Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Drive)   South Korea realizing what sort of neighborhood it's in   (thedrive.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Amphibious assault ship, Aircraft carrier, South Korea, first aircraft carrier, amphibious assault ship design, Shipbuilding, F-35B stealth fighters, United States Marine Corps  
•       •       •

4938 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 10 Jun 2021 at 6:40 PM (5 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
5 days ago  
20 votes:
My favorite thing from the whole article:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
17 votes:

casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?


They're capital ships, so they're deterrants, force projection, and prestige for the nations with them.
 
5 days ago  
12 votes:
If Great Britain can support two aircraft carriers, surely the world's biggest shipbuilder can support one.
 
5 days ago  
12 votes:

casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?


It's fallout from the Trump era.  Turning our back on the world, has had the result that despots know they can build up huge militaries without worrying about America turning them into expensive scrap heaps, and our allies realiing they can not depend on us to protect them from the despots, because the next Trump might value economics over human rights.

This is gonna cause local arms races all over the world, including the buildip of nuclear arms, and the eventaul unleashing of those arms.

At least nuclear winter may stave off global warming so there is that going for us.
 
5 days ago  
11 votes:
Since south korea is the second biggest ship builder in the world, they can pull this off easy... with some american help.
 
5 days ago  
11 votes:

casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?


Clearly reports of their obsolescence have been greatly exaggerated.
 
5 days ago  
10 votes:
What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?
 
5 days ago  
9 votes:

One Size Fits Some: Does the slope at the end of the runway provide any real benefits or is it just a design choice that "seems like" it should? The only reason a plane wouldn't achieve flight is if weren't going fast enough, and the hill at the end may add a little upward trajectory but also will scrub some momentum, right?

I must assume I'm wrong, but that doesn't help me understand why.


The ski-jump flight deck does work, and is actually in pretty widespread use.  Every active aircraft carrier uses it except for American and French ships.  The reason for this is that you have to build a pretty big ship to have a enough length for modern jets to hit their takeoff speed, even with catapults.  The ski-jump allows planes to take off below their minimum takeoff speeds, so you can get away with a shorter flight deck/smaller ship.  The concept is by converting some of the forward momentum into upward momentum, you give the plane enough height that it can reach its required takeoff speed in the air.  According to the Wikipedia page I linked to, Russian navy MiG-29s take off at 140 knots on land but leave the flight deck at only 70 knots.

The major tradeoff is weight, catapult launched aircraft can carry a decent bit more than ski-jump launched planes.
 
5 days ago  
8 votes:

Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?


China is a bigger threat. Xi's government is a threat to everyone in the region. The Koreans have a proverb, "When the whales fight, the shrimp is crushed." The Worst Koreans don't plan to be crushed again.
 
5 days ago  
7 votes:

casual disregard: BigNumber12: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

Clearly reports of their obsolescence have been greatly exaggerated.

Hypersonic cruise missile. Don't even have to destroy the beast. Just injure it enough to send it back to a friendly port.

Y'know....assuming you can find a friendly port in the blue ocean.


You have to hit it first, ASMs aren't the golden bullet you think they are.  When countermeasures are used the success rate of a missile drops like crazy, and that carrier will have escorts prepared to do just that.

Torpedoes are far more threatening to a ship than missiles, and NK has an assload of subs.

/former USN officer
 
5 days ago  
7 votes:

Polish Hussar: One Size Fits Some: Does the slope at the end of the runway provide any real benefits or is it just a design choice that "seems like" it should? The only reason a plane wouldn't achieve flight is if weren't going fast enough, and the hill at the end may add a little upward trajectory but also will scrub some momentum, right?

I must assume I'm wrong, but that doesn't help me understand why.

The ski-jump flight deck does work, and is actually in pretty widespread use.  Every active aircraft carrier uses it except for American and French ships.  The reason for this is that you have to build a pretty big ship to have a enough length for modern jets to hit their takeoff speed, even with catapults.  The ski-jump allows planes to take off below their minimum takeoff speeds, so you can get away with a shorter flight deck/smaller ship.  The concept is by converting some of the forward momentum into upward momentum, you give the plane enough height that it can reach its required takeoff speed in the air.  According to the Wikipedia page I linked to, Russian navy MiG-29s take off at 140 knots on land but leave the flight deck at only 70 knots.

The major tradeoff is weight, catapult launched aircraft can carry a decent bit more than ski-jump launched planes.


I must sincerely thank you for actually taking the time to respond and link instead of just making a snarky remark about me using Google! Interesting stuff!
 
5 days ago  
7 votes:

Xetal: Why would South Korea build an aircraft carrier?

All the threats they are worried about are within flight and cruise missile range... And those can be distributed among a wider area so an alpha strike can't as easily disable them. And they're harder to sink.


