an aircraft carrier are submarines. Building and operating an aircraft carrier is already not cheap, but the additional airfleet and a whole CBG necessary to protect it bring the total costs to astronomical levels.

Besides that, for North-Korea the South-Korean aircraft carrier will absolutely be the main price/jackpot if the situation becomes seriously.
When Operation Trikora almost became a full scale war, the Indonesian Tu-16 squadrons had a certain target as nr.1 on their list, and that was Hr.Ms. Karel Doorman, the only aircraft carrier the Netherlands had.

 

[Armchair]

The weak spot of an aircraft carrier are submarines. Building and operating an aircraft carrier is already not cheap, but the additional airfleet and a whole CBG necessary to protect it bring the total costs to astronomical levels.

yes without knowing the (closely guarded secret) ASW capability of the ROKN vs. North Korean subs it is difficult to know whether an aircraft carrier is a stupid idea for that purpose or not. I guess the point I was getting at is that a ROKN carrier might not be intended to operate as the centre of a sovereign battle group to fight against somebody else’s fleet.

 

[ngatimozart]

I've been thinking about ROK development as well. Some thoughts came to mind regarding the deal or pack Australia signed with US & UK in aiding in the development of advanced naval assets to counter the growing threat in Asia. Maybe ROK could strike somthing similar?

Here are my thoughts on this...

The chances of South Korea securing a deal for advanced naval assets akin to Australia's would hinge on diplomatic relations particularly with the UK, regional security dynamics which are fluid in Asia, and shared strategic interests with the US and UK.

If South Korea can effectively communicate its strategic needs and align them with the priorities of the US & UK, there may be room for negotiations. Maybe ROK doesn't have to do this alone.

Thoughts on the possibility of such a deal with ROK with US & perhaps other allies or would it be to provoking & escalatory for their northern neighbors to be viable?

South Korea won't get US nuclear subs or nuclear technology. The US refused to provide SK with AESA radars for its KF-21, so SK had to develop its own with the help of the Europeans. Japan would not be impressed with SK acquiring US nuclear technology whilst the US denies the same technology to Japan. AUKUS is a very specific arrangement and as far as the nuclear subs deal goes, it has been made very clear that no other nation outside of the current AUKUS partners will be given permission to acquire said US technology. Canada is the other FVEY nation that operates subs and it won't get a look in.

The only way that SK and Japan will operate nuclear powered subs is by them developing and building their own nuclear reactors etc., for the subs. Both nations are capable of doing so and Japan, especially, has the ability to design and manufacture nuclear weapons.

 

[Ananda]

if SK wanted this capability they would pretty much have to go the same route as Brazil, French LEU technology

Brazil SSN going to use their own reactor design, French only provide tech transfer on submarine and know how to install and configure nuclear reactor on submarine.

AUKUS is a very specific arrangement and as far as the nuclear subs deal goes, it has been made very clear that no other nation outside of the current AUKUS partners will be given permission to acquire said US technology.

Australia will be the only nation that got foreign reactor in their SSN. India use their own reactor, despite strong Russia connections on SSN/SSN tech expertise. Brazil also going to use their own reactor.

So yes ROK or Japan will need to use their own reactor design if want to pursue SSN path. However I do believe as you also mentioned, both are very capable to produce their own reactor design. After all if India and Brazil can do it，ROK and Japan which has more advance nuclear industry certainly can also do it. Japan more specific can certainly ASAP provide their own reactor for SSN and even nuclear war head, if their political will decide to do it.

 

[Meriv90]

KF-21 prototype flies with indigenous AESA radar

The development programme for the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) KF-21 fighter has started tests with a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar installed.

www.flightglobal.com

KF-21 radar is Israeli not European. Please don't bundle us together with them, our last genocide was 30years ago in the Balkans. I hope we learned the lesson already.

 

[swerve]

KF-21 prototype flies with indigenous AESA radar

The development programme for the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) KF-21 fighter has started tests with a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar installed.

www.flightglobal.com

KF-21 radar is Israeli not European. ...

The article says
"The KF-21’s AESA radar was developed locally, with Hanwha Systems providing the hardware and LIG Nex1 the software.

In 2021, Hanwha inked a deal with Israel’s Elta Systems – a unit of Israel Aerospace Industries – related to AESA work. Elta was involved with producing the radar prototype, and is also understood to be involved with airborne tests."

Sounds to me like a joint venture. The Koreans have been working on AESA radars for some time, but buying in some Israeli help could have been seen as a way to overcome development problems.

 

[koxinga]

The only way that SK and Japan will operate nuclear powered subs is by them developing and building their own nuclear reactors etc., for the subs. Both nations are capable of doing so and Japan, especially, has the ability to design and manufacture nuclear weapons.

Hanwha Ocean is certainly thinking about it. Probably some of these are dual use. Explore Hanwha Ocean | Hanwha Ocean

While AUKUS is clearly a special arrangement, I wonder if the indirect ramification is reducing the taboo around nuclear technology for military/naval use in Asia, notably Japan and Korea.

 

[koxinga]

Sounds to me like a joint venture. The Koreans have been working on AESA radars for some time, but buying in some Israeli help could have been seen as a way to overcome development problems.

That deal (Hanwha Systems inks deals with Israeli defense companies on AESA radar, aviation technologies | Yonhap News Agency) has multiple components.

For the KF-21 AESA, it is likely more consultancy services. The Israelis/ELTA has experience with the development and integration of AESA radars and has accumulated operational experiences as well. Getting them in early would help to avoid "development dead ends" and overcome various integration challenges.

The other part of that deal as to do with joint marketing efforts. Probably let to the selection of the IAI/ELTA ALPHA AESA for the Philippines Navy (IAI and HHI to Supply Philippine Navy with ALPHA 3D Radar Systems - Naval News)

That said, Hanwha is indeed doing a joint venture and development, with Leonardo for a light fighter radar. (Hanwha Systems, Leonardo collaborate on developing AESA radar - KED Global). This for me is really weird given Leonardo already has the VIXEN 500, which at one point was considered for the T-50.

Hanwha Showcases New Light Combat Aircraft AESA Radar | Aviation Week Network

Hanwha Systems has unveiled a new active electronically scanned array radar designed for light combat aircraft, uncrewed combat aerial systems and helicopters.

aviationweek.com

 

[swerve]

Vixen 500E's IIRC only been adopted for border patrol aircraft, trainers (not armed) & the like, & sold in very small numbers. Nothing wrong with it AFAIK, & I read that it was dropped from consideration for the TA-50/FA-50 only because of US pressure & some almost colonial terms in the US/Korea cooperation agreement on the development of T-50 & derivatives (US side could veto any radar fitted & limit its capability: the Americans wanted an older technology US radar on it). Obviously, the Koreans weren't happy, & managed to get US agreement for the EL/M-2032. But I don't know how accurate all that is.

Leonardo doesn't seem to have sold any Vixen 500Es for a few years, & I've not found it on Leonardo's web pages. If you want an AESA radar for lightweight fighters, armed trainers, & the like, Grifo E seems to be the current offer.
Grifo E

Last sale I can find listed for Vixen 500E was just before Grifo E was put on the market in 2018.