PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Why do you say that? Korean shipyards are outproducing Japanese yards by a significant margin these days.

Click to expand...

I feel that S. Korea has less motivation than the Japanese to build true aircraft carriers and the aircraft to deploy on them. That is all.

That is why I said it was less likely (not impossible by any means) for them to do so. I believe they have the production capability and the technology, particularly for the shipping, to do so, if they were willing to economically and politically make the effort. I just feel it is less likely that they will do so for those reasons so than the Japanese.

...but, who knows? if the Japanese were to do so, that may well give them the motivation nationally to do it.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

South Korea's area of concern is immediate to its border. In comparison, Japan's ocean territory and EEZ is probably more than 10 times larger. The Japanese is an island nation and thus has far greater incentive to develop its navy and naval aviation. S. Korea's "blue water navy" plans (strategic mobile fleet) is more limited in scope.

Recently, S. Korea wanted to install the Vixen 500E AESA radar on its FA-50 aircraft, but the US shot it down because of technology transfer issues. The T-50/FA-50 was co-developed by Lockheed Martin and they didn't want to open the source code for integrating European made AESA radar. Instead, they'd prefer if the S. Koreans used AN/APG-67. To put it bluntly, they didn't want the FA-50 becoming a competitor to future F-16 acquisitions.

Licensing technology from the US is both good and bad. You're getting good quality, proven technology, but comes with various restrictions. The Japanese understands this and it should be noted that the Mitsubishi ATD-X model was ground-tested in France and not US.

Looking ahead, the 3 East Asian powers (plus Russia) all have next generating aircraft R&D programs. China has J-XX, S. Korea has KFX, Japan has ATD-X, and Russia has PAK-FA. Some of them will make it to production, others will end up as technology prototypes.

The Dokdo and Hyuga class ships are not fixed wing aircraft carriers. If Japan wanted fixed-wing carrier, they'd simply build a real one instead of converting a DDH into some small gimpy light carrier.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

South Korea's area of concern is immediate to its border. In comparison, Japan's ocean territory and EEZ is probably more than 10 times larger. The Japanese is an island nation and thus has far greater incentive to develop its navy and naval aviation. S. Korea's "blue water navy" plans (strategic mobile fleet) is more limited in scope.

Recently, S. Korea wanted to install the Vixen 500E AESA radar on its FA-50 aircraft, but the US shot it down because of technology transfer issues. The T-50/FA-50 was co-developed by Lockheed Martin and they didn't want to open the source code for integrating European made AESA radar. Instead, they'd prefer if the S. Koreans used AN/APG-67. To put it bluntly, they didn't want the FA-50 becoming a competitor to future F-16 acquisitions.

Licensing technology from the US is both good and bad. You're getting good quality, proven technology, but comes with various restrictions. The Japanese understands this and it should be noted that the Mitsubishi ATD-X model was ground-tested in France and not US.

Looking ahead, the 3 East Asian powers (plus Russia) all have next generating aircraft R&D programs. China has J-XX, S. Korea has KFX, Japan has ATD-X, and Russia has PAK-FA. Some of them will make it to production, others will end up as technology prototypes.

The Dokdo and Hyuga class ships are not fixed wing aircraft carriers. If Japan wanted fixed-wing carrier, they'd simply build a real one instead of converting a DDH into some small gimpy light carrier.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

South Korea's area of concern is immediate to its border. In comparison, Japan's ocean territory and EEZ is probably more than 10 times larger. The Japanese is an island nation and thus has far greater incentive to develop its navy and naval aviation. S. Korea's "blue water navy" plans (strategic mobile fleet) is more limited in scope.

Recently, S. Korea wanted to install the Vixen 500E AESA radar on its FA-50 aircraft, but the US shot it down because of technology transfer issues. The T-50/FA-50 was co-developed by Lockheed Martin and they didn't want to open the source code for integrating European made AESA radar. Instead, they'd prefer if the S. Koreans used AN/APG-67. To put it bluntly, they didn't want the FA-50 becoming a competitor to future F-16 acquisitions.

Licensing technology from the US is both good and bad. You're getting good quality, proven technology, but comes with various restrictions. The Japanese understands this and it should be noted that the Mitsubishi ATD-X model was ground-tested in France and not US.

Looking ahead, the 3 East Asian powers (plus Russia) all have next generating aircraft R&D programs. China has J-XX, S. Korea has KFX, Japan has ATD-X, and Russia has PAK-FA. Some of them will make it to production, others will end up as technology prototypes.

The Dokdo and Hyuga class ships are not fixed wing aircraft carriers. If Japan wanted fixed-wing carrier, they'd simply build a real one instead of converting a DDH into some small gimpy light carrier.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

South Korea's area of concern is immediate to its border. In comparison, Japan's ocean territory and EEZ is probably more than 10 times larger. The Japanese is an island nation and thus has far greater incentive to develop its navy and naval aviation. S. Korea's "blue water navy" plans (strategic mobile fleet) is more limited in scope.