Air bases are fairly stationary.
 
5 days ago  
7 votes:

StoPPeRmobile: C18H27NO3: My favorite thing from the whole article:

[Fark user image image 600x338]

M61a1?


GAU‐8/A Avenger, same weapon as on the A-10 Warthog and the Goalkeeper CIWS system, according to the linked article in the linked article.  Evidently the South Korean navy is currently taking bids for a new CIWS system.

"While the radars will be locally designed and built, the weapon is not likely to be a locally developed one but rather the same GAU‐8/A Avenger seven-barreled autocannon used by the Goalkeeper CIWS, which is already in service with the RoKN."
 
5 days ago  
7 votes:

winedrinkingman: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

It's fallout from the Trump era.  Turning our back on the world, has had the result that despots know they can build up huge militaries without worrying about America turning them into expensive scrap heaps, and our allies realiing they can not depend on us to protect them from the despots, because the next Trump might value economics over human rights.

This is gonna cause local arms races all over the world, including the buildip of nuclear arms, and the eventaul unleashing of those arms.

At least nuclear winter may stave off global warming so there is that going for us.


Eh, it's not like a warship building arms race has ever (partly) lead to a years-long conflict with millions dead 🤷🏻♂
 
5 days ago  
7 votes:

BigNumber12: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

Clearly reports of their obsolescence have been greatly exaggerated.


Hypersonic cruise missile. Don't even have to destroy the beast. Just injure it enough to send it back to a friendly port.

Y'know....assuming you can find a friendly port in the blue ocean.
 
5 days ago  
6 votes:

iToad: OgreMagi: BigMax: in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.

Perhaps they realize Americans are kind of getting tired of being the World Police and there could be a major policy shift in the near future.

The world now faces the unpleasant reality that we elected Donald Trump as President of the United States. If something like that happened once, it can happen again.

Yes, it can happen here.


I almost said something about that.  South Korea saw a president who would probably stab them in the back despite treaties, and came to the conclusion that they need to be prepared for that happening again.
 
5 days ago  
6 votes:

casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

th
They won the war in the Pacific in 1945. So they must be good!!

/ LOL Every carrier will be destroyed by a million-dollar missile (or swarm of $10K drones) in the first minutes of a major power conflict.
 
5 days ago  
5 votes:

OgreMagi: BigMax: in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.

Perhaps they realize Americans are kind of getting tired of being the World Police and there could be a major policy shift in the near future.


The world now faces the unpleasant reality that we elected Donald Trump as President of the United States. If something like that happened once, it can happen again.

Yes, it can happen here.
 
5 days ago  
5 votes:

OgreMagi: BigMax: in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.

Perhaps they realize Americans are kind of getting tired of being the World Police and there could be a major policy shift in the near future.


We mostly keep the sea lanes open because we are a maritime power and we rely on imports and exports to fuel our economy.

Would we rather have someone else be the world police?  Would we play by someone else's rules?

The present system sucks and is expensive but is probably better for the United States than all other alternatives.
 
5 days ago  
5 votes:

Xetal: Why would South Korea build an aircraft carrier?

All the threats they are worried about are within flight and cruise missile range... And those can be distributed among a wider area so an alpha strike can't as easily disable them. And they're harder to sink.


They're worried about the Chinese navy, not the North Korean one.
 
5 days ago  
5 votes:
Why would South Korea build an aircraft carrier?

All the threats they are worried about are within flight and cruise missile range... And those can be distributed among a wider area so an alpha strike can't as easily disable them. And they're harder to sink.
 
5 days ago  
4 votes:

Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?


Attacking across a heavily fortified border is not easy, so going around would be a good tactic.  That's where a strong navy becomes essential.
 
5 days ago  
4 votes:
Does the slope at the end of the runway provide any real benefits or is it just a design choice that "seems like" it should? The only reason a plane wouldn't achieve flight is if weren't going fast enough, and the hill at the end may add a little upward trajectory but also will scrub some momentum, right?

I must assume I'm wrong, but that doesn't help me understand why.
 
5 days ago  
4 votes:
If they build two of them they will have a good start towards copying the Japanese.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
4 votes:
Nice model
 
5 days ago  
3 votes:

BigMax: in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.


Perhaps they realize Americans are kind of getting tired of being the World Police and there could be a major policy shift in the near future.
 
5 days ago  
3 votes:

Remnants of Santa: g.fro: Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?

Maybe by carrying aircraft?

The article said they would be carrying F-35s.  How are those going to help anything?


You haven't been keeping up with aviation news, huh?
 
5 days ago  
3 votes:

casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?


I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?
 
