South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 11 Aug 2020, 06:14

Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:No Ski Jump???

And why on earth would they shape it like a cheap frikken shoe box with vertical side sections, then shape the Island like lower RCS suddenly matters to them?

Dumb!

Many of the newer LHD's have similar designs. Such as the PLAN Type 075 and Italian Trieste.....maybe they know something you don't?

Just no money to do it 'right'.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 11 Aug 2020, 07:09

element1loop wrote:
Just no money to do it 'right'.

There isn't any issue........ :doh:

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 11 Aug 2020, 07:26

Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Just no money to do it 'right'.

There isn't any issue........

Out with it if you think there is. Increasing deck space in that way just means there was not enough money.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 11 Aug 2020, 07:48

element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Just no money to do it 'right'.

There isn't any issue........

Out with it if you think there is. Increasing deck space in that way just means there was not enough money.

Clearly, money isn't an issue either.....

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 11 Aug 2020, 07:53

Here's the very similar Trieste LHD from Italy..........

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 11 Aug 2020, 07:55

....and the Type 075 from China.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 11 Aug 2020, 22:45

Repeating your claim with pictures but no explanation of counterpoint is not a reply.

And yes, money is the reason.

RCS reduction should not be an island styling exercise, it's dumb.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Aug 2020, 22:55

I'm interested in what needs to be done in the opinion of the critics about RCS reduction (given limited info from graphic).

South Korea Plans to Build F-35B Lightning Aircraft Carrier
11 Aug 2020 Xavier Vavasseur

"South Korea’s 2021-2025 defense blueprint, which was revealed yesterday, provides fresh details on the plans to develop an aircraft carrier capability for the Republic of Korea (RoK) Navy. The LPX-II project will be a dedicated light aircraft carrier for F-35B; it will not be an amphibious assault ship.

The LPX-II program originally meant to be an amphibious assault ship similar to the U.S. Navy’s Wasp-class of big deck amphibious warships, has now been officially revealed as a dedicated light aircraft carrier project. This means LPX-II will not have amphibious support capability — no well deck — and the vessel will be dedicated to air operations, with F-35B and rotary wings. The configuration is more like the first two amphibious warships in the U.S. America-class.

LPX-II is expected to displace around 30,000 tons — likely over 40,000 tons at full load. Details on the program have been very limited until now due to the geopolitical climate and because it is still very early in the program. Originally scheduled to be launched in 2033, LPX-II’s project schedule has been fast-tracked for launch in the late 2020s....

...Naval Warfare Capability Improvement
• Light Aircraft Carrier acquisition will formally begin in 2021

• Light Aircraft Carrier (30,000 tons empty) will embark STOVL fighter jets and will serve as flagship of the mobile fleet...

...South Korean shipyard Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) was awarded a contract for the LPX-II conceptual design in October last year. The LPX-II project aims to build a new versatile large-deck landing ship for short take-off and vertical landing fighter jets.

HHI is expected to finish the conceptual design by the second half of 2020, and commissioning with the Republic of Korea Navy planned for the early 2030s. The vessel, displacing around 30,000 tons, would be based on the existing Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship (LPX-I project) but without a well deck, according to the latest information. It would be able to accommodate around 20 F-35B STOVL fighters...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2020/08/11/south- ... ft-carrier

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Aug 2020, 23:00

Original article above from here: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ot-an-lhd/ OOH LOOK a JumpDeSky!

IMAGE: "Concept image of ROK Navy’s future LPX-II displayed on HHI stand during MADEX 2019" https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 24x616.jpg
&
"LPX-II animation showcased on the ROK Navy stand during MADEX 2019" https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 24x768.jpg
&
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... arrier.jpg

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 11 Aug 2020, 23:48

spazsinbad wrote:I'm interested in what needs to be done in the opinion of the critics about RCS reduction (given limited info from graphic).

Stop kidding themselves that a carrier's massive and unavoidable RCS can be hidden from a radar seeker. Then stop wasting money on geometric structures, and put the time and money (and the space saved) into defense technologies that will defeat the RF seeker, altogether (preferably at source).

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 12 Aug 2020, 03:01

element1loop wrote:Repeating your claim with pictures but no explanation of counterpoint is not a reply.

And yes, money is the reason.

RCS reduction should not be an island styling exercise, it's dumb.

Considering the South Korean Defense Budget and the Defense Plan posted above. Your case that money is an issue isn't supported by the facts..........

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 12 Aug 2020, 03:33

element1loop wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I'm interested in what needs to be done in the opinion of the critics about RCS reduction (given limited info from graphic).

Stop kidding themselves that a carrier's massive and unavoidable RCS can be hidden from a radar seeker. Then stop wasting money on geometric structures, and put the time and money (and the space saved) into defense technologies that will defeat the RF seeker, altogether (preferably at source).

Actually, the point isn't to hide the ship from radar. The point is to reduce the RCS of the ship. To a point you can't distinguish it from much smaller ships and crafts. In short you want the warship to appear like a small fishing boat (trawler?) or something similar on radar.

This makes the job of picking out the warship and targeting it much much harder!

Take the Persian Gulf for example. You know how many ships of various sizes are operating within it any given time??? Now if the warship looks like a fishing trawler on radar. Yet, the gulf is full of fishing trawlers. Then which one is the target and which one isn't....

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 12 Aug 2020, 04:04

Another source on the New South Korean Light Aircraft Carrier......

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ht-carrier

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 12 Aug 2020, 04:14

From 'thicktrev' above:

"...A light carrier-esque amphibious assault ship capable of supporting fixed-wing combat jet operations, especially with higher-end aircraft like the F-35B, would give the South Korean military a more significant tool for projecting power elsewhere, as well. This is something the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps have already been experimenting with in the Pacific Region, including in the contested South China Sea, as part [of] the "Lighting Carrier" concept..." https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ht-carrier

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 12 Aug 2020, 04:43

Corsair1963 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I'm interested in what needs to be done in the opinion of the critics about RCS reduction (given limited info from graphic).

Stop kidding themselves that a carrier's massive and unavoidable RCS can be hidden from a radar seeker. Then stop wasting money on geometric structures, and put the time and money (and the space saved) into defense technologies that will defeat the RF seeker, altogether (preferably at source).

Actually, the point isn't to hide the ship from radar. The point is to reduce the RCS of the ship. To a point you can't distinguish it from much smaller ships and crafts. In short you want the warship to appear like a small fishing boat (trawler?) or something similar on radar.

This makes the job of picking out the warship and targeting it much much harder!

Take the Persian Gulf for example. You know how many ships of various sizes are operating within it any given time??? Now if the warship looks like a fishing trawler on radar. Yet, the gulf is full of fishing trawlers. Then which one is the target and which one isn't....

Vertical sheet steel and 90 degree angles of the much larger hull area does this? I'm acquainted with the concept that signature reduction aims for lower sticky-out-ish-ness. You've tangentially re-made my point. Wondering if you're just feeling scrappy?

IMO, the sort of country that decides it's in a position to shoot at a shoe-box shaped F-35B light carrier, not withstanding the cool leaned-over hair styling atop (which could trigger feelings of ambivalence), has other sensors and data to sort wheat from chaff and the RF seeker alone will not definitively find the correct target and will not be reasonably expected to do so in 2020, or more like, 2025 to 2050.

The USN faced objective reality and (mostly, not entirely) avoided genuflecting to the structural designer-art garnish.

I respect this structurally and functionally frank assessment of the priorities.