South Korean Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Temstar said:

I mean, is it that different from what USN is planning to do with Zumwalt? Once the guns are removed and replaced with giant VLS?

Click to expand...

Not really. Zumwalt was never designed with the role of arsenal ship in mind from the beginning, and thanks to the way of how she was designed, she can never be one.

To be (brutally) honest, I believe it is more apt to see the Zumwalts as the modern-day counterpart to the Courageous-class battlecruisers of the Royal Navy from WW1.

Both ship classes sounded really nice for the primary role that they were meant to fulfill (i.e. shore bombardment) - except that said role can already be conducted by other platforms that are readily available. Which means, the need for such platform becomes obsolete as soon as they are rolled out.

On the other hand, they couldn't perform their secondary roles as good as their true battlecruiser/battleship (for Courageous) and true cruiser/destroyer (for Zumwalt) counterparts without undergoing major modifications and upgrades.

For the Courageous-class, the Royal Navy eventually decided to convert all three of them into aircraft carriers, of which only one of them would survive WW2.

For the Zumwalt-class, the US Navy is left stranding with how to deploy them effectively (since surface combat is close to being an afterthought during their initial designing phase) after they got their entire class of ships gutted from 30+ to just 3. It wasn't until the 2010s when someone in DC rang the bell that Beijing is pumping out warships and hypersonic missiles that they finally decided to throw away those two empty guns on every Zumwalt, slap 12 hypersonic missiles onto each of them, and call them "naval CPS platform".

Besides, TLDR, arsenal ship is basically cramming a warship hull with fvckton of VLS cells that can launch as many offensive missiles as possible.

The Zumwalts have less VLS cells than the Burkes even with those hypersonic missiles, so the Zumwalts aren't one.

Temstar said:

That said, if you have a large number of air defense destroyers like Arleigh Burke or 052D maybe you would want to play with such specialized ships. But if you don't maybe the resources are better spent building those.

Click to expand...

Sure. Supposedly the USN and PLAN are the ones more justified to pursue such platforms than the ROKN. Yet, neither has shown any indication nor willingness to pursue such platforms.

Meanwhile, for South Korea's case, the arsenal ship is planned to fit 80 ballistic missiles that are meant to be targetted against North Korea in case the war resumes on the peninsular. 3 ships planned means 240 ballistic missiles in total. Essentially, they are grouping and moving ballistic missile TELs onto the sea.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

3 ships planned means 240 ballistic missiles in total. Essentially, they are grouping and moving ballistic missile TELs onto the sea.

Click to expand...

It also makes sense for S.Korea to have a second strike capability.

Like N.Korea might nuke S.Korea, but it will have to calculate that 240 ballistics missiles would still be somewhere out there. Increased deterrence

Overbom said:

It also makes sense for S.Korea to have a second strike capability.

Like N.Korea might nuke S.Korea, but it will have to calculate that 240 ballistics missiles would still be somewhere out there. Increased deterrence

Click to expand...

Yes. But South Korea has the support and (nuclear umbrella) protection of the United States and Japan in case of reignited war with North Korea.

Unless... those ballistic missiles actually have secondary concerns other than North Korea. Who else would that be other than China?

Although this isn't something that should overly worry China (considering the disparity of military strength between both countries), but I believe China should be on the watch out for it. If China joins in the war on the peninsular, military facilities and infrastructures on Chinese soil too could be targetted by South Korean ballistic missiles (and not just from these arsenal ships).

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Yes. But South Korea has the support and (nuclear umbrella) protection of the United States and Japan in case of reignited war with North Korea.

Click to expand...

S.Korea wants alternatives. Who knows when the next Trumps comes up. And expecting help from Japan...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Unless... those ballistic missiles actually have secondary concerns other than North Korea. Who else would that be other than China?

Click to expand...

Indeed, I also see a secondary concern on China of this

Overbom said:

S.Korea wants alternatives. Who knows when the next Trumps comes up. And expecting help from Japan...



Indeed, I also see a secondary concern on China of this

Click to expand...

land provides cover, so does the underwater, but the water surface doesn't. there's no terrain masking. you can only rely on distances, both in maneuvering and range. South Korea doesn't have that, the Yellow Sea is a chokepoint and the Sea of Japan isn't important to them unless they're taking on Japan.

tankphobia said:

With VLS counts it's also rapidly diminishing returns, since missile costs quickly begin to make up a significant chunk of the cost of the entire ship. I don't see how this all eggs in one basket approach is better than having more smaller ships, since you won't lose a massive chunk of your naval strength if a North Korean midget submarine get a lucky break and sink one of them.

Click to expand...

Agree. There is also the anti-ship elements across the PLAN, PLAAF and PLARF that can easily take care of those ROKN arsenal ships. However, with the US, Japan, Australia and UK militaries highly probable of joining the equation... well, I believe we know how the difficulties can add up.

On the flipside, China should never follow this kind of footstep. China has massive civilian AND military shipbuilding capabilities (AND the enormous amount of infrastructure, manpower and financial capability) to support such adventures.

China did the right move by dividing and maintaining the PLAN main surface combatant fleet into three seperate tiers, instead of just two (and then one) that we have seen going on with the USN and others for the past 20 years.

What I believe the PLAN could do from now on is to maintain the current order of surface combatant tiers, while individually upgrade and enhance the capabilities of the warships within the boundaries and limits of their respective tiers.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I find it challenging to see the actual need for arsenal ship like this. Same goes for Japan's planned two 20000-ton ballistic missile defense warship.

Click to expand...

There is a very obvious need for the BMD ship, they protect from rogue North Korean ballistic missiles. They are 20.000 tons because they will have a very big radar and be at sea for considerable periods. They will free up JMSDF's AEGIS ships to do roles that fit their armament better, having a Maya class just doing BMD protection is a waste of resources.

zavve said:

There is a very obvious need for the BMD ship, they protect from rogue North Korean ballistic missiles. They are 20.000 tons because they will have a very big radar and be at sea for considerable periods. They will free up JMSDF's AEGIS ships to do roles that fit their armament better, having a Maya class just doing BMD protection is a waste of resources.

Click to expand...

Sounds like North Korea has a clear direction for their next-gen AA/AD missiles.

Looking at that KDDX... i guess she'll use Active Radar Homing SAM's entirely. The big bottom array is most likely an S-band to serve both surveillance and ABM purpose.

Those smaller apertures on top would be ESM and EW. I'm curious if the small aperture above the three smaller aperture are X-band radar for surface scan and gunfire control.