5 days ago  
3 votes:

casual disregard: TrashcanMan: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

You are of course technically correct, the best kind of correct in that yes the world has a fetish, and it is for the carrier.

But think about it for a second.  Would you rather the Navy have it's guys swim to the where we need to bring democracy?  Sure they could, they're in the Navy!  but it's not very fast. Also sharks.

Of course not.

The Marines swim to shore.


Silly person.  Marines walk to shore.
 
5 days ago  
3 votes:

AlgaeRancher: Nice model


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
3 votes:

farkingismybusiness: [thedrive.com image 850x478]What is this? A aircraft carrier for ants? The aircraft carrier has to be at least... three times bigger than this!


Fame for this. Leaving with ants in my pants.
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:

casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?


Theoretically an attack from North Korea would be very sudden and would definitely involve attacks from sleeper agents already living in South Korea. The carrier would allow them to have military power isolated away from that to limit the damage done to their air power in the opening days of an attack.

I seriously doubt that attack will ever come though.
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:

hissatsu: The South Korean shipbuilding industry has shown off a range of models of the country's planned first aircraft carrier, now known as CVX, which is intended to operate* F-35B stealth** fighters***.

*Under certain values of "operate"
**As long as you don't fly too fast (again) or their radar isn't too good
***As long as the weather is nice

/Really this whole project has been such a shiatshow. But they had to have an inexpensive fighter that could do everything and now they've got a really expensive fighter that isn't particularly good at anything
//They probably would have been better off buying some Super Hornets
///On paper just about everything about the F35 is better than the Super Hornet. In actual use...


I guess you should tell all the pilots who have actually flown the things that they are wrong.
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:
The South Korean shipbuilding industry has shown off a range of models of the country's planned first aircraft carrier, now known as CVX, which is intended to operate* F-35B stealth** fighters***.

*Under certain values of "operate"
**As long as you don't fly too fast (again) or their radar isn't too good
***As long as the weather is nice

/Really this whole project has been such a shiatshow. But they had to have an inexpensive fighter that could do everything and now they've got a really expensive fighter that isn't particularly good at anything
//They probably would have been better off buying some Super Hornets
///On paper just about everything about the F35 is better than the Super Hornet. In actual use...
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:

BigMax: Xetal: Why would South Korea build an aircraft carrier?

All the threats they are worried about are within flight and cruise missile range... And those can be distributed among a wider area so an alpha strike can't as easily disable them. And they're harder to sink.

If the shipping lanes are closed by a hostile nation, the export-based South Korean economy will collapse. They already have a few blue water ships - they appear to feel they need a carrier battle group in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.


They also have to look at our maintenance woes and realize that only a small number of carriers are actually available, and are stretched too thin. We don't have the facilities to handle them. So our allies are trying to help with the workload. If they can collectively increase the number of available carriers by one it helps tremendously.

China's planning on building what, three carriers total that equal the Fords? I'm not sure even they are going to be nuclear. They will have to keep them fueled up.
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:

Theeng: NK has an assload of subs.


Are those subs any good?  A noisy sub is a dead sub.  Honest question.  I know nothing about NK subs.
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:
South Korea, you disappoint.

media.moddb.comView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:

Polish Hussar: StoPPeRmobile: C18H27NO3: My favorite thing from the whole article:

[Fark user image image 600x338]

M61a1?

GAU‐8/A Avenger, same weapon as on the A-10 Warthog and the Goalkeeper CIWS system, according to the linked article in the linked article.  Evidently the South Korean navy is currently taking bids for a new CIWS system.

"While the radars will be locally designed and built, the weapon is not likely to be a locally developed one but rather the same GAU‐8/A Avenger seven-barreled autocannon used by the Goalkeeper CIWS, which is already in service with the RoKN."


I've always been confused that the US doesn't use the Goalkeeper, which has like an extra kilometer effective range over the 20mm Phalanx.  Only reason I can think of is ammo cost.
 
5 days ago  
2 votes:

C18H27NO3: My favorite thing from the whole article:

[Fark user image image 600x338]


M61a1?
 
4 days ago  
1 vote:

El Jefe Dynamo: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

Theoretically an attack from North Korea would be very sudden and would definitely involve attacks from sleeper agents already living in South Korea. The carrier would allow them to have military power isolated away from that to limit the damage done to their air power in the opening days of an attack.

I seriously doubt that attack will ever come though.


I've read various estimates on a NK attack on SK.  Assuming China doesn't get involved, NK would last no more than two weeks before their supplies were depleted, but they would do a hell of a lot of damage in that time, mostly on the first day.  Seoul is within artillery range and they would be able to get off multiple barrages before a counter attack would take them out.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Kalashinator: Polish Hussar: StoPPeRmobile: C18H27NO3: My favorite thing from the whole article:

[Fark user image image 600x338]

M61a1?

