It’s costs more to generate from scratch than to sustain something you already have. There is significant cross over technology between military and civil aviation.ArmChairCivvy wrote:That is true, but there is a different focus for that (expanding) base in S. KoreaSW1 wrote:We as a country have a significantly bigger aerospace expertise base and yet we keep being told we can’t do it.
Military- directed R&D in bns to the comma and millions to the decimal point, in 2017
United States$55,441.0
South Korea3,377.3
United Kingdom2,379.4
Germany1,530.2
France1,431.1
Turkey1,350.9
Japan1,199.1
Poland379.2
Australia358.7
Canada183.1
Other OECD Countries675.
So Germany, France and Australia put together
South Korea
Re: South Korea
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: South Korea
As in many other fields as well.SW1 wrote:There is significant cross over technology between military and civil aviation.
And as you pick up scale, you can do things "on the side".
The EU abdicated its negotiation powers for China to be let into the WTO (the US did the talking)
- all of the conditions that went with 'free trade' have been broken
But there is no sanction?
- who do we call 'idiots'? The ones who did the negotiating
- who do we call 'Double- Idiots' ? The ones who delegated their powers
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: South Korea
The Canadians have been particularly worried about the Chinese taking civil aviation tech and ip for future developmentArmChairCivvy wrote:As in many other fields as well.SW1 wrote:There is significant cross over technology between military and civil aviation.
And as you pick up scale, you can do things "on the side".
The EU abdicated its negotiation powers for China to be let into the WTO (the US did the talking)
- all of the conditions that went with 'free trade' have been broken
But there is no sanction?
- who do we call 'idiots'? The ones who did the negotiating
- who do we call 'Double- Idiots' ? The ones who delegated their powers
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: South Korea
SW1 wrote:The Canadians have been particularly worried about the Chinese taking civil aviation tech and ip for future development
They know about how things can shift:
- the Arrow was killed
- all the Canadians, with such skills, then went to work for NASA (what cutting-edge work was there left?)
The (North) Koreans bought their rockets (the propulsion design)from a Donbass factory
- factory left ('behind') in Ukraine
- who could be the customer
- would you go and tend the potato field instead??
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: South Korea
One of the key aims of the TEMPEST programme is to develop a next generation system that breaks the current trend of each generation costing far more then the previous one to both purchase and operate. Therefore the target could be for any plane that is developed to cost no more that the current Typhoon or F-35, adjusted for future inflation etc.serge750 wrote: so will be expensive to buy & run
Re: South Korea
It is a really nice looking plane the South Koreans are developing, and maybe we could get them interested in the TEMPEST programme for their Block II version, possibly incorporating new technologies to further improve its capability, with the necessary tech transfer of course, though maybe not for export.
Re: South Korea
Without an internal weapons bay is the aircraft limited in operations against peer advesaries?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: South Korea
Hyundai's model for the South Korean Aircraft Carrier has broken cover...
I know they can design and build ships...but there comes a point where they might as well buy the QE design...
I know they can design and build ships...but there comes a point where they might as well buy the QE design...
Re: South Korea
Wow !! looks good but didn't realise it was going to be that big, i was thinking Cavour size or a we bit larger ![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
Lots less deck parking than the QEC with less flight deck Sponsons, will be interesting to see the specs like the hanger size etc
Looks like VLS behind the rear island ?
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
Lots less deck parking than the QEC with less flight deck Sponsons, will be interesting to see the specs like the hanger size etc
Looks like VLS behind the rear island ?
Re: South Korea
I quite like the UAV flight deck at the rear and the dock for USVs as well. Even if it was only to provide maintenance for the USVs operated by the rest of the Carrier Group it is a useful capability and force multiplier, keeping these unmanned assets serviceable for longer periods of time.
Mind you yet again a Carrier is designed with SAMs, but our Admirals are adamant that ours do not need such weapon systems!![lol no :lolno:](./images/smilies/icon_lolno.gif)
Mind you yet again a Carrier is designed with SAMs, but our Admirals are adamant that ours do not need such weapon systems!