Recently, S. Korea wanted to install the Vixen 500E AESA radar on its FA-50 aircraft, but the US shot it down because of technology transfer issues. The T-50/FA-50 was co-developed by Lockheed Martin and they didn't want to open the source code for integrating European made AESA radar. Instead, they'd prefer if the S. Koreans used AN/APG-67. To put it bluntly, they didn't want the FA-50 becoming a competitor to future F-16 acquisitions.

Licensing technology from the US is both good and bad. You're getting good quality, proven technology, but comes with various restrictions. The Japanese understands this and it should be noted that the Mitsubishi ATD-X model was ground-tested in France and not US.

Looking ahead, the 3 East Asian powers (plus Russia) all have next generating aircraft R&D programs. China has J-XX, S. Korea has KFX, Japan has ATD-X, and Russia has PAK-FA. Some of them will make it to production, others will end up as technology prototypes.

Click to expand...

Sorry to go off topic but Lockheed Martin may not want AESA on the F/A-50 but Northrop-Grumman sure does.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

South Korea's area of concern is immediate to its border. In comparison, Japan's ocean territory and EEZ is probably more than 10 times larger. The Japanese is an island nation and thus has far greater incentive to develop its navy and naval aviation. S. Korea's "blue water navy" plans (strategic mobile fleet) is more limited in scope.

Recently, S. Korea wanted to install the Vixen 500E AESA radar on its FA-50 aircraft, but the US shot it down because of technology transfer issues. The T-50/FA-50 was co-developed by Lockheed Martin and they didn't want to open the source code for integrating European made AESA radar. Instead, they'd prefer if the S. Koreans used AN/APG-67. To put it bluntly, they didn't want the FA-50 becoming a competitor to future F-16 acquisitions.

Licensing technology from the US is both good and bad. You're getting good quality, proven technology, but comes with various restrictions. The Japanese understands this and it should be noted that the Mitsubishi ATD-X model was ground-tested in France and not US.

Looking ahead, the 3 East Asian powers (plus Russia) all have next generating aircraft R&D programs. China has J-XX, S. Korea has KFX, Japan has ATD-X, and Russia has PAK-FA. Some of them will make it to production, others will end up as technology prototypes.

Click to expand...

Sorry to go off topic but Lockheed Martin may not want AESA on the F/A-50 but Northrop-Grumman sure does.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

South Korea's area of concern is immediate to its border. In comparison, Japan's ocean territory and EEZ is probably more than 10 times larger. The Japanese is an island nation and thus has far greater incentive to develop its navy and naval aviation. S. Korea's "blue water navy" plans (strategic mobile fleet) is more limited in scope.

Recently, S. Korea wanted to install the Vixen 500E AESA radar on its FA-50 aircraft, but the US shot it down because of technology transfer issues. The T-50/FA-50 was co-developed by Lockheed Martin and they didn't want to open the source code for integrating European made AESA radar. Instead, they'd prefer if the S. Koreans used AN/APG-67. To put it bluntly, they didn't want the FA-50 becoming a competitor to future F-16 acquisitions.

Licensing technology from the US is both good and bad. You're getting good quality, proven technology, but comes with various restrictions. The Japanese understands this and it should be noted that the Mitsubishi ATD-X model was ground-tested in France and not US.

Looking ahead, the 3 East Asian powers (plus Russia) all have next generating aircraft R&D programs. China has J-XX, S. Korea has KFX, Japan has ATD-X, and Russia has PAK-FA. Some of them will make it to production, others will end up as technology prototypes.

Click to expand...

Sorry to go off topic but Lockheed Martin may not want AESA on the F/A-50 but Northrop-Grumman sure does.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

The Dokdo and Hyuga class ships are not fixed wing aircraft carriers. If Japan wanted fixed-wing carrier, they'd simply build a real one instead of converting a DDH into some small gimpy light carrier.

Click to expand...

I agree. I believe they are capable of doing it too. I also believe, if they wanted to, they could refit one of the Hyugas to help them to prepare for such an eventuality with training, but of course it would only be for VTOL aircraft.

Not that they will do so, just that they are certainly capable of doing so.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

The Dokdo and Hyuga class ships are not fixed wing aircraft carriers. If Japan wanted fixed-wing carrier, they'd simply build a real one instead of converting a DDH into some small gimpy light carrier.

Click to expand...

I agree. I believe they are capable of doing it too. I also believe, if they wanted to, they could refit one of the Hyugas to help them to prepare for such an eventuality with training, but of course it would only be for VTOL aircraft.

Not that they will do so, just that they are certainly capable of doing so.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

adeptitus said:

The Dokdo and Hyuga class ships are not fixed wing aircraft carriers. If Japan wanted fixed-wing carrier, they'd simply build a real one instead of converting a DDH into some small gimpy light carrier.

Click to expand...

I agree. I believe they are capable of doing it too. I also believe, if they wanted to, they could refit one of the Hyugas to help them to prepare for such an eventuality with training, but of course it would only be for VTOL aircraft.

Not that they will do so, just that they are certainly capable of doing so.