GAU‐8/A Avenger, same weapon as on the A-10 Warthog and the Goalkeeper CIWS system, according to the linked article in the linked article.  Evidently the South Korean navy is currently taking bids for a new CIWS system.

"While the radars will be locally designed and built, the weapon is not likely to be a locally developed one but rather the same GAU‐8/A Avenger seven-barreled autocannon used by the Goalkeeper CIWS, which is already in service with the RoKN."

I've always been confused that the US doesn't use the Goalkeeper, which has like an extra kilometer effective range over the 20mm Phalanx.  Only reason I can think of is ammo cost.


Seems the rate of fire may be why. 6000 vs what, 1800 ish? Thought I only counted 6 barrels instead of 7.

Well aware of brrrt. But the rate of the gua 8 always seems to be best at stationary or slow moving hard targets and the 20mm was best at accuracy by volume.

Only trained on A10 for a day or 2. F16s is what I worked on. Still remember how to remove, disassemble, repair, and reassemble the 20 mm. Hell, and the als too.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

OgreMagi: BigMax: OgreMagi: BigMax: in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.

Perhaps they realize Americans are kind of getting tired of being the World Police and there could be a major policy shift in the near future.

We mostly keep the sea lanes open because we are a maritime power and we rely on imports and exports to fuel our economy.

Would we rather have someone else be the world police?  Would we play by someone else's rules?

The present system sucks and is expensive but is probably better for the United States than all other alternatives.

I'm just tired of it being almost entire American tax dollars paying for it, so it's refreshing to see another country step up and take a bit of the load.


I'm certainly in favor of sharing the burden with other mercantile Democracies. Absolutely.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Xetal: Why would South Korea build an aircraft carrier?

All the threats they are worried about are within flight and cruise missile range... And those can be distributed among a wider area so an alpha strike can't as easily disable them. And they're harder to sink.


If the shipping lanes are closed by a hostile nation, the export-based South Korean economy will collapse. They already have a few blue water ships - they appear to feel they need a carrier battle group in case the US does not fulfill its traditional role of protecting sea lanes.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Remnants of Santa: ...

No. Are they actually working now?


Yes. And the price keeps coming down. Which is leading more countries to look at buying them.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

g.fro: Remnants of Santa: g.fro: Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?

Maybe by carrying aircraft?

The article said they would be carrying F-35s.  How are those going to help anything?

You haven't been keeping up with aviation news, huh?


No. Are they actually working now?
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Polish Hussar: he major tradeoff is weight, catapult launched aircraft can carry a decent bit more than ski-jump launched planes.


Chinese carrier jets carry about half the ordinance of an American fighter jet.  The current Chinese carrier do not have catapults.    American carriers can also launch jets at a much higher rate.  In a straight up carrier to carrier engagement (which never happens), the Chinese would be completely overwhelmed by numbers and fighting power.  In a real battle, it would come down to the quantity and quality of the support ships.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:
Whoa, a carrier with bow thrusters.  Cool.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

jaytkay: AlgaeRancher: Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?

Power projection

Bombing Afghan weddings is power projection?


We use drones for that.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Hoarseman: Xetal: Why would South Korea build an aircraft carrier?

All the threats they are worried about are within flight and cruise missile range... And those can be distributed among a wider area so an alpha strike can't as easily disable them. And they're harder to sink.

They're worried about the Chinese navy, not the North Korean one.


Well probably not the North Korean Navy (although they did lose a corvette to a NK sub a few years ago), but North Korea has enough artillery and ballistic missiles to pose a credible threat to land-based operations. Could be that the carrier is less "force projection" than "second strike threat".
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

g.fro: Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?

Maybe by carrying aircraft?


The article said they would be carrying F-35s.  How are those going to help anything?
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?


Maybe by carrying aircraft?
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

BorgiaGinz: Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?

China is a bigger threat. Xi's government is a threat to everyone in the region.


Yep, hence the headline.

Also, Japan is arming the fark up as well, and technically being 'allies' doesn't mean that they aren't also rather fierce rivals whose people really farking dislike each other.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

Remnants of Santa: casual disregard: What's with this fetish with carriers, anyway?

I thought carriers were about projecting power.  How does an aircraft carrier help defend against an enemy that you share a border with?


Power projection
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:
South Korea really only has 2 enemies : north korea and China. They might need an aircraft carrier for China when it kicks off.
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:
Good for them!
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

AlgaeRancher: Nice model


Yeah, but what does it transform into?
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:

maxandgrinch: Even if it's a crappy neighborhood, it's unlikely they'll be shot by their own police because of their skin color.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
1 vote:
And since it's built by Hyundai, you get the 10-year warranty.
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.