![lol no :lolno:](./images/smilies/icon_lolno.gif)
Re: South Korea
You mean treasury. RN probably too scared to tell them this as they'll be cut a type 45 as unnecessary as CVF defends itself from missile attack...Lord Jim wrote:Mind you yet again a Carrier is designed with SAMs, but our Admirals are adamant that ours do not need such weapon systems!
- 2HeadsBetter
- Member
- Posts: 205
- Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
Re: South Korea
'source' being another robo-commentator channel with no actual links or sources provided.
This type of content is garbage
This type of content is garbage
Re: South Korea
You guys want quality (non robot voice) content ? I thought you knew where to find it by now.
My colleagues and I were on site:
Day 1 at MADEX 2021, the maritime defense exhibition held in Busan, South Korea. In this video we focus on the CVX light aircraft carrier project of the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy.
Day 2 at MADEX 2021, the maritime defense exhibition held in Busan, South Korea. In this video we focus on South Korean latest weapon systems such as Close in weapon system (CIWS) II, Korean Vertical Launch System (KVLS) II as well as DSME' submarine designs and their proposal to the Philippine Navy.
Day 3 at MADEX 2021, the maritime defense exhibition held in Busan, South Korea. In this video we cover new sonar systems by local company Sonartech, KAI's Marine Assault Helicopter (MAH), Mine Countermeasures Helicopter (MCH) and rumors of a naval variant of the KF-21 fighter for the CVX. We also talk naval decoys with Lacroix and its local partner TS Tech, we look at what's on display on the Raytheon booth and we discuss British cooperation for the CVX program with Babcock.
My colleagues and I were on site:
Day 1 at MADEX 2021, the maritime defense exhibition held in Busan, South Korea. In this video we focus on the CVX light aircraft carrier project of the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy.
Day 2 at MADEX 2021, the maritime defense exhibition held in Busan, South Korea. In this video we focus on South Korean latest weapon systems such as Close in weapon system (CIWS) II, Korean Vertical Launch System (KVLS) II as well as DSME' submarine designs and their proposal to the Philippine Navy.
Day 3 at MADEX 2021, the maritime defense exhibition held in Busan, South Korea. In this video we cover new sonar systems by local company Sonartech, KAI's Marine Assault Helicopter (MAH), Mine Countermeasures Helicopter (MCH) and rumors of a naval variant of the KF-21 fighter for the CVX. We also talk naval decoys with Lacroix and its local partner TS Tech, we look at what's on display on the Raytheon booth and we discuss British cooperation for the CVX program with Babcock.
Re: South Korea
Your coverage is excellent as always.xav wrote:You guys want quality (non robot voice) content ?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: South Korea
Interestingly the South Korean Navy's frontrunner for their replacement programme for their Goalkeeper CIWS appears to be an upgraded Goalkeeper...
http://alert5.com/2021/07/26/lig-nex1-i ... i-program/
http://alert5.com/2021/07/26/lig-nex1-i ... i-program/
Re: South Korea
Yet the Dutch are replacing their Goalkeepers with a combination of RAM launchers and Dart munitions for their OTO 76mm. Most nations in fact seem to be either replacing or supplementing their 20mm and 30mm CIWS with weapons like RAM.
We do have Sea Ceptor that can to a very could job against swarm attacks by supersonic AShMs but out ships do not carry enough and would soon run out. It does highlight the desirability to install Sea Ceptor on the Carriers, say twenty four on the starboard wow and another twenty four on the stern port with phalanx being retained in the other quarters. Obviously the Missiles would have to be carefully launched to avoid crossing the deck at times but on ejection they should gain enough height to clear most obstacles. Retaining Phalanx as a anti surface weapon system may be of some use with its rapid response, high rate of fire and good all weather FCS.
Sorry gone a bit off topic but the post got me thinking.
We do have Sea Ceptor that can to a very could job against swarm attacks by supersonic AShMs but out ships do not carry enough and would soon run out. It does highlight the desirability to install Sea Ceptor on the Carriers, say twenty four on the starboard wow and another twenty four on the stern port with phalanx being retained in the other quarters. Obviously the Missiles would have to be carefully launched to avoid crossing the deck at times but on ejection they should gain enough height to clear most obstacles. Retaining Phalanx as a anti surface weapon system may be of some use with its rapid response, high rate of fire and good all weather FCS.
Sorry gone a bit off topic but the post got me thinking.
Re: South Korea
South Korea’s HHI And Babcock Ink Strategic Alliance For CVX Aircraft Carrier
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... t-carrier/South Korean shipbuilder Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Babcock International that possesses the top-notch naval defense technologies and directly participated in the development of the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth signed a partnership regarding the CVX aircraft carrier project.
Re: South Korea
The mere fact that the missiles are launched means that the whole concern about safety of flight deck is ludicrous. The whole ship will sink if they don't launch them.Lord Jim wrote:Yet the Dutch are replacing their Goalkeepers with a combination of RAM launchers and Dart munitions for their OTO 76mm. Most nations in fact seem to be either replacing or supplementing their 20mm and 30mm CIWS with weapons like RAM.
We do have Sea Ceptor that can to a very could job against swarm attacks by supersonic AShMs but out ships do not carry enough and would soon run out. It does highlight the desirability to install Sea Ceptor on the Carriers, say twenty four on the starboard wow and another twenty four on the stern port with phalanx being retained in the other quarters. Obviously the Missiles would have to be carefully launched to avoid crossing the deck at times but on ejection they should gain enough height to clear most obstacles. Retaining Phalanx as a anti surface weapon system may be of some use with its rapid response, high rate of fire and good all weather FCS.
Sorry gone a bit off topic but the post got me thinking.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: South Korea
As I have proposed in a previous post, correct location of 1 x Sea Ceptor Silo should minimise any chance of debris falling onto the flight deck (Starboard Stern Quarter). As for size, whatever can be fitted (and re-loaded at sea). This would also allow all three Phalanx to be retained, possibly with a slightly greater restriction on the firing arc of the mount on the Port Stern Quarter, dependent on the size of the silo.
Unless the ship was going astern, or forward in a following wind (neither of which is likely if launching or landing aircraft) the forward motion of the ship together with the “Wind Over Deck” would carry any debris far astern.
No other location aboard the QEC can give these advantages.![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Unless the ship was going astern, or forward in a following wind (neither of which is likely if launching or landing aircraft) the forward motion of the ship together with the “Wind Over Deck” would carry any debris far astern.
No other location aboard the QEC can give these advantages.
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Re: South Korea
If the French are happy to install Sylver VLS near enough next to the flight deck, I cannot see any issue with Sea Ceptor being similarly installed. The main source of any debris would be the cap on the "Mushroom" when a missile is launched, so maybe installing Mk41 VLS with ExLS inserts would help, I don't know. But doing so would give the carrier 48 Sea Ceptor, 24 forward on the Starboard side and 24 at rear on the port side, using a single eight cell Mk41 in each location. It would certainly be a more compact installation than using 2x24 "Mushrooms".
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: South Korea
LJ
You have let yourself down! As you seem to be in a bit of a strop, I shall confine myself to the following comments.
The French or anyone else for that matter, can fit their missile silos wherever they like, including in the middle of the flight deck if they so wish. I have merely indicated the best position for installation of a VLS silo on a QEC Aircraft Carrier.
You might have considered the following, if you had given more than the most cursory consideration of the matter:-
A. That your chosen locations for the silo(s) / choice of Phalanx Mounts to be retained are incompatible.
and
B. That it may not be a terribly bright idea to locate a Missile VLS Silo in very close proximity to the Fwd. MT30 Gas
Turbine. When fully provisioned, it would after all, effectively be a magazine.![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
You have let yourself down! As you seem to be in a bit of a strop, I shall confine myself to the following comments.
The French or anyone else for that matter, can fit their missile silos wherever they like, including in the middle of the flight deck if they so wish. I have merely indicated the best position for installation of a VLS silo on a QEC Aircraft Carrier.
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
You might have considered the following, if you had given more than the most cursory consideration of the matter:-
A. That your chosen locations for the silo(s) / choice of Phalanx Mounts to be retained are incompatible.
![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
B. That it may not be a terribly bright idea to locate a Missile VLS Silo in very close proximity to the Fwd. MT30 Gas
Turbine. When fully provisioned, it would after all, effectively be a magazine.
![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)